Topic: tuskegee airman P51 Red Tails

Hi folks,
My old boss has recently been away flying his P51 (Big Beautiful Doll) near Prague for a new film about the P51 Red Tails. He was lead Mustang flying also with the B17. Have enclosed this link for you.  If anyone wants a trip in this P51 let me know. It will cost about £1000 for approx 35mins.  Enjoy the links.   Richard.  

YouTube - P- 51 Mustang Red Tails letiště Milovice

Hi folks,
My old boss has recently been away flying his P51 (Big Beautiful Doll) near Prague for a new film about the P51 Red Tails. He was lead Mustang flying also with the B17. Have enclosed this link for you.  If anyone wants a trip in this P51 let me know. It will cost about £1000 for approx 35mins.  Enjoy the links.   Richard.   YouTube - P- 51 Mustang Red Tails letiÅ¡tÄ› Milovice

Nice one Richard, what a hard life he must lead.  Pity we can't get that sound from our engines.

Tuskegee airmen (where is the bowing icon?).  They never lost a bomber they were supporting to enemy fighters, something NOBODY else can boast.

Is this your old boss then Pylon? (Fuelling up at Abingdon this year)

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHHBsI6zC_o" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHHBsI6zC_o</a>

Starting at 1:25 this Kittyhawk was used in the movie as well and at 7:20 Kittyhawk and P51D, Big Beautifull Doll taking off together.

Thanks for sharing whens the film due for release, so what colour scheme is his P51 in now

lozza

It was washed back to this before the Abingdon show in May (unless he's been out there a second time since then - they talked about it at the show).

Is this your old boss then Pylon? (Fuelling up at Abingdon this year)

(Attachment Link)

Yes that's my old boss Rob Davies. I worked, Flying Target drones for his company for 10 years. He sold out to Meggitt Defence Systems for a substantial amount and still works for them in the business today..
If you want a ride in the back let me know!!
Cheers Richard.   Plane now back in standard Doll colours I believe.

I must admit I'm surprised someone's making another film about the Tuskegee airmen.

That's not a complaint, it's just odd that someone somewhere must think he can tell the story so much better as to justify making another film. I'll look forward to seeing it 

Up till now, all the remakes that I've seen have been shlt. (been banned from using smilies)

I will find out more details about the film etc,etc.
Cheers Richard.

Some one named George Lucas writes it... the director is mostly a tv show guy.

Film is called Red Tails > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0485985/

Trailer for this here and it's out soon:

Red Tails (2012) HD Movie Trailer - Lucasfilm Official Trailer

I know the effects don't look as good as an Airfix mosquito wobbling along on some string but you can't have everything.  I think I might wander along to the local picturehouse for a look.

Looks about as naff as "Fortress" to be honest.

I still think the camera crew who filmed Battle of Britain did the best job I've ever seen of capturing aeroplanes in flight in a manner which looked exciting and dramatic. Ok, the way they splodged orange onto the film during post production to show flames was not very convincing, but the manner in which they protrayed speed whilst in reality just flying in formation with the camera B-25 was brilliant and not in the least bit cringeworthy.

CGI is an incredibly capable technique, but I think it's the directors who are the weak link now, wishing to see speed and drama portrayed in a way which leaves the viewer in no doubt that they're looking at CGI.

That Mustang changing direction in it's own length towards the end of that trailer is a prime example of how not to do it. The 3 Spitfires in BoB in vic formation, banked at 60odd degrees and following the B-25 cameraship looked fantastic and with the blurring scenery in the background and the world turned on it's side to the viewer it really looked like they were moving fast and turning quickly.
Even the Mossie "dogfight" sequence in 633 gave a better impression just by trailing a vortex off the wingtip as he banked and yanked.

I'm not sure why directors insist on arcade game looking sequences, but they really spoil all the hard work of otherwise talented CGI engineers.

Why they can't combine the advances in CGI with the as-yet unequalled BoB aerial photography techniques to make something that looked like BoB but without orange splodge flames I don't understand 

Well, maybe they did not actually down many 262s or sink battleships, but the idea of the film is a good one. The true story is good enough, I just wish Hollywood would stop trying to remake Star Wars!

I believe George Lucas is having trouble funding it because of the predominantly black cast.

I'm not sure why directors insist on arcade game looking sequences, but they really spoil all the hard work of otherwise talented CGI engineers.

One of the reasons why the motion sequences (flying and on the ground) in Avatar are *so* much more convincing than most other CGI movies is that these sequences were done using simulation rather than just animation - the physics of the motion came from the simulation engines, not the mind's eye of a film director.

I wish more CGI studios would adopt this approach.

PDR

That Mustang changing direction in it's own length towards the end of that trailer is a prime example of how not to do it.

I agree that's probably the worst-looking bit of that trailer.  However I don't think it's flipping over in it's own length even though it kind of looks that way, it's a "camera" at a fixed point relative to the aircraft.  It's an illusion any flight sim user will be familiar with.

Anyway regardless of any shortcomings or inaccuracies I still think that some of those scenes look pretty amazing and look forward to seeing loads of WWII aircraft blowing each other up on the big screen.

From the trailer the CGO looks just like th usual overdone, visually horrible representation. So much so that I won;t be setting foot into a picture house to see the film. I'll give it a looking at if it comes on the telly.

Everything Jamie said about the difference between watching these computer games on the screen, versus the superb aerial cinematography that is Battle of Britain is correct. That is the benchmark of a truly great aviation film-making accomplishement and every sinel film that I've seen in comparison falls well short of the mark. Instead of getting better in the representation of aerial combat, which advancing special effects technology should make possible, ther films just seem to get worse, and more computer-game-like with each new release.

It can be done, and CGI can be done properly, so as to be almost inistinguishable from the real thing, if done subtly, but so often, it's a bit like giving mummy's make-up-bag to a 10 year old. All that, coupled to the desire of the filmamker to show off the technique, means that they go on to produce something that is just so unrealistic as to be a real detriment to the finished product.

I don't think it's trying to be realistic.  This is a boys own adventure type of thing.  There's apparently even a German pilot with a scar down his face who seems turn up at every battle, it's pretty daft.  As such I think the effects look brilliant.  It's Geroge Lucas so it's going to be pretty much Star Wars in WWII fighters.

I don't think it's trying to be realistic.  This is a boys own adventure type of thing.  There's apparently even a German pilot with a scar down his face who seems turn up at every battle, it's pretty daft.  As such I think the effects look brilliant.  It's Geroge Lucas so it's going to be pretty much Star Wars in WWII fighters.

Even Star wars had reasonable and 'believable' effects until they brought in CGI , then it was just pathetic, pretty much comic strip. CGI could work superbly if they just eased off on it a bit...

To be fair even my wife watches most of the Pearl Harbor type films and just loses interest when the special effects start, so it doesn't even appeal to someone who isn't particularly interested in aeroplanes.

Films like "2 Fast 2 Furious" are possibly more readily dismissable attempts at entertainment, whereby anyone with a driving license, sensible or boyracer knows full well that within the realms of Newtonian physics no car can turn in as late and hard as the riced up R34 Skylines etc. As such, most people watch it once, denounce it as "a load of bollox" and never watch it again.

I really don't think it's just planiacs who fail to be suitably entertained with this type of film, and it's probably got a lot to do with why so many of them tank at the box office or just go straight to DVD like "Fortress", and straight into the £5 Bargain shelf in Tesco's at that.

Pearl Harbor probably did well mostly because of Americans wanting to see American heros emerge from a treachorous attack on their young men in 1941 up on the big screen.

Flyboys was cack. Fortress was cack.

Avatar is pure fantasy but looks like it might be believeable on another world, probably because of what PDR said above. It just looks right.

The CGI stuff most do at the moment is absolutely no more convincing than the Airfix model dangling on strings, but they don't need to bother with the cameras and there are no strings to edit out for 1080HD purposes. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference otherwise - both just look stupid and are no more believeable than the plasticene dinosaurs used in the 1930s.

It's not really that we want a representation that would have a tank top wearing, strung spectacled historian happy, and I'm not even against side stories used to develop and personalise characters in films. It's really just a case of wanting to be able to be entertained.

I know The Hunt For Red October isn't real, but I can watch that over and over again because there's nothing in it that just sticks out as looking incredibly stupid.


The sad thing is that as I said above, the BoB team have already shown the world how to film aeroplanes in an exciting way. If you've got real aeroplanes, then why not take a leaf out of their book? If you haven't got real aeroplanes, then surely you'd want to use the CGI to make it look as if you had real aeroplanes, rather than make it look like you didn't have Airfix models on string and were trying to represent those instead!

Well from reading the reviews most of the critics seem to be luke-warm on the film as a whole but single out the aerial sequences as the highlight.  Obviously all huge Airfix fans.

Even Star wars had reasonable and 'believable' effects until they brought in CGI , then it was just pathetic, pretty much comic strip. CGI could work superbly if they just eased off on it a bit...

I think the problem with the last three Star Wars films was not so much the effects as every other single aspect of them.  See also: Crapatar

I know The Hunt For Red October isn't real, but I can watch that over and over again because there's nothing in it that just sticks out as looking incredibly stupid.

That's just 'cos you've never been a submarine man - there are nearly as many glaring errors in it as there are in (say) Pearl Harbour. But I can still watch it over and over again because I love Connery's performance and I also love the sound track.

PDR

"Give me one ping, Vasily. "

.
Those must have been the most powerful .50 BMGs ever to inflict so much damage on a warship
Mike

"Nothing in here reacts well to bullets"

PDR

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=destroyer+sunk+by+P-47

Just realised that the OP is a couple of years old and refers tothe use of Big Beautiful Doll in the film. That indicates that, of course, there are P-51s out there that could be filmed, as well as a few B-17s and B-25s, in the same manner that the Spitifres and Heinkels of Battle of Britain were filmed.

Didn't that particular example of "Big Beautiful Doll" get destroyed in a crash last year?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=destroyer+sunk+by+P-47

Hmmm
That sie repeats the claim that not a single bomber escorted by the red tails was ever lost to enemy fighter a/c - claimed at the time but subsequent investigation by the USAF showed around 25 (IIRC) bombers lost thusly.
Destroyers weren't known by the USN as 'tin cans' for nothing - but to be sunk by 50 calibres?
Mike

I'm sure I saw a programme that said the Tuskegee airmen never lost a bomber they were escorting to enemy fighters something no other squadron could say.

Destroyers weren't known by the USN as 'tin cans' for nothing - but to be sunk by 50 calibres?

The story suggests an open hatch allowed ricochet rounds to enter a "magazine", and the ship in question was more probably a small coastal patrol corvette than a true destroyer.

PDR

I'm going to offer another view point, tho i was also taken back by the 3D flying style warbirds.
we're all used to much loved and treasured planes flown with great care for a display.
just how hard were fighters and bombers flown when it really come down to it, descriptions of the Lancs corkscrew maneuver sound terrifying, and hard enough to do in an Edge 540!
and when it comes to throwing them around German dams a light aircraft in daylight had trouble replicating it for a recent documentary.

from camera footage I've seen fighters can be thrown around alot!, tho i did also see a FW190 chase a P-47 around in circle's for about 3 mins, never getting tight enough to fire.

 One I made earlier for Ash , His choice !

Remember ??

Stig

I'm sure I saw a programme that said the Tuskegee airmen never lost a bomber they were escorting to enemy fighters something no other squadron could say.

It was for many years a belief, but was noit correct. The USAF report (2004 IIRC) demonstrated that 25 bombers were lost to enemy fighters whilst escorted by the 3332nd.
On the question of the 'destroyer' - a bit of digging came up with the following:
A 900 ton torpedo boat, originally the Italian Guiseppe Missori built in 1914, taken over by the Germans as TA-22 when Italy changed sides. Attacked and damaged by P-47s of the Tuskegee airmen on 25/6/1944 struck off charge 11/8/44 Without in any way denigrating the airmen’s effort, she was hardly a destroyer  in the parlance of 1944. For example the Tribal class of the RN were around 2,500 tons laden with 8 4.7” as her main armament, compared to the Guiseppe’s 2 105mm.
Mike

I'm going to offer another view point, tho i was also taken back by the 3D flying style warbirds.
we're all used to much loved and treasured planes flown with great care for a display.
just how hard were fighters and bombers flown when it really come down to it, descriptions of the Lancs corkscrew maneuver sound terrifying, and hard enough to do in an Edge 540!
and when it comes to throwing them around German dams a light aircraft in daylight had trouble replicating it for a recent documentary.

from camera footage I've seen fighters can be thrown around alot!, tho i did also see a FW190 chase a P-47 around in circle's for about 3 mins, never getting tight enough to fire.

Indeed there's lots of footage of warbirds being really chucked around. There's also quite a lot of footage which shows what bombers could do, or at least lots of footage of bombers going beyond what they could do an parting control. Some of the guncamera footage from the Pacific is especially instructive, as it generally shows Japanese fighters flying at and sometimes beyond their limits.

Now, given that the Japanese fighters are generally accepted to be the lightest and most manouverable aeroplanes, and the least burdened by inertial forces and momentum, it would seem intuitive that no CGI aeroplanes should be seen to be doing anything more extreme than these.

That 3D Mustang looked almost as if they modelled it's motion after a cat rather than an airborne machine. It almost seems to come to a near halt, spin around then pounce off in the other direction. A Mustang would almost need Saturn V up it's jacksie to accelerate like that. Not even birds can do that.

do remember hearing Zero pilots knew when they were diving at top speed as they looked at the wing wrinkling up

That Mustang changing direction in it's own length towards the end of that trailer is a prime example of how not to do it.

Is this the one at about 2.14.

To me it looks like it is a stall turn/flip with left rudder and full flaps deployed aswell.

Craig.

Even if that was the case, no combat pilot would loose that much energy in a firefight - they'd be a sitting duck (the same reason why the Harrier's famous VIFF capability has never been used in an operational scenario. It's a party trick that is saved for airshows and impressing buyers!

PDR