Most Accurate War Film

[Negative Creep]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

Tora! Tora! Tora! Very historically accurate. I know that the B-17s were Gs and the Jap carriers were American in the launch scenes, but the history was right on.

Weren't most of the Zeros converted T5s as well? I do know one scene, where a taxing P40 gets hit, the detonation went wrong, and it veered way off course. So the extras aren't acting, they really are running for their lives


Edited to add

There is a bit in Pearl Harbour where a Kate gunner is waving at nearby children to get them out of the way. That bit has always struck me as unrealistic; would Japanese airmen have done such a thing?

[DOUGRD]

Originally Posted by Negative Creep

Weren't most of the Zeros converted T5s as well? I do know one scene, where a taxing P40 gets hit, the detonation went wrong, and it veered way off course. So the extras aren't acting, they really are running for their lives


Edited to add

There is a bit in Pearl Harbour where a Kate gunner is waving at nearby children to get them out of the way. That bit has always struck me as unrealistic; would Japanese airmen have done such a thing?

The aircraft were modified T-6's. I saw one a couple of years after the movie was made. Very interesting Mod. As for the additional question, I wonder? After reading so many accounts of Jap pilots gunning down our pilots when they were hanging in their parachutes it makes me tend to doubt it. I read an account today of a Jap pilot trying to cut up a parachuting Marine pilot and on his third pass , before he was chased away, he did manage to cut off half of the dudes right foot. But who knows? I'd say little kids are little kids all over the world and I wouldn't harm one intentionally, not even a Raghead one.

[DOUGRD]

[quote=Negative Creep;245845] I do know one scene, where a taxing P40 gets hit, the detonation went wrong, and it veered way off course. So the extras aren't acting, they really are running for their lives
That's pretty interesting, I never heard that before. To me ,that's some of the most interesting history about a movie. What really happened while it was being made. I read an article about the movie "The Fugitive" starring Harrison Ford and the scene where they staged the train wreck...Those weren't models but the real thing! The production company found out it was cheaper to buy real ( retired ) locomotives and wreck them than to have a model scene fabricated. Another interesting tidbit... After the wreck when Harrison Ford looks up from under the bridge... In the original film there was a man looking back down at him. Trouble was no one knows who he was. He wasn't a member of the cast or crew and he wasn't seen afterwards. Now that's weird!

[tpikdave]

If you think about it, planes could be replaced, pilots were a little more difficult to get on either side. So it would make good economical sense to waste the pilot as well as the plane. Cold, but I sometimes wonder what the real instructions were?

[Negative Creep]

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

To me ,that's some of the most interesting history about a movie. What really happened while it was being made.

You'd love the trivia sections of The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) you can spend days learning useless crap on there!

[tpikdave]

Originally Posted by Negative Creep

You'd love the trivia sections of The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) you can spend days learning useless crap on there!

Thats a terrific site. I go there to verify just about any fact or actor "on the spot" .

[DOUGRD]

Originally Posted by Negative Creep

You'd love the trivia sections of The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) you can spend days learning useless crap on there!

Thanks! I'll go check it out. I like aircraft trivia too, like why are the wings on the f4u "bent"?

[Negative Creep]

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

Thanks! I'll go check it out. I like aircraft trivia too, like why are the wings on the f4u "bent"?

Isn't that because they could fold when in storage and not get in the way of the prop?

[tpikdave]

F4U Wings....

The way I read it was that the Corsair was designed around the 2,804 cubic inch Double Wasp R2800 engine of 1,850 hp (over 100hp per cylinder). This engine needed a huge (13ft) prop to take advantage of the thrust that that horsepower could deliver.

All carrier landing gear has to be very strong to withstand the dynamics of a carrier deck landing and a short, strong gear was required. There wouldn’t be enough room in the wing to hold a longer gear anyway. And, if the prop were chopped shorter, much of the horsepower of the R2800 would be wasted.

Therefore: the bent wing or inverted gull shape was used so the designers got the short gear, and the long prop. Really a great example of "form follows function".

[renrich]

That is exactly right about shortening the landing gear. A collateral benefit of the inverted gull wing of the Corsair was that the intersection of the wing and the fuselage was at 90 degrees so there was no fairing need to smooth the intersection(as in most a/c.) This low drag feature was one of the reasons the Corsair had such good performance. When you think about it a mid wing configuration on a cylindrical fuselage(like the Corsair has) will accomplish the same low drag intersection but then you make the landing gear longer which is bad for carrier landings.

[renrich]

The negative on the inverted gull wing was that the structure for the center section of the wing was a complicated,large and heavy casting. The intriguing, to me, factor about a/c design, is that all WW2 a/c were a melding of compromises. One can study all the successful designs and pick out the priorities of the designers(and those of the service ordering the airplane) The one common denominator of almost all the premier fighters in WW2 was that they all had a great engine. Either a DB inline, a BMW radial, a RR inline or a PW radial.

[Cyrano]

Btw, here is a picture of a converted Texan:

... and a real Zero:

[tpikdave]

Wonder why they couldn't have put the spinner on for a bit more realism? CAF right?

[renrich]

Probably because of engine cooling.

[tpikdave]

That makes sense. The AT6 was never meant for high performance anyway.