Dunkirk Rating?

[Bill Greenwood]

Have you seen the movie Dunkirk yet, and if so what is your opinion of it? I liked it, there are some good flying scenes with real Spitfires and perhaps a genuine Me 109. No close up of Ju 87s or He111 so those may be computer or replicas. There is a lot of shipboard action which is normal since it was a naval evacuation. I can find some inaccuracies of course, but most people seem to like it.

[DaleB]

I liked it. In movies like that I just assume any external shots of aircraft are going to be computer graphics; if I can't tell them apart from real footage I'm happy.

Kinda wondered why the Spit pilot didn't try to land a little closer to the friendly troops... beach or no, that was a really poor choice of places to land.

[Floatsflyer]

I saw it in Appleton during Osh and the very next day I stood next to the Spitfire in Warbirds. So cool, don't get to do that very often.

I liked the film a lot especially the unique, lmaginative way the story was told and unfolded from 4 divergent stories/viewpoints and alternating between 3 different time periods. As audience, it had the effect of making me feel like I was a part of the action and narrative taking place. The Spitfire flying and combat scenes as shot emersed you in those scenes and created the spectacular impact that I was actually in the cockpit. I'm pretty sure the Spit and ME109 scenes are real and NOT CGI but more like a fantastic technologically updated version of the flying as seen in the 1969 movie The Battle of Britain.

Of course the remarkable thing is this really happened in a span of only 8 days and almost 400,000 soldiers were miraculously evacuated to fight another day...thankfully for Britain and the allies.

[Hal Bryan]

There was definitely a lot of real flying in the film. I had the chance to interview the aerial coordinator, Craig Hosking, for two episodes of an independent podcast I'm involved in. We only talked briefly about Dunkirk, since the focus of the show is one of my all-time favorite films, The Rocketeer, but it did come up. Here are the links if anyone's interested:

http://www.rocketeerminute.com/episo...-to-breakfast/

http://www.rocketeerminute.com/episodes/minute040/

[rwanttaja]

I liked the film a lot especially the unique, lmaginative way the story was told and unfolded from 4 divergent stories/viewpoints and alternating between 3 different time periods. As audience, it had the effect of making me feel like I was a part of the action and narrative taking place. The Spitfire flying and combat scenes as shot emersed you in those scenes and created the spectacular impact that I was actually in the cockpit. I'm pretty sure the Spit and ME109 scenes are real and NOT CGI but more like a fantastic technologically updated version of the flying as seen in the 1969 movie The Battle of Britain.

I didn't pick up on the multiple time scales thing, so I was a bit thrown by it. I saw the "Pier - One Week" types of titles near the beginning, but didn't realize it was referring to different time spans within the movie itself. This is easier to do in a book, where you can put dates/times in chapter titles.

Personally, I think it might have worked better with a more linear time line. As pilots, we loved the flying scenes, but the air action wasn't really the main story. Focus on the two young soldiers trying to get off the beach, and the "little ships" desperately trying to reach them. Show people like Kenneth Brannagh and Tom Hardy in cameos, like classic WWII films like "The Longest Day" did.

I believe the Spitfire, BF-109, and the Heinkel were all veterans of the "Battle of Britain" movie in the '60s, and were real. The Stukas were CGI, but implemented OK.

Speaking of CGI, I thought the film could have used more of it, to really illustrate how many men and boats were involved. Both honestly seemed a bit sparse. In reality, there were about as many men on the beach as were at Oshkosh this year. Over a somewhat broader area, but still.....

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

Floats, we probably were right next to each other at Oshkosh when they were doing the presentation with the new Collings Foundation Spitfire MK IX, I was in the stands to see the video about Hitler, then listened to the history of the plane and its previous pilot with his family there and then I went over to see the plane and talk to Rob Collings who Ive known for a few years, once got to fly their 51 with him in Colorado. The interviewer, think it was EAA tv took most of the time, but I got a pretty good look at the plane, wish Id had a chance to sit in it after things dispersed. The landing gear is different, not like most IXs, sure is a nice one and I was glad to see it get an award, judges choice I believe. I tried to talk Rob into flying it in the show, but he was not comfortable with all the planes at EAA and had another committment I thnk in Chicago area a few days later. Not many planes as pretty as a Merlin Spit with the V perhaps being even a little more "pure" than the later ones. Not many weapons as nice looking as that, compare for instance an A-10, aptly named a warhog. Collings has done good things with so many top planes and they fly them also. I got to fly their B-17 once years ago out of a 4500 ft long by 48 feet wide strip at Ft. Collins.
So we were probably within feet of each other, wish we could have said hi, right after that I had lunch at the tent there.

[Floatsflyer]

Bill, I think you're probably referring to this Spitfire at Warbirds in Review which I didn't get the chance to attend. I did get the chance to walk around it when it was in the west area grass field where all the P-51's are. We can pick a spot next year to meet and say hi.

[rwanttaja]

Avweb's Paul Bertorelli has a summary of the real/CGI aircraft in the movie:

https://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/...-229528-1.html

Also, he says they're going to remake "Battle of Britain."

Ron "Repeat Please" Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

Very sad to hear that The Battle of Britain is to be remade. That's the flying movie equivalent to the moronic thought of remaking Gone With The Wind. You just don't screw with perfection.

The Battle of Britain along with The Blue Max shot 3 years earlier and the much earlier Hells Angels(originally a silent then completely redone as a talkie) are IMO, the most realistic and authentic flying movies ever produced.

Ridley Scott is a great director but because of the vast passage of time he cannot duplicate the true flying and real aircraft realism of the original(the BofB is 100% about flying, pilots and airplanes). 50 years have passed since the original and the aircraft simply don't exist anymore in anything approaching vast numbers. Accordingly, Scott will have to be seduced by CGI, models, other technological gimmickry and melodramatic contrived love stories which will, IMO, place it on the scrapheap on top of other horrible CGI crap like Pearl Harbor, Red Tails, Amelia, and the most agregious abomination Flyboys.

I agree with Bertorelli's summation that the remake "will be difficult to best but easy to worsen."

[Bill Greenwood]

Paul Beroreli's view may mislead one way, when he points out that the early Spitfires had 85 gal fuel capacity. Remember that is imperial gallons which is 1.21 U S gallons, therfore its 102.8 U S gallons, which is enough for two hours at ecomomy cruise of 1800 rpm and 0 lbs boost. Now fast climbs or combat would have been perhaps 80 gph, but the Spits at Dunkirk would have been pretty close to a home airfield just over the channel. I think some early ones may have had 92 gal imp which is 110 U S, not too bad. The movie shows dogfidghtin at sea level ,but I think more often combat was above 18,000 feet so some help when time to go home. Later Spits had an aft fuselage tank so total of 158 gal U S internal,not too bad. And Spits before the IX burned less with sngl stage blower. As for a 51 loitering "all day long" ,maybe but an Alison powered 51 of that time would not do well against a 109 above 15,000. I do like Aviation Connsumer which Paul is editor of.
The Pilot Notes say to avoid ditching as "ditching qualities are known to be poor".