Warbird Information Exchange

OK...So it's strictly for movie purposes 'cause they couldn't get a British actor to play Robertson's role?
To be still in the RAF after 71, 121, and 133 Squadrons were turned over to the USAAF, wouldn't his character have had to swear allegiance to the King and thereby lose his US citizenship?
Yeah...yeah...I know. It's only a movie! Live with it. Just sayin....

Mudge the pedant

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

quote] Robertson's character described himself as a barnstormer before the war, then he said he joined the Eagle Squadron when war started. There was nothing written in the script connecting his Mosquito flying to the Eagle Squadron. It's implied he's an American, a movie convenience for having a hard boiled American in the RAF.[/quote]

OK...So it's strictly for movie purposes 'cause they couldn't get a British actor to play Robertson's role?
To be still in the RAF after 71, 121, and 133 Squadrons were turned over to the USAAF, wouldn't his character have had to swear allegiance to the King and thereby lose his US citizenship?
Yeah...yeah...I know. It's only a movie! Live with it. Just sayin....

Mudge the pedant [/quote]

It wasn't unheard of for some Americans to have not joined the USAAF even late in the war. I read a quote of an American still serving in the RAF in 1946! Maybe he had emigrated in the meantime but as I remember he wanted to remain with unit he had served in combat with.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

There were a number of P-36 aces in Finland as well. I don't see how the P-35 prevented development of the P-36. The 35 won the contest for a new fighter because the early 36 was not as good. Curtiss continued to develop it by replacing the R 1535 with the R 1830 and that is what made the 36 a good airplane. Budgets during the depression being what they were there just wasn't enough money to field two new types concurrently but the Army must have seen the promise in the 36 in order to keep it viable as a follow on to the 35 after it proved itself in the redesign.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

I last posted these 633 Squadron production photos six years ago, so I might as well bring 'em back for an encore. I found them in a photo album at the Pasadena City College flea market. Enjoy!

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

The aircraft in the above photos...

TA719 was recently restored to its TT.35 target tow configuration (as it was immediately before filming) and hanging in the new Air Space Hangar at IWM Duxford.

RS709 is now painted as a USAAF Mosquito at the NMUSAF in Dayton

RS712 is owned by Kermit Weeks and on display at the EAA Museum.

The latter two starred in both films.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

Great to see those pics...

I'm not aware of the structural weight being significantly lighter than an equivalent stressed skin construction.

The de Havilland rationale for wood was threefold: non-strategic material, DH expertise in wood, and skilled woodworkers not being used in the war effort. How much the last was a real factor I don't know, but it makes good PR. I wonder if anyone can provide a meaningful comparison of the Mosquito's robust structure's weight compared to the metal equivalent?

The main difference between the de Havilland wooden monocoque in the Mosquito is how much more rigid the structure is compared to a piece of metal skinning. In use the stringers and formers in metal gave an equivalent rigidity and structural integrity, of course.

Again, interesting. Most people don't understand wood and some of its properties well. A solid heavyweight wooden beam will remain structurally sound and will take a long time to burn, apparently, and is, in engineering terms, a remarkably good structural member in a building or equivalent temperature fire, compared to other beam structures.

The Mosquito's spar isn't 'highly compressed' but a built up structure which was glued, the gluing being done under pressure (but NOT to compress the wood). Compressing wood ruins much of the wood's sheer and stress resistance by crushing or damaging the cells, and you then have to replace the destroyed strength with some other mechanical strengthening; hardly efficient material use.

There are those better versed on the Mosquito's structure than I, who may be able to add / correct the above, but it's sad how many post 1930s and non-homebuild aviators - and the general public - have such a poor opinion and understanding of wood's properties and potential uses. It's the most important composite and manufacturing material in humanity's history, I'd suggest.

We should note that tragic accident was after giving decades of entertainment at many UK airshows, and John's date notes. See: http://vintageaeroplanewriter.blogspot. ... rr299.html

And a pedant point, that John got but most may have missed. the BAe operated Mosquito RR299 G-ASKH, wore 633 Squadron (a fictitious unit, as we know) 'HT' markings for most of its post-film career; but never appeared in the film 633 Squadron, but only in the sequel, Mosquito Squadron; which of course, featured '633 Squadron'...

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Wow! This is an educational thread!! I had always heard that they burned the planes as well. I had no idea that I spent so much time near one of them, and have been inside one of the others.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Just to illustrate the point about the Mosquito's wing and wood structure, here are some recent photos of the Canadian restoration in Windsor Ont . The fuselage was built in New Zealand, while the wing has been built in Canada.

MRP

Exactly so. Robertson's character in the book was British. Insert major American film star, get funding to make film...

Yep...Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Mudge the troubador

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

Just FYI as Tom Walsh pointed out in the Kidd Hofer post that 8 of the top ten aces came out of the RCAF who joined the USAAF 4th through the Eagle Squadrons. There were lots of Americans in the Canadian Air Force. The script is plausible.

_________________
Better is the enemy of Good.

IIRC wasn't there an American flying with 617 Sqn on the famous Dambuster Raid? Or at least there was one refered to in the 1954 film but not cast. Joe McCarthy was it? If true how much you want to bet that if Peter Jackson ever gets around to making his version, that his character will have major screen time to market for the US audience?

Today, US audiences will go see a UK film star...more than they would have in 1964. Remember, even then there were plenty of young non-American films stars that were big box office in the US...Peter O'Toole, Richard Burton, Sean Connery, Rod Taylor...but probably none were willing to do the film.
As fun as 633 Squadron is, it would be a comedown from Lawrence of Arabia, Cleopatra, James Bond, or The Birds

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

Like Murphy's War? (O'Toole, Grummans, not big box office.)

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

You're comparing apples and oranges.
Murphy's War was circa 1973, a time when war films weren't too popular.
633 Squadron was in 1964, a different era for films and a time when war films were much more politically correct.

Besides, with Lawrence of Arabia in the recent past, Peter O'Toole was a bigger star in 1964. His appearance in the film would have lifted 633 Squardon from the ranks of "just another gung-ho" war film, which it certainly was.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.