Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:36 pm
bomberflight wrote:PeterA ~ that is a wonderfully composed shot !
Do you have some more to share like this ?
Yes but not as good as that one. I wanted to get all three in shot.
I'll dig the negs out tomorrow but in the meantime here is another still.
PeterA
Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:04 pm
Good Golly Miss Molly! Now Thats What Im All About!!!!! 
Last edited by Warbird Kid on Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:07 pm
Great photos, thanks for posting them! I was blown away by this movie when it first came out (I think I was 19 at the time), not for the script but for the formation scenes and it was one of the better movies for correct uniforms and flight gear! At the 91st BG reunion in 2002, I talked with a couple of the vets who watched the formation buzz of Bassingborn's runway by the movie aircraft. Their recollections vary on how many planes there were, one swore there were five B-17s coming across the field at the time. It wasn't planned and was purely coincidental that a small gathering of vets were there at that moment. One told it was years before he learned it hadn't been done just for them!
I saw the main B-17 (Tallichet's G model) right after it came back to the US and still had the movie paint in place:
I saw the main B-17 (Tallichet's G model) right after it came back to the US and still had the movie paint in place:
Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:13 pm
Here's a trick question (if you were there, hold back to see if the young guns can spot it...)
What's the two things wrong with the Mustangs in the picture? (One's a clue to the other.)
What's the two things wrong with the Mustangs in the picture? (One's a clue to the other.)
Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:22 pm
Besides being "D" models, I think the antennas on the vertical fin were not in use during the Mustangs WWII service. Also, no armor plate behind seat and no gun sights.
Any good?
Jerry
Any good?
Jerry
Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:28 pm
JDK wrote:Here's a trick question
Easy, firstly...........
JDK wrote:(if you were there, hold back to see if the young guns can spot it...)
Aw, you're no fun.
.
Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:52 pm
I know, I know...............................no invasion stripes!
Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:29 pm
Ober, correct. But not the answer to these questions. 
Mike. Good man...
Jerry, very good, but far too specific. Muuch simpler.
Mike. Good man...
Jerry, very good, but far too specific.
Muuch simpler.
Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:55 pm
JDK wrote:Ober, correct. But not the answer to these questions.
Mike. Good man...
Jerry, very good, but far too specific.
Does it have something to do with 1944, Suh? Holding back here...
Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:12 pm
Could it be that the markings on the P-51's are for 9th Air Force Mustangs and not the 8th Air Force, hence they probably wouldn't have been on escort duty "guarding" the "Belle" in 1943 because the 9th wasn't fully operational in May of 1943?
Jerry
Jerry
Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:28 am
Jerry O'Neill wrote:Could it be that the markings on the P-51's are for 9th Air Force Mustangs and not the 8th Air Force, hence they probably wouldn't have been on escort duty "guarding" the "Belle" in 1943 because the 9th wasn't fully operational in May of 1943?
Jerry
Still too specific, but you've got it.
The fighters escorting the original Memphis Belle and appropriate to the period the film was set would have been RAF Mk.V Spitfires (in fact the Shuttleworth Collection's Mk.V, AR501 was believed to have escorted the 'Belle on at least one occasion, IIRC) or P-47s (of which only one was available in Europe). According to Roger Freeman, the director didn't want Spitfires because they were associated with the Battle of Britain and would thus 'confuse the audience'.
The mismatch is 'obvious' because the authentic schemes give it away - the B-17s have star in a ball markings, the Mustangs star and bar...
Just a bit of fun, could be a long thread!
I'll see if I can post up my Memphis Belle patches.
Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:07 am
Yes but not as good as that one. I wanted to get all three in shot.
Peter, I think this photo was a time before the filming as the other 2 B-17s are Mary Alice, and Thunderbird, Both of which did not take part in the film.
Good photo anyway
Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:19 am
Fortress Fan wrote:Yes but not as good as that one. I wanted to get all three in shot.
Peter, I think this photo was a time before the filming as the other 2 B-17s are Mary Alice, and Thunderbird, Both of which did not take part in the film.
Good photo anyway
Oops! I will check this out and locate the adjacent negatives and dating.
You see, if it is not a Spitfire....
Thanks,
PeterA
Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:19 am
Sorry to disappoint all you 'movie-lovers', but having seen the original documentary by William Wylder I couldn't bring myself to watch the modern dramatised version. The irony is the Memphis Belle was NOT the first B-17 to complete 25 missions.
Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:44 am
Glyn wrote:Sorry to disappoint all you 'movie-lovers', but having seen the original documentary by William Wylder I couldn't bring myself to watch the modern dramatised version. The irony is the Memphis Belle was NOT the first B-17 to complete 25 missions.
Wyler.
The original (real) Memphis Belle was the first to complete the 25 missions and go home. The detail of the true story is well documented for those who can research.
As far as I as concerned the film was an incidental output of a lot of very dedicated people providing very accurate 8th AF materiel, and a fascinating period in aviation preservation. Lots of what was real stuff work was done that would now be done by (IMHO) dubious looking CGI.
The Putnam/Wyler film was somewhat over-wrought - as one of the real crew said, they crammed a tour of events into one flight - however it was a laudable aim and gave a reasonable flavour of the job. There is actually a lot more real history in there than many realise.
I'm glad I was on the spot to see as much of it as I did.
Just my view.