msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - Sun BOS Contractor) (07/10/90)
From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - Sun BOS Contractor) For all you Battle of Britain fanciers, PBS's Masterpiece Theatre is running a 6-parter called "Piece of Cake". It's about a British fighter squadron in the early days of the Blitz. The first episode started in a unique way: the squadron CO died falling off the wing of his Spitfire after landing. So far, after one episode, this is a great show. Lots of good flying shots. Although it looks like they're using Spitfire Mk.IX's (with the 20mm cannons) which didn't see service until later in the war. Still, they seem to have about 5 or 6 of them which is a rare enough sight to catch the show for. -MSM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark S. Miller "Different "In a nation ruled by swine, UUCP: msmiller@Sun.COM things all pigs are upward mobile." GEnie/AOL: MSMILLER vary" - Hunter S. Thompson
rjw@ukc.ac.uk (R.J.Warne) (07/12/90)
From: "R.J.Warne" <rjw@ukc.ac.uk> In article <1990Jul10.024737.9898@cbnews.att.com> msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - Sun BOS Contractor) writes: > > >From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - Sun BOS Contractor) >For all you Battle of Britain fanciers, PBS's Masterpiece Theatre is >running a 6-parter called "Piece of Cake". It's about a British >fighter squadron in the early days of the Blitz. <.... etc> Yes, the series was screened in the UK sometime last year and has some well done flying sequences, even though the Spitfires used were later models than those flown in 1940. Apparently the RAF declined the invitation to use their few remaining airworthy Hurricanes in the production, supposedly because they were upset at the portrayal of some of the pilots. The series does include airmen shown in a very poor light, more akin to modern "yuppie-hooligans" than how we traditionally perceive the men of the time (I'm trying not to give too much away here). I understand that extensive use of fibreglass replicas was made although we only actually see 3 (or is it 6?) 'planes airborne at a time. Robin.
mbin@amsaa-seer.brl.mil (Mary Binseel) (07/17/90)
From: Mary Binseel <mbin@amsaa-seer.brl.mil> I have watched this series so far, and it is very good. As long as we're on the subject, I have a question about one of the procedures used by the pilots in the show. Before takeoff or landing, they always open the canopy. What is the reason for this? Is it to facilitate escape/rescue in case of emergency? Thanks. MaryB
yaniv%mush.huji.ac.il@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (ran el-Yaniv) (07/17/90)
From: ran el-Yaniv <yaniv%mush.huji.ac.il@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
The aircraft used in the Battle for Britain were Spitfires Mk. II and Mk. V.
The Mk. IX was a later model and differed from the Mk. V in a few minor details
(like the engine B-: [This is a sergeant smily!]).
Mk. II Mk. V Mk. IX
Engine M. XII (1175hp) M. 45 (1440hp) M. 61 (1660hp)
Armament 8 .303 (IIA) 8 .303 (VA) As V
4 .303 + 2 20mm (IIB) 4 .303 + 2 20mm (VB) As V
Choice of above (VC) As V
2 0.5" + 2 20mm (IXE)
Production 750 IIA 94 VA Overall 5665
170 IIB 3923 VB
2447 VC
The Mk. IX was an urgent counter to the Fw 190.
yaniv, etcscott%sting.Berkeley.EDU@ (Scott Silvey) (07/18/90)
From: scott%sting.Berkeley.EDU@ (Scott Silvey) When is this show? It's PBS, right? Scott
al.weaver@rose.uucp (07/24/90)
From: al.weaver@rose.uucp
Mary Binseel <mbin@amsaa-seer.brl.mil> writes:
%
%used by the pilots in the show. Before takeoff or landing, they
%always open the canopy. What is the reason for this? Is it to
%facilitate escape/rescue in case of emergency?
I'm not a pilot, but I believe that since the cockpit was set fairly far
back on the Spitfire, the canopy was opened on takeoffs and landings in
order for the pilot to look over the side to see where (s)he was on the
runway. Spitfires didn't have nosewheels, and the nose had to be up on
takeoffs and landing.
Regards, Al
--- MaS Relayer v1.00.00
Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST
Internet: al.weaver@rose.uucp
UUCP: ...tmsoft!masnet!rose!al.weaveral.weaver@rose.uucp (07/24/90)
From: al.weaver@rose.uucp ran el-Yaniv <yaniv%mush.huji.ac.il@#UNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes: >The aircraft used in the Battle for Britain were Spitfires Mk. II and >Mk. V. I have to disagree with this statement. It was the Spitfire Mk I and Mk II that were used during the Battle of Britain. The Mk V was introduced in 1941 and had the universal, or "C" wing, with provision for up to four cannons. Most Mk I and Mk II versions had eight .303 calibre machine guns, although a few Mk II's were experimentally fitted with 2 cannons and four machine guns, the "B" wing. Some pilots, like Douglas Bader, thoroughly disliked the cannon, while others favoured them. This was probably due to a difference in shooting skills. The Battle was over by October 1940. Regards, Al --- MaS Relayer v1.00.00 Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST Internet: al.weaver@rose.uucp UUCP: ...tmsoft!masnet!rose!al.weaver
msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - OpenWindows Contractor) (07/24/90)
From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - OpenWindows Contractor) In article <1990Jul18.040845.14270@cbnews.att.com>: |>From: scott%sting.Berkeley.EDU@ (Scott Silvey) |> |>When is this show? It's PBS, right? Find the local listing for Masterpiece Theatre on your local PBS station. In Boston, it's on Sunday nights, and Monday morning and afternoon ... on a couple different stations. Oh, and it looks like they have 5 Spit's flying. The next show promises to be a good one as last week a Me109 buzzed Hornet squadron's field. -MSM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark S. Miller "Different "In a nation ruled by swine, UUCP: msmiller@Sun.COM things all pigs are upward mobile." GEnie/AOL: MSMILLER vary" - Hunter S. Thompson
thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) (07/24/90)
From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) In article <1990Jul17.032050.23076@cbnews.att.com> yaniv%mush.huji.ac.il@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (ran el-Yaniv) writes: > > >From: ran el-Yaniv <yaniv%mush.huji.ac.il@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> > >The aircraft used in the Battle for Britain were Spitfires Mk. II and Mk. V. >The Mk. IX was a later model and differed from the Mk. V in a few minor details >(like the engine B-: [This is a sergeant smily!]). > > Mk. II Mk. V Mk. IX > >Engine M. XII (1175hp) M. 45 (1440hp) M. 61 (1660hp) >Armament 8 .303 (IIA) 8 .303 (VA) As V > 4 .303 + 2 20mm (IIB) 4 .303 + 2 20mm (VB) As V > Choice of above (VC) As V > 2 0.5" + 2 20mm (IXE) > >Production 750 IIA 94 VA Overall 5665 > 170 IIB 3923 VB > 2447 VC > > Actually, the Mk. V reached squadron status in March 1941, long after the Battle of Britain, and very few Mk. IIs were used in that battle. The mainstays of Fighter Command were the Spitfire I and Hurricane I, with a few earlier and later aircraft in use. The Spit I had a 1030 hp engine, and used the .303 armament exclusively. The Hurricane I had similar engine and armament, but lower top speed (324mph vs. 365mph). Source: _War_Planes_of_the_Second_World_War_, _Fighters_, vol. 2, William Green. >The Mk. IX was an urgent counter to the Fw 190. > >yaniv, etc David H. Thornley
paul@mbf.UUCP (Paul Gregory) (07/24/90)
From: paul@mbf.UUCP (Paul Gregory) >The aircraft used in the Battle for Britain were Spitfires Mk. II and Mk. V. > Mk. II Mk. V Mk. IX Prop blades 3 ? 4 I am not sure of that but wern't the Mk. IX varable pitch props too? Pg -- ^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^ Pg (Paul Gregory) : MAI Basic Four Inc. 714-730-3012 : 14101 Myford Rd. Prolog: FCGJ44A : Tustin, CA, 92680 ^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^----^v^ These thoughts are my own and more than likely don't represent my employer.
needham@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (jim needham) (07/25/90)
From: needham@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (jim needham) > Mary Binseel <mbin@amsaa-seer.brl.mil> writes: > % > %used by the pilots in the show. Before takeoff or landing, they > %always open the canopy. What is the reason for this? Is it to > %facilitate escape/rescue in case of emergency? > > I'm not a pilot, but I believe that since the cockpit was set fairly far > back on the Spitfire, the canopy was opened on takeoffs and landings in > order for the pilot to look over the side to see where (s)he was on the > runway. Spitfires didn't have nosewheels, and the nose had to be up on > takeoffs and landing. > An old Navy pilot I know who use to fly F4-U Corsairs said that having the canopy open did facillitate escape/rescue. Another real reason is for ventilation. Canopies make good Greenhouses. It gets real hot in the cockpit of airplanes that have a lot of "glass". Yes, in some planes, it also helps to see where you are going. But usually you are straped in pretty tight, it is hard to crane you head out around to see. Tail dragger planes, the ones with the wheel in the back, have pore forward visibility. Pilots of htese planes will make S turns while taxing so that they can see what is infront of them. I fly these type of planes.
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (07/25/90)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>
I'm not trying to stop the discussion about Spitfire marks and the
Battle of Britian, but I have to point out that "Piece of Cake" is
written about a Hurricane squadron. However, it was switched to
Spits for the television version because there weren't enough flying
Hurricanes available.
--
Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilotsxdjt@acad3.fai.alaska.edu (TABOR DEAN J) (07/27/90)
From: sxdjt@acad3.fai.alaska.edu (TABOR DEAN J) In article <1990Jul23.201417.4825@cbnews.att.com>, al.weaver@rose.uucp writes... >%used by the pilots in the show. Before takeoff or landing, they >%always open the canopy. What is the reason for this? Is it to >%facilitate escape/rescue in case of emergency? > >I'm not a pilot, but I believe that since the cockpit was set fairly far >back on the Spitfire, the canopy was opened on takeoffs and landings in >order for the pilot to look over the side to see where (s)he was on the >runway. Spitfires didn't have nosewheels, and the nose had to be up on >takeoffs and landing. The reason why most canopies are opened on takeoff and landing is not mainly to facilitate visibility (but it doesn't hurt any), it is done to allow a quick egress in times of distress (ie; imminent crash). *-------(-:-S-t-a-n-d-a-r-d---D-i-s-c-l-a-i-m-e-r---A-p-p-l-i-e-s-:-)-------* |Dean J. Tabor | University of Alaska Computer Network - Operations | |SXDJT@ALASKA.bitnet | Fairbanks, Alaska USA (no, I don't live in an igloo)| |=+=+=+=+=+=-It's not how fast you go, it's how well you go fast-=+=+=+=+=+=| *---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) (07/27/90)
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) In article <1990Jul23.201417.4825@cbnews.att.com> al.weaver@rose.uucp writes: > >From: al.weaver@rose.uucp > >Mary Binseel <mbin@amsaa-seer.brl.mil> writes: >% >%Before takeoff or landing, they >%always open the canopy. What is the reason for this? Is it to >%facilitate escape/rescue in case of emergency? > >I'm not a pilot, but I believe that since the cockpit was set fairly far >back on the Spitfire, the canopy was opened on takeoffs and landings in >order for the pilot to look over the side to see where (s)he was on the >runway. Spitfires didn't have nosewheels, and the nose had to be up on >takeoffs and landing. >Regards, Al I am a pilot, and I can confirm what you say. Tailwheel, or "conventional gear" aircraft sit at a steep climbing angle when they're on the ground. Visibility during taxi, takeoff and landing is problematical even from, for example, the rear seat of a Cub. Taxiing is usually handled as a series of shallow S-turns to allow the pilot to see where (s)he's going. In something like a Stearman or (I assume) a Spitfire, with an immense engine hanging out front, you simply can't see forward at all until the plane rotates. On landing, with the nose high, you sorta hafta stick your head outside and hope... Anyway, most modern aircraft use tricycle (nosewheel) gear, both to improve visibility and to make takeoff and landing easier. Conventional gear is used mostly on planes needing short and soft landing strips. There are lots of neat replica or real aircraft on this show -- the Me109's, the formation of Heinkel bombers, and the de Haviland Dragon transport. The latter is the twin-engine biplane with a single pilot squeezed into the pointy nose. I have no idea how realistic the ground interactions are, but they make a good story. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Opinions outside attributed quotations are mine alone. Satirical material may not be specifically labeled as such. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- | phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG | Phil Gustafson | (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!phil | UNIX/Graphics Consultant | | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126 | | 408/286-1749
msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - OpenWindows Contractor) (07/28/90)
From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - OpenWindows Contractor) In article <1990Jul25.004830.7352@cbnews.att.com> you write: |> |>From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> |>I'm not trying to stop the discussion about Spitfire marks and the |>Battle of Britian, but I have to point out that "Piece of Cake" is |>written about a Hurricane squadron. However, it was switched to |>Spits for the television version because there weren't enough flying |>Hurricanes available. The way I heard it was that the museum that had the Hurri's (maybe an RAF museum) didn't want to give the planes because of the way the pilots were portrayed (which was considerring unflattering by UK standards). -MSM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark S. Miller "Different "In a nation ruled by swine, UUCP: msmiller@Sun.COM things all pigs are upward mobile." GEnie/AOL: MSMILLER vary" - Hunter S. Thompson
al.weaver@rose.uucp (08/01/90)
From: al.weaver@rose.uucp phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes: >I am a pilot, and I can confirm what you say. Tailwheel, or >"conventional gear" aircraft sit at a steep climbing angle when >they're on the ground. Visibility during taxi, takeoff and landing is >problematical even from, for example, the rear seat of a Cub. >Taxiing is usually handled as a series of shallow S-turns to allow >the pilot to see where (s)he's going. In something like a Stearman >or (I assume) a Spitfire, with an immense engine hanging out front, >you simply can't see forward at all until the plane rotates. On >landing, with the nose high, you sorta hafta stick your head outside >and hope... > >Anyway, most modern aircraft use tricycle (nosewheel) gear, both to >improve visibility and to make takeoff and landing easier. >Conventional gear is used mostly on planes needing short and soft >landing strips. At last, someone who agrees with me! I was thinking that opening the canopy could be for escape and rescue as well. Spitfires had the fuel tank just in front of the firewall, so it would be dangerous in case of a crash on takeoff. It was also why so many Spitfire and Hurricane pilots were burned if their plane was hit in the engine area. The tank was not self-sealing (in the early versions of Spitfire). Also, the early Spitfires had to have their landing gear manually pumped up and down (something like the Wildcat, only the Wildcat pilot used a crank handle), and the pilot may have left the canopy open in order to have more room to perform this task. Spitfire cockpits were notoriously close-fitting. British pilots marveled at the size of the cockpits of the American planes (Mustang, Corsair, Tomahawk), which they received through Lend-Lease. Regards, Al al.weaver@rose.uucp --- MaS Relayer v1.00.00 Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST Internet: al.weaver@rose.uucp UUCP: ...tmsoft!masnet!rose!al.weaver
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (08/09/90)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> Mark Miller (msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM) writes: |>From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> |>I'm not trying to stop the discussion about Spitfire marks and the |>Battle of Britian, but I have to point out that "Piece of Cake" is |>written about a Hurricane squadron. However, it was switched to |>Spits for the television version because there weren't enough flying |>Hurricanes available. The way I heard it was that the museum that had the Hurri's (maybe an RAF museum) didn't want to give the planes because of the way the pilots were portrayed (which was considerring unflattering by UK standards). I certainly won't claim that the people with the Hurri's were enthusiastic, but two Hurri's do not an epic make. At the time of filming there were two or possibly three _flying_ Hurricanes available in the entire world, each owned by a separate organization. I think they're a little skosh with six Spitfires and can't imagine how it work with only two Hurricanes. BTW the Hurricanes that Hornet Sqn took to France had fabric-covered wings. There's a touching scene in the book where Rex tries to bribe CH3 (the Yank) into acquiescence with the latest, metal-skinned mark. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilot
msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - OpenWindows Contractor) (08/14/90)
From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - OpenWindows Contractor) |>From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> |> |>I think they're a little skosh with six Spitfires and can't imagine how |>it work with only two Hurricanes. What I'm curious about is how they found so many He 111's in flying condition. I can see where people would hang on to fighter planes and maintain them, but a He 111 doesn't have too much sex apeal. I must say that the last episode was a right downer. Although the flying scenes were top notch. Hart's yo-yo at the cliff face was really slick. If he had a wingman, like that Me109 did, he might have lived. So much for not "going by the book". -MSM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark S. Miller "Different "In a nation ruled by swine, UUCP: msmiller@Sun.COM things all pigs are upward mobile." GEnie/AOL: MSMILLER vary" - Hunter S. Thompson
phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) (08/21/90)
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) In article <1990Aug14.034354.10354@cbnews.att.com> msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - OpenWindows Contractor) writes: >What I'm curious about is how they found so many He 111's in flying >condition. I can see where people would hang on to fighter planes and >maintain them, but a He 111 doesn't have too much sex apeal. > The only close-up of the Heinkels was a shot in the middle of the formation, looking to the right, that was repeated several times. It appeared that both this and the other bomber shots were either colorized WWII film or footage glommed from movies. It was done pretty effectively -- I guess even Ted Turner isn't entirely destructive to the cinematic art. :-) -- | phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG | Phil Gustafson | (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!phil | UNIX/Graphics Consultant | | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126 | | 408/286-1749
ron@uunet.UU.NET (Ron Joma) (08/24/90)
From: attcan!ron@uunet.UU.NET (Ron Joma) In article <1990Aug21.024858.1383@cbnews.att.com>, phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes: > > > From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) > > > The only close-up of the Heinkels was a shot in the middle of the > formation, looking to the right, that was repeated several times. > It appeared that both this and the other bomber shots were either > colorized WWII film or footage glommed from movies. I don't know if this is my imagination or if memory is still serving me correctly, BUT, in several episodes of Piece of Cake, I distinctly remember seeing footage from the late 60's movie "Battle of Britain". The specific scenes were shots of Luftwaffe planes crashing into the Channel, as well as some of the Heinkel formation shots. BoB was an excellent movie, having been well served with advisors, amoungst whom was Adolf Galland (later to become Luftwaffe General of the Airforce). PoC also did justice to history - overlooking some of the more technical aspects of Spitfires of late vintage in place of Hurricanes. Question however - Were the BF109's used actually replicas of the original planes or were these the Merlin equipped Spanish airforce variants? I seem to recall some scenes where the BF109's had the distinct Merlin type engine cowling, but others with the more original Benz (?) engines. Finally, in the spirit of recent discussions on the marks of spitfire used, my readings as well as modeling experience (from years ago) recall that the BF109 D and E models used in the BoB had a scoop type air intake on the port side of the aircraft. This was later removed from the Frederik and Gustav models of the later war. Anyone care to comment? ****************************************************************************** * Ronald Joma * I speak to the masses through the media, * * AT&T - Montreal * And if you have anything to say to me * * attcan!cmtl01!ron * You can say it with CASH! * ******************************************************************************
yaniv%shum.huji.ac.il@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (ran el-Yaniv) (08/28/90)
From: ran el-Yaniv <yaniv%shum.huji.ac.il@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> The were also shots of Do 17 (in part one or two), the one shot down... The Spit pilots then went to verify the wrekage, and saluted the dead crew... As far as "fake" shots are concerned, the TV had a "Patton" version here and lo and behold! the tanks they used were M-60A1 Pattons...... WWII crews sure had it easy. Worse, the "German" ground attack craft were He 111, which actually straffed various positions. I cringed every time they had the planes on the screen. yaniv