Read the forum code of contact
By: - 5th April 2004 at 15:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
DamienB,
I agree it looks small at first sight, but compare it with the aspect ratio of the radiator inlet and that is closer to the camera. The dummy certainly seemed to have 180 degrees articulation at the hips so his boots would be along side his helmet when packed way.
The tail chase photography I believe was done with MK297 with a camera as in this shot.
The two seater was used with a camera mounted on the front seat, shooting at an angled mirror set at eye level in the cockpit. They certainly filmed from the back of the two seat 109 in formation and, although not in the final cut, I think there is footage from one or other of the two seat Spitfire cockpits of formation close ups looking over a wing.
Mark
By: - 5th April 2004 at 15:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Think you will find that the two seater generally had a camera and "mirror arrangement" in the spare. The practicalities of ejecting a parachute from the second seat are pretty complex if you think about it.
By: - 5th April 2004 at 15:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That makes sense. If it was a cloth dummy it certainly could have been crammed in there. Were the codes the same as this Spit in the "Colin" bail out?
Dan
By: - 5th April 2004 at 15:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dan,
I just ran the local sequence again. The codes are not readable. In fact with the aircraft banked port wing down the lower legs appear over the trailing edge of the port wing exactly where the 'lump' would be.
Mark
By: - 5th April 2004 at 16:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I suppose it's also possible they might have not used a full size dummy.....??
:confused:
By: - 5th April 2004 at 16:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure whether I dreamt this, but I thought that in Robert Rudhall's book, it was stated that a two seat Spitfire was used with a dummy in the front seat?
By: - 5th April 2004 at 16:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I looked at my tape. Yes, the dummy looks to be deployed from the place where the lump is. I think this option was used here. I do not believe a two-seater was used here as the dummy seems to bail out very close to the wing.
By: - 5th April 2004 at 16:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'll be a monkey's bare-assed uncle!
Just ran the footage myself, and you can most definitely see the dummy emerging feet-first from the trailing edge.
Actually, you can see why they might have done it. A two-seater Spitfire rolling past the camera-plane would look all wrong, especially if the camera-plane happened to catch the rear canopy as the Spit went by.
Makes sense, I suppose.
By: - 5th April 2004 at 16:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Two seat Spitfire
If you think about this, discharging a dummy from one or other of the cockpits is dangerous on several counts. You can and they did fly solo from the rear cockpit but that doesn't get the dummy out of the front seat. No - you would need a party in the front seat to discharge or throw the dummy out who was totally free of all responsibility for flying the aircraft. Apart from loose bits getting entangled in the controls of the front cockpit there is the very real danger that the whole lot would drape itself over the port tail plane and elevator.
It may well be stated in Robert's book and I also had always thought it the case but the 'lump' and the DVD has changed my mind.
Mark
By: - 5th April 2004 at 20:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've always had the impression that the dummy was laying on the wing at the root, then released at the correct camera moment, a cable or line was played out to open the chute at a safe distance from the a/c. The "hump" on the wing in Mark's pic could be a winch to reel in the cable after dummy launch, again for safety reasons and as it is near the trailing edge on the upper surface of the wing would be unobtrusive photographically and not obstruct the flaps. The hump could just be a aerodynamic fairing over the winch arrangement and help hide it in other later or earlier sequences. It would be easy enough to install and dismount when the scene was completed.
Just a thought.:)
By: - 5th April 2004 at 21:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure if this helps, or indeed disproves or proves my earlier comment! On page 125 of Robert Rudhall's book, there is a picture of T9 TE308, flown from the rear cockpit, returning after a "dummy on a parachute drop". I suspect I was half right and that it was attached to the wing somehow as others have pointed out, although a two seat Spit! I think I will give in gracefully on this one!
By: - 5th April 2004 at 21:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Think you'll you'll find that camera and mirror was installed in front seat.
Most of the actual parchute drops using people that were required on the DX set were done from the "He111" a/c, the polish airman for instance then landed to the rear of the airfield at Barkers farm, you can see the corner of the rear of the chateau mockup to the right of the screen in the landing shot.
I was 9 at the time and watched this from my bedroom window (in Duxford)!!
Memories
By: - 5th April 2004 at 21:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is interesting to note that the shot on page 129 shows the two seater coming into land with just the pilot in the rear seat and the front cockpit with neither the forward facing eye level camera nor the the angle mirror installation but with the front canopy removed.
The photographer was Tony Clarke. I would be surprised if he did not read this post. ;) So somebody tell us - did it take off with a dummy?
Mark
By: - 5th April 2004 at 22:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I used to be indecisive -
...now I am not so sure. I have changed my mind. :o
Having trawled through a large bunch of archive photos of the BoB two seaters, under the glass I have found this little gem lurking in a hangar at Duxford. A bit of contrast enhancement and a lot of enlargement and we have - a cover/protection plate and a cable hanging out of the cockpit and no front canopy.
Perhaps they tried several methods to launch the dummy but the two seater was too obvious as a single Spitfire centre stage.
Robert would have loved this. :)
Mark
Photo: The late Ron Cranham - Duxford 17 August 1968
By: - 5th April 2004 at 22:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does anyone know who the pilots were who flew the Spitfires for the film? One of them would surely remember a 'stunt' like that!
mmitch.
By: - 5th April 2004 at 23:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Personally I think Christopher Plummer was so rubbish in the film that they should have thrown him out of the Spitfire and let the dummy do the (over)acting. :D
By: - 6th April 2004 at 01:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by MarkG
Personally I think Christopher Plummer was so rubbish in the film that they should have thrown him out of the Spitfire and let the dummy do the (over)acting. :D
well have you applied for that posting yet?!
By: - 6th April 2004 at 08:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Slightly off topic
The Americans have their own way of doing these things. :rolleyes:
NH904 - 'Aces: Iron Eagle III' - Summer 1991
Mark
Photo credit: Charlie Hilliard
By: - 6th April 2004 at 10:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Hang on, Nige, hang on."
"What the bloody hell does it look like I'm doing?!"
;)
By: - 6th April 2004 at 10:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Could it be that the bulgy hump just had a rear facing camera in it? Perhaps for taking shots of an ME109 coming up behind it?
Actually, it would have been a good shot if they'd mounted such a camera on the two-seater that chucked the dummy off, so you see him fall off the Spit and float away.
Posts: 10,029
By: Mark12 - 5th April 2004 at 14:20
A few months back Daz posted a very interesting, but extremely low resolution photo, of a Mk IX Spitfire used in the film. It appeared to show a rather strange looking 'lump' on the port wing.
The photo would seem to have come from the sleeve cover of an LP by 'Golden Hour' called the Sound of the Aeroplane at War 1939/1945 issued in 1975.
Having spotted the LP on ebay I grabbed it. The image is very coarse and the sleeve embossed with a sun burst - but here it is again.
Last evening I was trawling through the BoB film on my new DVD player and oh the pure joy of sharp incremental freeze frame.
It was interesting to freeze advance the bail out sequence of Sqd. Ldr. Colin Harvey. This was a single seat Mk IX and in one take, filmed from the starboard side, the dummy body appears from under the fuselage on the port side, falling rather inanimately until the chute is triggered by some means.
Whilst it has been speculated in the past that the bail outs were made from one of the two seat Spitfires I believe that a dummy was ejected from the contraption on the port wing.
Any other views?
Mark