Quote from: Rick Lowe on March 02, 2024, 11:47:35 AM

Quote from: Wardukw on March 02, 2024, 11:43:56 AM

Quote from: Rick Lowe on March 02, 2024, 11:26:08 AM

Quote from: Wardukw on March 02, 2024, 10:27:16 AM

Quote from: Leading Observer on March 02, 2024, 10:22:44 AMSo this version of "The Dam Busters" will be as accurate and factually correct as the movie U-571 was about capturing an Enigma machine?

100% as accurate LO mate 👌   

In the True Hollywood Historical Ethos! :-/

Or Kits second rule 

True... ain't that the way most Gub'mints work, too?

Kinda Rick but their more like taking an idea and then mashing and smashing it down to his tiny little pathetic excuse for itself and then what you end up with is something completely different from the original idea. 😉
Or as me mate Rob says...ya have an idea for a car and end up with a wheel barrow 

One you have to pay them to use...

Quote from: zenrat on March 02, 2024, 03:17:59 AMThe words "Hawai'ian Scheme bring pineapples to mind.  On a pizza...

Funnily enough, the first thing I thought of was a technicolour sunset with silloutettes of palm trees and bikini girls on sun loungers in front of it....

Looking forwards to this one.

Quote from: zenrat on March 02, 2024, 03:17:59 AMThe words "Hawai'ian Scheme bring pineapples to mind.  On a pizza...

I'm sorry but if that " " refers to liking the abomination of using pineapple (which I like as a fruit) as a pizza topping, then you get a double entry in "The Book"

U571 may have been in my mind when I came up with this.  The real Captain Fat Hamster likes to harp on about it and its inaccuracies regularly.

Progress so far.
I have assembled the Upkeep and having desprued the fuselage halves I can report that given the size of the B-17s bomb bay it would almost be possible to house it internally.  If this was to be a serious  proposal for a Bouncing Bomb Boelng i'd scheme up a retractable mount which would fit under bulged bomb bay doors.
But it's not, it's a movie plane so it would have the bomb hanging out in the breeze for all to see.
I had thought about dropping the belly turret.  The kit contains the B-17C ventral gondola (sans glazing) so that is an option in its place.
As far as the ride height goes I will recess the bomb just enough to clear the ground.
IRL B-17 payload was about 2 tons while an Upkeep weighed about 4 tons so this would not actually be feasible.  But when did reality get in the way of a movie idea?
I must admit I was surprised how much more than a B-17 a Lancaster could carry.

The Academy kit is ideal for this.  Internal detail is restricted to the bombardiers compartment, the cockpit, and the bomb bay.

Quote from: NARSES2 on March 03, 2024, 02:25:14 AM

Quote from: zenrat on March 02, 2024, 03:17:59 AMThe words "Hawai'ian Scheme bring pineapples to mind.  On a pizza...

I'm sorry but if that " " refers to liking the abomination of using pineapple (which I like as a fruit) as a pizza topping, then you get a double entry in "The Book"

Pineapple, the king of fruit, is often the only way to add a bit of interest to a bland mix of pizza toppings.

Quote from: zenrat on March 03, 2024, 02:51:15 AMU571 may have been in my mind when I came up with this.  The real Captain Fat Hamster likes to harp on about it and its inaccuracies regularly.

Progress so far.
I have assembled the Upkeep and having desprued the fuselage halves I can report that given the size of the B-17s bomb bay it would almost be possible to house it internally.  If this was to be a serious  proposal for a Bouncing Bomb Boelng i'd scheme up a retractable mount which would fit under bulged bomb bay doors.
But it's not, it's a movie plane so it would have the bomb hanging out in the breeze for all to see.
I had thought about dropping the belly turret.  The kit contains the B-17C ventral gondola (sans glazing) so that is an option in its place.
As far as the ride height goes I will recess the bomb just enough to clear the ground.
IRL B-17 payload was about 2 tons while an Upkeep weighed about 4 tons so this would not actually be feasible.  But when did reality get in the way of a movie idea?
I must admit I was surprised how much more than a B-17 a Lancaster could carry.

The Academy kit is ideal for this.  Internal detail is restricted to the bombardiers compartment, the cockpit, and the bomb bay.

Of course, the movie one would be empty and probably made of plywoood and fibreglass, so the "stunt" B-17 would have no problem carrying it.

Look up the weight of eight .303 Brownings vs the weight of thirteen .50 Brownings and you'll soon see where a lot of that payload difference went...

Quote from: zenrat on March 03, 2024, 02:51:15 AMI must admit I was surprised how much more than a B-17 a Lancaster could carry.

The bomb bay is maybe five times as large. 

Neat idea. Looking forward to this one

Quote from: Captain Canada on March 03, 2024, 08:21:35 AMNeat idea. Looking forward to this one

Agreed Cap'n 👍
This will be another great build from Zenrats Department of gluing and painting stuff 👌 

Considering that for this take on the actions of 617 Squadron, the aircraft is a B-17, I would think that using an actual bomb used in real life is possibly too much to ask for. How about a bear keg or a twenty-five-gallon drum instead? Far more likely to fit under the B-17 and as accurate as the B-17 doing the mission as well.

Gondor

Will there be a sequel to this proposed movie, the story of how Tiger Force Lancasters successfully dropped the first atomic bombs?


Or am I being even more cynical than usual?

Quote from: Rheged on March 03, 2024, 03:04:24 PMWill there be a sequel to this proposed movie, the story of how Tiger Force Lancasters successfully dropped the first atomic bombs?


Or am I being even more cynical than usual?

Maybe so, but not in an unwarranted fashion...

And this is a Fredzenrat build - anything is possible, given enough inspiration and encouragement...
Call it the RAF's/Elstree's answer to this outrageous piece of American Propaganda and Stolen Glory... 

What other 'tit-for-tat' pieces of Cinematic Warfare could we come up with?

The Doolittle Raid, where the RAF supply Mosquitoes, piloted by various hand-picked crews from the Commonwealth, to fly off HMS Ark Royal to bomb Japan, on behalf of the US, as payback for the attack on Pearl Harbour.





[Only, being combat veterans, they do a better job of it.   ]

Carry on Redcoat - How Abraham Lincoln (Peter Buterworth) iost the American War of Independence to King George III (Kenneth Williams) and General Wellington (Sid James).

Or the Siege of Singapore where a ragtag bunch of ANZACs led by Sam Neil and Bryan Brown hold off the Japanese for four years.

Quote from: Gondor on March 03, 2024, 12:32:20 PMConsidering that for this take on the actions of 617 Squadron, the aircraft is a B-17, I would think that using an actual bomb used in real life is possibly too much to ask for. How about a bear keg or a twenty-five-gallon drum instead? Far more likely to fit under the B-17 and as accurate as the B-17 doing the mission as well.

Gondor

I could use a 1/35 oil drum.  I have plenty of them.  But then what will I do with the 1/72 Airfix Upkeep?  Stick it under a Pe 8?
Why is the Upkeep the proportions it is?  I presume Barnes Wallis had calculated how much Torpex he needed but why that width and that diameter?
The Vee shaped support struts locate on the outside of the Lancaster fuselage so I have my suspicions that was the dimension which set the width of the bomb and then with the width set is was just a matter of calculating the diameter which would hold the required 3 1/2 tons (figure dredged out of my memory - feel free to correct me) of explosive.

Given an Upkeep weighed 4 1/2 Tons and Lancasters eventually proved capable of lifting a ten ton bomb then an advanced Special carrying two upkeeps would be feasible...

But enough idle speculation.  I have a plot to work out.  Something along the lines of a bet between Bomber Harris and Jimmy Doolittle over who could knock out the dams first.
Hmmm, how would you accurately gauge the height above water of an aircraft in daylight?