1943 Movie "Air Force"

pokryshkin · Post by **pokryshkin** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:51 pm

Oops! I'd placed this message TWICE!! Sorry!

pokryshkin · Post by **pokryshkin** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:53 pm

Chris Brame wrote:This is interesting: From the February 8, 1943 issue of Time magazine's review of Air Force (emphasis added):

How It Was Made. Air Force was a tremendous undertaking, even for Hollywood. Most of it was made near Tampa. For flying sequences he had a real Flying Fortress (since lost in action in the South Pacific) and for interior shots a $40,000 Fortress model was built. Also required: a technical crew of 100 men, three camera planes, ten cameras, Army planes. The Army opened its files to Hawks and helped him make it.
OK, I think we can discount the South Pacific part, but lost in action? Crashed on a training mission maybe? Hmm...

Dear Chris:

Good one!!!

You might want to check past posts on this topic, and the other relevant topic forums,

(Forum #1: "Movie Watch: 'Air Force' ",
Forum #2: "One More Air Force Question.....[about the YB-17 "05"],
Forum #3: "Another B-17B Upgraded to C?",
Forum #4:"Second Identifiable B-17B from 'Air Force' "[38-211/"18"],
Forum #5: "Screen captures of 'Mary Ann' " [photos off the film that
show good S/N detail],
Forum #6: "Back to 'Mary Ann' and 'Air Force' ",
Forum #7: "I got it! 'Mary Ann' is 8584!!)
to get a list of aircraft histories, which I strove to update when other dedicated aviation detectives like yourself brought in newer data than that which I had available.

I'd like to take this opportunity to ask someone if they can help rule out - "exclude as a suspect" - 38-584 and 39-004.

My reasoning on this is that the final "4" on the left-hand side rudder rear of "05564" is clearly different to the "0556" preceding it.

Would it make more sense to the USAAC to only have to totally repaint only one side of the fin/rudder rather than both sides? -And does it then make sense to come up with a USAAC S/N that leaves at least the final number - or even 2 numbers(?) - of the original S/N so that there is less confusion at the end of the shooting day?

Anyone with ideas here please advise.

I'd very much like to be able to make sure that these two aircraft were NOT possible "Mary-Ann"s.

For that matter, can someone with access to more detailed aircraft histories, or even Individual Aircraft History Cards, help to rule out B-17B 38-264, which would be an even better bet, and which was my original "suspect", years ago when I first got a list of B-17B USAAC S/Ns.

Thanks again!

I'm [ b]STILL [/b] hoping that someone with visual, photographic, or similar enhancement or clarification technology can "strip" that night filter darkness from the taxi and takeoff sequences and finally give us the S/N for "10".

Gratefully,

Dan K.

PS - Dan Johnson finally DID IT!!!! it's 38-584!!!!

pokryshkin · Post by **pokryshkin** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:27 pm

Well, for those who follow this column, go see "I GOT it!! Mary Ann is 8584!!
Dan Johnson finally did it!!
This means that the aircraft that played the part of "05564" in all of the shots made AFTER the initial taxi and takeoff, was repainted AFTER it left Hendricks. AT Hendricks, "10" was still "8584" or 38-584, as I had partially suspected all these years, due to the final 4 on the left-hand side being different to the other numbers. This had to be duplicated on the right side to avoid suspicion by any axis spies in the audience.

The taxi-out and takeoff scenes were filmed through a night filter which counterintelligence assumed would make the S/N practically invisible. During all the other scenes, the S/N would be too visible so it had to be repainted.
Humbly,
Dan K.

pokryshkin · Post by **pokryshkin** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:04 pm

This is a formal request for permission to publish this quest, and its results, giving absolute and due recognition and credit to all who have striven in support of this research, and who have made discoveries. Due recognition, credit, and appreciation will also be given to our forum host, and his website as well as these forums, without which we never could have cross-pollinated information and grown this mountain of new information.

Please let me know if I have your ok to write this up on this basis.

I've been published before: May 1989 Air International modelling column, about the MiG-29 and how to convert more accurate weaponry, and the November 1989 Air International article: The Tupolevs of Tamiami, about Kermit Weeks' pair of TU-2Ss.

I'd started to write up Soviet Airacobra aces, but did not have the resources or information to do the job that George Mellinger finally did - I corresponded with him.

This is my chance to finally get it right, giving due credit to all those who worked so hard to get at the truth, and the website and administrator who gave us all the chance to share the results of our knowledge and research.

This would also keep the wolf a few steps back from my family's door!

Please let me know.

Sincerely,
Dan K.

Post by **aerovin2** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:45 am

Go for it. Credit as you see fit.

pokryshkin · Post by **pokryshkin** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:30 am

Bless ye, Noble Sir!!!!!

Thank you so VERY much!!

I've already gotten as far as your website, giving credit by name and mentioning, briefly, that there are many links and sections that the public has at their fingertips, thanks to your efforts.

Your Grateful friend,

Dan K.
PS - if there is EVER ANYTHING I can do, say, write, email, telephone, et cetera, please just let me know!!
My dad, who was in the second big one, now is at the point where most of this is of no interest whatever to him. My friend John Peters, ex-IPMS-USA, doesn't have my interest in this, either. So I have made new friends, and compatriots, in this, and other, searches for historical truth.

It is a humbling honor!

pokryshkin · Post by **pokryshkin** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:18 pm

And now, a final question:
What was this aircraft's scheme during the War Bond Tour? (WAS it the same aircraft?)
The only 2 photos I've seen of this aircraft with the "Mary Ann, Star of movie Air Force" painted on the extreme nose side, (one is a frontal view that shows the nose number is "86") do NOT show the tail number nor the serial number that the aircraft wore for this series of events. In the second photo, that is a frontal view, the fin and rudder are barely visible, and the quality of the published photo (site: Army Air Forces.com)
is such that these numbers can be noted but not identified.

Can anyone help?

Sincerely,
Dennis L. "Dan" Katz
'Dan K.'

Steve Birdsall · Post by **Steve Birdsall** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:25 am

This may be old news . . . I don't know a lot about these early B-17s, but I do admire obsessive zeal. Luckily I'm not that way myself - I quit smoking, I can quit B-17s. Anytime.

This photo was taken by Sgt Phillip Ellison at Bolling Field on June 2, 1943.

It's one of a series of four official photos - 23697 A.C., A-23697 A.C., B-23697 A.C. and C-23697 A.C. All pretty much the same angle, no full-length shots.

Post by **aerovin2** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:41 am

With absolutely nothing concrete to base my observation on other than the similarities of the airplane in the film and the later view, I think it is the same airplane.

pokryshkin · Post by **pokryshkin** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:51 am

WOW!

Thank you, Mr. Birdsall!!

This nails down the exact time and place of that famous color photo.

Dan Johnson is working from the beginning, I'm also interested in what happened AFTER "Air Force" and amongst us all, we should be able to pin down most, if not all, of the story.

Thank you for your suggestion, Scott. This, then, means that the same aircraft WAS used for the War Bond Tour. NOW, the question is, does anyone have the tail details?
That's about all we need at this point.

Until advised differently, I HAVE to assume that, just like the new, excessively high, plane-in-group number "86", Mary Ann kept that excessively high USAAF S/N "05564", both of these numbers to disinform axis agents that might be slipping in to the airport or Air Base to find out what they could from any information displayed on the aircraft.

That is how I have modified an Ian Huntley drawing for the article.

As mentioned, Dan Johnson is working on the PRE-"Air Force"/Hendricks/Sebring years, starting with 38-584's delivery to the USAAC.

Which Squadron of the 7th Bomb Group was she delivered to?
9th Bomb Squadron? 11th Bomb Squadron?
88th Reconnaissance Squadron?

That is our next question to answer, and I'm not sure how we can find out THAT information at this distance of time.

Here's hoping anyway!!!

-Dan Katz

pokryshkin · Post by **pokryshkin** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:25 pm

I have just finished watching the last 10 minutes of Air Force.

The aircraft doing the bombing are either 2 different B-17B aircraft,
1 of which is "16," or else one is a B-17B at 1:51:16, 1:51:38, which has a belly bathtub, but remains unidentified, due to camera angle, then at 1:54:38, and 1:54:46-48, which HAS B-17B outer nacelle intakes, and another aircraft, "16," seen at 1:55:19, and 1:55:42-4 (which has B-17C outer engine intakes but MAY have had them installed as a repair - and in fact MAY well have cowl flaps!!

Can someone double-check me on this??

Sincerely,

Dan Katz

pokryshkin · Post by **pokryshkin** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:10 am

It only hit me a few minutes ago, about 38-211:

Could that 9-11 June 1941 stay at Boeing have been for the belly bathtub installation? That's all that '211 needed by that time, having had all the rest ALREADY DONE!

Anyone with any info or thoughts please advise!

Thank you!!

Regards,

Dan Katz

PS - Reg Auckland of Aviation News wants to see the article about all this.
Since Air and Space Smithsonian doesn't take emails that I know of, it looks like Aviation News will get first refusal!
I'll keep everyone informed what happens.

Dan Johnson · Post by **Dan Johnson** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:46 pm

pokryshkin wrote:It only hit me a few minutes ago, about 38-211:

Could that 9-11 June 1941 stay at Boeing have been for the belly bathtub installation? That's all that '211 needed by that time, having had all the rest ALREADY DONE!

Anyone with any info or thoughts please advise!

Thank you!!

Regards,

Dan Katz

PS - Reg Auckland of Aviation News wants to see the article about all this.
Since Air and Space Smithsonian doesn't take emails that I know of, it looks like Aviation News will get first refusal!
I'll keep everyone informed what happens.

Do you mean 38-584 or 211?

pokryshkin · Post by **pokryshkin** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:56 pm

OOPS!!!!!

38-584!!!

SORRY!!!!!

How'd I get them mixed up?

I'm curious as to how that worked.

Thanks, Dan!!

Regards,
Dan

pokryshkin · Post by **pokryshkin** » Fri May 08, 2009 1:58 am

From info Dik Shepherd has helped me to understand, it would seem that 38-584 was the exception to the "redelivered between 2 and 21 August" setup, being there August 9th, and then coming back August 11th and being redelivered to home base August 25th, 1941!

This would have been enough time to refit her.

Now, we have almost all of this part of the puzzle except: Was 38-584 redelivered in natural metal, or in OD/Neutral Grey?

Can anyone help on this?

Humbly,

Dan Katz

Aero Vintage Books