FIGHTING THE RED BARON. Ch.4, 9pm. Friday 4th June.

[Jonathan Saunders]

<br />I didn't comment on the programme itself in my earlier post. Overall I thought it was pretty good, and it was nice to see the real planes in action rather than just CGI mock-ups. br />

<br /><br /><br />

Just on the point of "Real" the Avro and Bristol were originals from Shuttleworth but the "SE5a", "Junkers" and "Triplane" were recent replicas commissioned and used by the Great War Display Team of Sussex. You ever seen an SE5a with a tailwheel!!? The narration led you to believe they were originals and also made a stonking mistake on Albert Ball's number of kills, but overall a big thumbs up for the programme and for the duration - 95 minutes (inc adverts).

There will be a real SE5a, the Avro, a Bristol F2b and a Sopwith Pup flying tomorrow at Shuttleworth for any one that can go.

Reagrds,

Jonathan S

[ianw]

I haven't watched all of the programme yet but would tend to agree with the repetition criticism - I suppose they feel they need to reinforce things for the general audience. In this I think they underestimate the viewer.

As regards the presenters, all I can say is that I tend to breath a sigh of relief when any presenter isn't one of the Snows - though Channel 4 couldn't possibly afford them - Snow jnr is even a regular on the One Show for goodness sake!

[Jonathan Saunders]

<br />...and no, the young lady did not bring a lot of feeling to the subject, ex forum member or not.<br /><br />Regards<br />TonyE<br />

<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

Tony - Go easy - Alex is a student not a professional tv presenter or professional historian. She was asked to participate because thanks to her years of dedicated research what she doesnt know about Rhys-Davids, Blomfield and 56 Sqn members is probably not worth knowing. Its not her fault they started asking her general air-war questions.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[Andrew Upton]

Well if you put them on, you'd be able to see. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.

Ah, but Jimmy McCudden who I was playing mostly wasn't short-sighted, unlike myself, so when I was doing those bits the glasses had to come off. Didn't impact on the fun of being one of the precious few allowed to actually be filmed getting into the Shuttleworths original 1918 SE5a (and then fiddling about with the controls as if I knew what I was doing ).

http://s1.postimage.org/N14zS-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

Just on the point of "Real" the Avro and Bristol were originals from Shuttleworth but the "SE5a", "Junkers" and "Triplane" were recent replicas commissioned and used by the Great War Display Team of Sussex. You ever seen an SE5a with a tailwheel!!?

Some of the flying (and a lot of the filming) was done using the Shuttleworths original 1918 SE5a. However, it looks like they changed to the modern copies after they started to fly the aircraft more strenuously.

Anyhow, I promised pictures earlier, and here they are!

http://s2.postimage.org/FlwTr-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

Original 1918 Shuttleworth collection planes - SE5a and Bristol F2b Fighter. Plus some people

http://s2.postimage.org/FlBSJ-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

Shuttleworth Collections Avro 504K, built 1918, identity G-ADEV, painted as H5199.

[Andrew Upton]

http://s1.postimage.org/MWRk0-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

Steve as groundcrew, the eagle eyed might spot a strange similarity to Hugh Trenchard...

http://s2.postimage.org/FlTkJ-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

http://s3.postimage.org/iIx0r-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

Original RAF SE.5A, built 1918, identity G-EBIA, painted as RFC F904.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Some of the flying (and a lot of the filming) was done using the Shuttleworths original 1918 SE5a. However, it looks like they changed to the modern copies after they started to fly the aircraft more strenuously.

Thats fine but the way they edited it suggested they were using original aircraft which they obviously wasnt.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[Andrew Upton]

http://s3.postimage.org/iITsJ-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

http://s4.postimage.org/4TzVr-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

Original Bristol F.2b Fighter, built 1918, identity G-AEPH, painted as RAF D8096.

http://s3.postimage.org/iJ2ri-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

Shuttleworth Collections Avro 504K, built 1918, identity G-ADEV, painted as H5199.

[Andrew Upton]

http://s3.postimage.org/iJeV0-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

Enjoying the sun.

http://s4.postimage.org/4Ukj9-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

http://s4.postimage.org/4UTe9-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

Me in flying leathers in 25 degree heat - even without a jacket on underneath this was hot!

[Mark Hone]

I should have been clearer. I realised that some of the planes were modern replicas but what I meant to convey was that they were actually flying through the air rather than through cyberspace! Nice photos and info, Andrew.

[Andrew Upton]

Thats fine but the way they edited it suggested they were using original aircraft which they obviously wasnt.

Easy to do really, mixing between the two as they were.

http://s3.postimage.org/iJyS9-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

http://s3.postimage.org/iJIQJ-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

RFC camp.

http://s3.postimage.org/iJVjr-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

Albert "Jamie" Ball, about to start his descent into madness...

[Andrew Upton]

For these last six shots, I recommend getting this Youtube clips sound playing as you look at them to get the full effect!

http://s1.postimage.org/MZdZA-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

http://s1.postimage.org/MZqsi-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

http://s4.postimage.org/4XfTJ-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

[Andrew Upton]

http://s3.postimage.org/iKvJA-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

http://s1.postimage.org/M_dl9-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

http://s2.postimage.org/Fppkr-5d2c5693c387...5428afbe62d.jpg

[SiegeGunner]

Some of us have short memories ...

[Chief_Chum]

It's always nice when a programme stirs up some real debate!

"I haven't watched all of the programme yet but would tend to agree with the repetition criticism - I suppose they feel they need to reinforce things for the general audience. In this I think they underestimate the viewer."

Actually this has nothing to do with reinforcing facts for the general audience, it is because the programme is pre-sold to the American market (which helps finance it). Every time there is a repetition it is because there will be an ad break on US TV. It is a shame that there can't be two separate versions but that is the way it is I'm afraid.

As usual the vast bulk of the audience will be people who know nothing about the subject and having to explain that this SE5A is a real one, and then this one is a replica, and then the next one os a real one, would be confusing to people who don't know (to them they look the same!) and would add nothing to those of us who do know. Likewise, having to use aircraft out of context (Lanoe Hawker in an SE5 for example) is purely down to budget restrictions. There is a flying DH2 but there was not enough money to pay for it as well as those planes they did use.

Out of interest, what historical errors did anyone spot?

Cheers,

Taff

[Jonathan Saunders]

<br />Easy to do really, mixing between the two as they were

Possibly but a still a bit of an eyebrow raiser if they havent used any clips from the filming of the Shuttleworth SE5a in the final production (are you sure they actually filmed it flying as it seems strange to use some of its precious flying hours for filming and then not using them).

I would guess 95% of the flying shown was using the replicas.

Still, you must have had a great experience personally and a memorable day or two filming.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[Jonathan Saunders]

... and having to explain that this SE5A is a real one, and then this one is a replica, and then the next one os a real one ...

Taff - did they actually film the real SE5a at anypoint? If so, then it doesnt appear to be part of the final production, hence certain comments being very misleading.

Also I felt sorry for the Wing Commander's 15 minutes of fame and being referred to as a Flight Lieutenant!

Regards,

Jonathan S

[Jonathan Saunders]

Out of interest, what historical errors did anyone spot?

I guess the major one was elevating Albert Ball to 67 kills.

It also suggested Hawker had determined the duel to be finished and leisurely broke off engagement - when it is assumed he felt he was fighting too far over the lines and with the wind against him realised he had to head west.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[truthergw]

It's always nice when a programme stirs up some real debate!

..................................

Out of interest, what historical errors did anyone spot?

Cheers,

Taff

Possibly my error rather than the programmers but I received the distinct impression that military use of aircraft more or less started with the war. Even I know that they had been used at manoeuvres well before the war.

[Rayessex]

Hi all

Found it a bit long and a little repetitive, but overall I did learn quite a lot. Now thats great provided what I learned was the truth. Found the Historians made a refreshing change from the norm, but maybe she could have lost the shorts!

ray

[At Home Dad]

Seeing Ms Churchill in the shorts was the best bit for me, to be honest! :blush:

I also enjoyed seeing the jet pilots make the 'jump back in time' to

the WW1 aircraft, especially in the dogfight. As has already been

commented, it seems a real shame that they only get to (or bother to)

make one version, edited for and geared towards the US market with

its need for several commercial breaks.

Hi all

Found it a bit long and a little repetitive, but overall I did learn quite a lot. Now thats great provided what I learned was the truth. Found the Historians made a refreshing change from the norm, but maybe she could have lost the shorts!

ray

[PhilB]

Every time there is a repetition it is because there will be an ad break on US TV.

Is it assumed that the audience has forgotten everything it`s been told before the ad break?

[ianw]

I ahve now finished viewing it and overall found it very enjoyable. Thanks to Taff for his explanation of how the "shape" of the programme was dictated by the US market for the end product. I don't have a real problem with this as "who pays the piper" etc.

I enjoyed Victoria's contribution which stressed the humanity of these pilots in the extraordinary environment they found themselves in - I sympathise if she was dragged away from her area of specialist knowledge and perhaps out of her comfort zone.

A good effort , I think.

[alex revell]

I'm a pretty good nickpicker, but I think everybody is being a little hard on the producers here. It must be realised that this was made for the general public, not for those of us who know quite a bit about the air war in WW1. Of course, facts should be as accurate as possible, but for esoteric points such as replica or original aeroplanes, and tailwheels on SEs, I think a little bit of artistic licence is OK. The average man in the street doesn't know the difference and probably couldn't care less. Also the mixing up of aeroplane types, and artillery spotting being done in an SE5. The cliches and wrong adjectives got on my nerves a bit - 'ramshacke' aeroplanes that first went to France etc. I had quite a bit to do with editing the original script for errors and in that the word 'motley' was used. Other errors? 'Anton' Fokker; Ball's 67 victories; landing 'dangerous' for an 'experienced' pilot. Albatros D111 instead of D1, as in the original script, then a photo of a DV. There was no engineering officer named C K Shaw in 56 Sqdn. There was also much too much emphasis on 56 Sqdn. Much as I admire McCudden he was not the originator of the 'new tactics'. Did anyone notice that the 'B' on the top wing of the SE was on the port wing and reversed. And the 'B' on the fuselage in another shot was also reversed. Why was that? Something to do with the photography? I was surprised that such an expert pilot should have a problem landing the SE5. after all, it's only a light aeroplane, the equivalent of a Tiger Moth. I suppose it's the difference between flying modern aeroplanes and flying by the seat of one's pants. As for Josh and Alexandra. I'm only to pleased that there are young people who are interested in the subject. Alexandra certainly knows a lot about 56 Sqdn and Rhys Davids. I suspect she's read Brief Glory and High In The Empty Blue. :- )

[Chief_Chum]

"Possibly my error rather than the programmers but I received the distinct impression that military use of aircraft more or less started with the war. Even I know that they had been used at manoeuvres well before the war."

A point I never tire of making Tom. Sir Jimmy Grierson's use of aircraft to defeat Sir Douglas Haig's superior force in the pre-war manoeuvres can be pin-pointed as the time that senior British Officers understood the value of aircraft in warfare...

"Is it assumed that the audience has forgotten everything it`s been told before the ad break?"

Sadly so. It is also assumed that the US audience channel-hop far more than the British and need a basic overview every few minutes. I believe that the production company are American-owned so they decide what the final film will look like.

I agree with Alex. There were some simple mistakes that could easily have been avoided if the final cut had been reviewed before completion but, having said that, it was a pleasure to work on - which is not true of every production!

[Andy in Beds]

Out of interest, what historical errors did anyone spot?

Taff,

two from memory.

Manfred von Richthofen uttering a final word of 'Kaput'.

And James McCudden super-charging the engine of his SE5A.

I do think he had it 'tuned' but super-charging is a bit much.

Andy.

PS You won't remember it but we met once in France.