"Fighting the Red Baron" - UK TV Programme

[MikeDixonUK]

Not sure if you've seen about this yet (or if it's been on before), but thought it might be of interest:

 

Fighting the Red Baron

 

"In this film the Red Arrow pilots fly original WWI aircraft, and carry out the key challenges the plane took on in the course of WWI: photo reconnaissance, artillery ranging and bombing missions; all leading to a final classic dogfight in replica period aircraft kitted out with camera guns."

 

Something to Sky+ at the least.

Edited June 2, 2010 by MikeDixonUK

[sandbagger]

Record already set - lets hope they don't collide

[tranquillo]

Thanks for posting that, Mike. I'd missed that one:drinks:.

[Flyby PC]

There's a link to a preview clip which looks pretty good.

 

I'm pretty sure that's an Se5 and Junkers CL1.

 

My money's on the Se5.

[UK_Widowmaker]

Looking good...thanks for the headsup Mike!

[+Polovski]

Looks very good, at last a modern quality documentary about, it can't wait..

[Duce Lewis]

Lucky Brits

I get a location not allowed message when I try to view the clip

Maybe PBS or Discovery will import it some year

Enjoy,

[Scouseair68]

Thanks for the heads up Mike.

[Flyby PC]

It was good, but not gripping.

 

Superb to see the aircraft actually flying and looking in mint condition, but I didn't learn anything new. Perhaps I'm forgetting how much information I've inadvertantly learned here at the OFF University.

 

The Se5 did edge the dogfight, but I suspect the dog fight business was closely choreographed, and just a sweetener to get people to watch. I know these were vintage aircraft, but the evasive manouvres looked extremely pedestrian. Looked very much like a TV gimmick rather than a serious attempt to learn something.

 

Worth watching though, and I would watch it again, especially for those beautiful aircraft.

[sandbagger]

I agree with you - watchable but nothing new - the Junkers, for one, was a replica.

[MikeDixonUK]

I found it interesting from an OFF point of view to see what Pilots actualy did in Photo Recon and Artillery Ranging, even if the stuff they did was scripted.

 

Loved the German AI rear gunner though.

Edited June 5, 2010 by MikeDixonUK

[Rugbyfan1972]

Some of it was good, but if they had just done their research a bit better.

 

Particularly the following points:

 

Where they were discussing Lanoe Hawker, and showed a SE5a and a DR1 fighting, that smacked heavily of flyboys.

 

The fact that the albatross DIII entered service in september 1916 - I always thought it entered service during early to mid 1917.

 

Albert Ball scored 67 kills - according to all the books I have read he scored either 43 or 44 depending on the book.

 

The impression being given that 56 squadron operated both the Bristol Fighter f2b's and SE5's.

 

The SE5 that they showed was in fact an SE5A.

 

The british recon aircraft used to use a defensive circle, in that shot they were showing the wrong type of aircraft (I suspect it was the Bristol Fighter f2b again, and not as it should have been the FE2B)

 

The fact that they did not fly one of the german fighter's of the period but in the 'dogfight' had the SE5A fighting a Junkers CL1 ground attack plane.

 

Apart from those historical inaccuracies I enjoyed it, at least they didn't claim LVR shot Albert Ball down, and they pointed out that Voss was probably wounded before Arthur Rhys-Davids got behind him and administered the coup de grace.

 

Thanks

Rugbyfan1972

[+Polovski]

Yep many inaccuracies including artistic license with phrases (paraphrased here) such as when "the new wave of aircraft came along" to suggest suddenly we got a whole new sweep of better tech aircraft or something rather than gradual releases of new craft on both sides swinging the advantage back and forth all through the war.

 

Also they did not mention first SE5 had 150 HP engines hence poorer performance, but later much more powerful etc.

 

The bit about trying to photograph the whole front twice a day was interesting and the dealing with the camera 80ph wind lol.

 

Yes Hawker bit was annoying, completely missed the point of the encounter and the wrong aircraft types for a start (would have been nice to at least mention the right ones) and yes Ball's kills totally wrong but hey at least they did a new program on it, and they quoted from my favourite ace Lewis so Ok there.

 

BTW the early version of the Alb DIII made it to the front line in Dec 1916.

[Rugbyfan1972]

Yep many inaccuracies including artistic license with phrases (paraphrased here) such as when "the new wave of aircraft came along" to suggest suddenly we got a whole new sweep of better tech aircraft or something rather than gradual releases of new craft on both sides swinging the advantage back and forth all through the war.

 

Also they did not mention first SE5 had 150 HP engines hence poorer performance, but later much more powerful etc.

 

The bit about trying to photograph the whole front twice a day was interesting and the dealing with the camera 80ph wind lol.

 

Yes Hawker bit was annoying, completely missed the point of the encounter and the wrong aircraft types for a start (would have been nice to at least mention the right ones) and yes Ball's kills totally wrong but hey at least they did a new program on it, and they quoted from my favourite ace Lewis so Ok there.

 

BTW the early version of the Alb DIII made it to the front line in Dec 1916.

 

Polovski,

 

Thank you for the correction of when the Albatross DIII entered front line service, I thought it had arrived at the front sometime between feb-april 1917.

 

I agree with the sentiment regarding the fact that they did a new programme on WW1, and it was nice to see a couple of the vintage aircraft in action, but I wish they would get their facts right.

 

Thanks

Rugbyfan1972

[Flyby PC]

Remarkable having to count 19 seconds or so from an artillery piece to fire before the round landed. That's a long time.

 

It was interesting how they used the range card to correct the fall of shot with a couple of letters, (or rather letter and number). Seems blindingly obvious now, but I always wondered what signals were actually sent. I had presumed grid references were the shortest things to transmit, but the truth was even simpler.

 

It also struck me how mentally mature the young pilots must have been to fly in a defensive circle while edging your way home. When you see similar young men today, it's very hard to imagine them flying in a circle looking after the man in front while enemy planes engaged your formation using whichever tactics they might like. The temptation to panic and make a run for it must have been massive. You can just imagine the younger pilot trying to flee but being set upon by the enemy fighters. The fear and exhilaration must have been electric.

 

You just can't square the nervous strain sufferred by all the pilots with aerial combat being an enjoyable experience. For some, it doesn't seem to be the fear of being killed, many seemed resigned to the inevitability of it, but it's more the loss of friends and the strain of killing other people which troubles them most, with fear that your courage may fail coming a close third.

 

Trenchard got off pretty lightly too I thought, but then, perhaps I'm forgetting the brutal realities he had to confront.

[UK_Widowmaker]

I enjoyed it...obviously, knowing what we know about WW1 air fighting, it's quite easy to pick holes in the Historical accuracy...but for a documentary I found it very watch-able.

 

I too was fascinated by the artillery spotting (Idea for P5 perhaps?...lol)...though the thought of learning Morse code puts me off slightly!

 

I found the young lady historian 'disturbingly attractive too'...though I am a pervert...so no surprises there!

[tranquillo]

I enjoyed it...obviously, knowing what we know about WW1 air fighting, it's quite easy to pick holes in the Historical accuracy...but for a documentary I found it very watch-able.

 

I too was fascinated by the artillery spotting (Idea for P5 perhaps?...lol)...though the thought of learning Morse code puts me off slightly!

 

I found the young lady historian 'disturbingly attractive too'...though I am a pervert...so no surprises there!

 

Yes, I agree with all the above. For my part I considered that finding an historian attractive was just a sign of my age.