TV alert – Fighting The Red Baron. UK Channel 4, 9pm. Friday 4th June.

Having sort of started this debate with my comment about ‘talking heads’, may I withdraw my remark about ‘trendy presenters’ including Ms.Churchill, whom I now acknowledge as an accredited expert on the subject and look forward to her future TV contributions, and reiterate that my main point was that despite the slight flaws (to me as an aviation enthusiast), I thoroughly enjoyed the programme.

As I pointed out in the opening sentence of my first reply, I was agreeing with many (subsequent) posters here that the programme was aimed at the layman, and for getting its point across very,very well it must be applauded.

I’ve watched it again on 4OD, it was that good. The aerial scenes are great. Apart from the rubbish flak bursts, but that was a budgetary matter, I’m sure, and won’t have troubled the intended audience.

See, still griping.

I have to agree it was slightly irksome that these replicas were being passed off as the real thing, artistic licence was being stretched a bit thin. I felt the ‘dogfight’ scenes were also a little bit too tame, they jinked a bit and that was all. That said, we can’t have everything and to my mind a decent job was done of presenting the basic story of air fighting in the Great War, even if it was a touch simplified and melodramatic, and a touch innaccurate in places , eg. “Kaput”!

I think what annoyed me was there was no attempt that I saw to explain that SE.5’s are not two a penny and hence the Replica Plans substitute! I think that would have added to the programme rather than detracted from it.

I have watched it and i have a limited knowledge on world war 1 as it is not my time of interest but for Joe Public it would have given those who watched it a better appreciation on what it was like.

Also it is FAR better than the recent docs like the Spitfire one and the travesty from a couple of years ago about how easy the dams raid was to do (baring in mind no one was shooting at you and you did it in the day!!!).

Also it was good to see new Historians instead of the normal History channel crew.

One tiny down side for me was banging on about how impossible the Avro 504 was to fly and skirting the fact it was the standard British trainer for about 10 years.

curlyboy

Some good points there curlyboy…..it may not have been 100% accurate but it was watchable…..not bad at all really and a lot better than some that have gone before.

I don’t like the snobbery coming from certain people, i find offensive that you believe you have to be over 40, dress smartly and talk only about certain things to be an aviation historian.

From ‘some well angree yoof and that, er dat dokyoumentree well cool innit’

NO:rolleyes:

now theres a comment that warrants a here here !!

many young people try to get into the “Aviation club ” and there is a definitive snobbery among some.. if the young ones have a heart and passion and interest in Aviation, us older or not tooo old as in my case.. should embrace and welcome such keen youngsters and help there interest to grow. .. as indeed what future if any would there be for aviation history.. if a new generation doesnt step in with the same passion as us elders to fill our boots when we are gone ??….

I have watched it and i have a limited knowledge on world war 1 as it is not my time of interest but for Joe Public it would have given those who watched it a better appreciation on what it was like.

Also it is FAR better than the recent docs like the Spitfire one and the travesty from a couple of years ago about how easy the dams raid was to do (baring in mind no one was shooting at you and you did it in the day!!!).

Also it was good to see new Historians instead of the normal History channel crew.

One tiny down side for me was banging on about how impossible the Avro 504 was to fly and skirting the fact it was the standard British trainer for about 10 years.

curlyboy

I feel I must reply to being chastened by Tangmere 1940 (for whom I have a great respect). Whilst his defence of the young lady is laudable I would ask the question how is she qualified to appear sloppily dressed and pontificate upon the great icons of early air warfare. Perhaps she has a copy of “High in the Empty Blue” to refer to. And yes I saw the equally awful “Aces”.

How on earth does it matter if she’s ‘sloppily dressed’?! Is her view only worth listening to if she’s wearing a suit? I’m sure she does have a copy of ‘High in the empty blue’ as the author of it knows her – http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=147566&view=findpost&p=1420043

I didn’t see all of it, WWI not being my bag, however, the last half hour I did see made me wish I had seen all of it!

will wait for the rerun

Baz

It is available on 4OD (C4s iPlayer) if you wish to watch the whole thing as I am doing now

Fighting the Red Baron

Martin

I don’t like the snobbery coming from certain people, i find offensive that you believe you have to be over 40, dress smartly and talk only about certain things to be an aviation historian.

From ‘some well angree yoof and that, er dat dokyoumentree well cool innit’

NO:rolleyes:

I don’t object to the replicas and re-enactors but I would like the presenters to be knowledgeable and recognisable.
It all smacks of “I say wasn’t your Auntie in the WAAFs, then how would you like to front the new Dambusters documentary”.

respectfully

John

What an incredible attitude.
So basically you’re saying that if they’re not old and you don’t recognise them then they aren’t worthy of being on telly talking about the subject?

Perhaps you’d better publish a John the sexist , ageist’s list of acceptable TV presenters, and the subjects they are allowed to talk about.

I didn’t mean you Tangmere1940, I mean the nit pickers.

Cheers

Errrr……just for the avoidance of any doubt here, I wasn’t complaining! Au contraire.

Well Boo Hoo!

Did you know there is this thing called a remote, and when there is something you don’t like on, you use the remote and turn it over. You didn’t have to watch it through, you weren’t forced to.

I for one enjoyed the programme, so i’m happy,

i suggest instead of complaining on here,you go and complain to channel 4.

Cheers,

Heaven forbid, John!

Women flying Spitfires? Tchh!!

Next we will be led to believe that teenagers flew Spitfires and Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain! 😉

I quite agree. Lets get back to reality. Flying real aeroplanes, especially in combat, is for grown-up men. And we all know that the crusty historians are the only people who know anything about this subject at all.

What is the world coming to. Young people just out of their teens, and attractive females at that, knowing anything about the subject is simply too ludicrous to contemplate! Bring back Chris Shores and Norman Franks at once! Well…..bring them back for John and co, at any rate!

Me? I’ll settle for Alex Churchill. 😀

Signed: Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

PS – anyone who might doubt the depth and scale of Alex Churchill’s passion for the subject, and her extensive knowledge, might do well to look at her various posts on The Great War Forum. They might then take a rather different view about this “irrelevant eye candy”.

Can anyone confirm the allegation that Albert Ball was known as “The Lone Testicle”?
That’s a new one on me.

Overall not bad, but somewhat disingenuous in constantly referring to “Original WW1 aircraft” when they were not. Why not point out the absolute rarity and value of the real thing and congratulate those who keep the memory fresh by creating replicas/near-replicas.

I am sure that John Aeroclub was not talking about Josh Levine when he spoke of “irrelevant eye candy” but, presumably, was referring to the charming and very knowledgeable Alex Churchill. Without wishing to join the debate as to the pros and cons of the programme, per se, I really must take issue with that statement. Alex is certainly a leading expert when it comes to 56 Squadron, and in particular Rhys-David, and her dismissal as “irrelevant eye candy” is very unfair I feel. Both her input, and that by Josh, was informative and entertaining – possibly to a greater degree than the rest of the programme content. I know Alex from my involvement with the Timewatch Mannock/McCudden “Aces Falling” programme and she certainly knows her stuff. Please don’t dismiss her, John Aeroclub, because she is young and attractive and does not fit the sterotype “talking head” aviation historian usually wheeled out for such productions!

Completely agree Andy, Alex Churchill was fine, not just for the reasons that she is an attractive woman, but rather for the reason that she is young…….it is very encouraging to see a young person with such a passionate interest in early aviation.
I often wondered who was going to carry on the great work of the historians in the future, now I can see there are others coming up through the ranks.

Her knowledge of 56 Sqn was spot on, I spent a happy summer reading HiTEB and everything Alexandra said rang true.
Incidentally, Rhys-Davids grew up not far from here, was a lot posher in those days mind you.
Alex Revell was credited at the end, he is the acknowledged expert on 56 Squadron, so the programme was always in safe hands the sexists will be glad to know:dev2:
As for Alex’s attire, I did get disturbed by the fact that she may have had ‘Chelsea’ on her fleece…….God forbid.

As for the rest of the prog, I enjoyed it, ‘Offo’ and ‘Cutty’ have impressive aviation CV’s to say the least and added to the enjoyment.
Was worth the longer than usual duration.
Well done to all involved.

I feel I must reply to being chastened by Tangmere 1940 (for whom I have a great respect). Whilst his defence of the young lady is laudable I would ask the question how is she qualified to appear sloppily dressed and pontificate upon the great icons of early air warfare. Perhaps she has a copy of “High in the Empty Blue” to refer to. And yes I saw the equally awful “Aces”.

Much of my teenage reading was filled by the writings of Cecil Lewis, Yeates, Gould-Lee, and Grinnell-Milne etc as well as meeting men who had lived and suffered through those tumultuous years.

I cannot count how many times I have stood in Flanders fields or made pilgrimage to Annoelin, Wavens and Estaires, so perhaps I have a jaundiced view of programmes such as this. I don’t object to the replicas and re-enactors but I would like the presenters to be knowledgeable and recognisable. The programme so gripped me I took the dog for a walk.

It all smacks of “I say wasn’t your Auntie in the WAAFs, then how would you like to front the new Dambusters documentary”.

Where will it all end, good lord Andy, we’ll have women flying Spitfires next! 🙂

respectfully

John

I didn’t see all of it, WWI not being my bag, however, the last half hour I did see made me wish I had seen all of it!

Cannot see the problem with younger presenters, I thought that as teenagers know everything, they were slightly too old.:D

If this programme encourages just one youngster to take an active interest in historic aviation it will have been worth it. All of us who are involved with collections are aware that someone needs to carry on the good work.

Took the words out of my mouth.

will wait for the rerun

Baz

Biggles books encouraged me to take to the skies and they weren’t exactly historically accurate or politically correct!

With me it was “Commando”,”Air War” and “Battle” comics with a bit of “Battler Britton” thrown in.That plus the Saturday afternoon matinees of BoB,Moaquito Squadron,Bridge over the river Kwai,A bridge too Far and the Dambusters.And an understanding auntie who bought me models to start.All a kid could ever want. 🙂

However, I’m really irked at the insistence in TV at the moment at having 20-somethings relating the stories to us on camera. A bit of gravitas is needed there, I feel, someone older and with more authority. That smacked too much of ‘to appeal to the younger generation, we need young talking heads’.

That’s life these days and not just in TV!

Based on the standard of TV programmes these days I thought this was extremely enjoyable and TV money being spent on real aircraft in the air, whatever their pedigree, should be encouraged.

If this programme encourages just one youngster to take an active interest in historic aviation it will have been worth it. All of us who are involved with collections are aware that someone needs to carry on the good work.

Biggles books encouraged me to take to the skies and they weren’t exactly historically accurate or politically correct!

Well done to everyone on the forum who was involved.