HattonI’m going to ignore that….
Daren, he said replica, not scale model 😉 🙂
Hattonlet us know about the film, it looks pretty good.
HP
Yes Steve, you get to give the first review 🙂 In the Uk, if you live in London it’s out today, if not you have to wait 2 weeks 🙂
Happy Birthday, enjoy the flying!
HattonIn essence I would rather travel 1000 miles in the U.S.A to look at some old aircraft than 100 miles in the U.K !
looks like an exchange trip is in order 🙂
HattonSteve (Hatton)
but I couldn’t say it never happened, just because I didn’t know.
You never stop learning!
Yes, you are right. Thankfully we never do stop learning. I would like to know more about the flour dropping training in Bomber Command. I’d never heard that it was a wide spread training method ( hence my early scepticism ) but would love to know more if it was. I just can’t imagine that chucking flour bombs out of an aircraft (and indeed particularly at the height shown ) would have been the way they would have trained the bomber command lads who would usually have dropped bombs at a much higher altitude (and usually at night) from the RAF heavy bombers. If you drop bombs at a higher altitude then surely have to take into account the affects that will make the bomb drift and where it will finally hit.
Like you said though Bomberboy, “I couldn’t say it never happened, just because I didn’t know”. I would like to know though if this was a standard technique of training.
Merry Christmas to you too.
Best Regards, Steve 🙂
ps- we need to cut down on the number of steves around here 😉
HattonHave a happy one.
HattonI seem to think that prewar the 609 boys would drop them out of the sides of Harts and Hinds.
I haven’t watched Bomber Crew yet. Videod, but no time to view.
prewar use here but were they regularly used for training for bomber command in the second world war? I’d personally never heard of such use (hence my earlier doubtful statements on the point of the flour dropping in Bomber Crew) but would like to know if there was any.
best regards, steve
HattonSteve Young,
I agree with you entirely and welcome your comments.
It also appears it’s not only the TV people that get the ‘facts’ wrong, facts which others pickup and then without realising, believe that it is now an ‘actual fact’.
I say this because somehow even in this Forum, this programme has now changed from being a ‘reality’ TV show with factual accounts/recollections and ‘contestants’, to a being ‘Factual Documentary’……This it most certainly isn’t and was never intended to be!
With all the experts/enthusiasts in this forum, in this particular subject, it shows how easily things get misconscrewed and it goes back to other threads where ‘what’s in a word’ can make all the difference, but can also be judged as being picky.
Even some of the items that are being discussed ie Bags of Flour, show that some know less than what they think they know and now berrate and disagree about, whilst others know it as a matter of fact.
So now as a matter of fact, having been shown on the programme and discussed through this forum, they have now learnt something, even if they do feel a little silly in making an issue out of it.If everbody on this forum got together to make a programme, I guarantee you, it would go one of two ways.
1/ You would all have your own opinions that you would wish to see portrayed and if every opinion was covered in order to keep everybody happy, you would end up with a dinosoar of a programme which I’ve no doubt would be totally uninteresting to the vast majority of viewers.
Also you would not be happy with each others opinions and would end up exactly where you are now disagreeing with each other on what is & isn’t actual fact.
You would even disagree on what the programme format should be.
You cannot cover every accurate detail on a programme and keep it interesting.2/ And this is morelikely to be the case.
you would disagree in certain areas and unless some of you compromised in these areas, the end result would be that you would never end up making the programme.
Don’t forget, the way discussion is here, even one compromise would not be acceptable.If however you did all come to your senses and compromise with regards to certain areas in order that you could at least make a watchable programme, guess what you’d end up with………..that’s right……..Bomber Crew or the likes of.
Again, this kind of programme should be enjoyed for what it is, even with it’s mistakes.
It has highlighted some very important areas and raised the profile of vintage (particularly Warbirds) aviation, as well as injected a little revenue into a few bank accounts.If it gauls individuals soooooo much, then they should switch channels and watch Eastenders or the like, or turn off altogether.
Then they would not be able to comment on the programme in the first place.Bomberboy
Hi Bomberboy, admittedly I watched very little of the series, having seen enough to be highly irritated at it. I have to agree with Dave that it is easy for technical problems to alter the form of a film but a good documentary crew will have a sufficient amount of different coverage to guard against such eventualities. Also, there researchers should be able to check simple facts. I have little respect for a documentary that takes such a patronising approach to the viewer. The World at War shows what can be done.
As for the dropping of flour. I humbly accept any new info. Was it carried out in the same manner as in the show?
Hatton[QUOTE=682al]
Looking back at it now, the whole show would have been far more memorable if they had had the veterans crew up together and fly one last “op”.
QUOTE]
I completely agree. That would really have been something. At least the show wasn’t as daft as the Channel 4 programme along similar lines recreating the dams raid in which a crew of youngsters took on the Nazis with Microsoft flight sim!!!! 😀
Still though, at least CHW, LAHC and B17 Preservation will be a few pounds (candian dollars) up in funds 🙂
HattonHaving the knowledge to argue against some of the incorrect material presented doesn’t make me a whinger!
no, you would have to mention YAM’s Halifax for that 😉
🙂 best regards, steve
HattonJohn C,
That was quite well put.
I really don’t know why people have to analyse everything in so much detail?
What else is there on the TV these days that either isn’t either a pile of ‘soap’ c**p or that we havent seen before?
It’s not like the ‘whingers’ have even invested their own time or more importantly, money, into making the absolutely ‘perfect, accurate’ programme.
I doubt that there could be such a programme made, because in real life you’ll always find someone else has done the opposite to what you believe is the ‘only’ way something could happen, so now your programme would now in fact be innacurate.
Where would one stop?
Bomberboy,
The reason people analyse everything in such detail is simple. The program is meant to be a factual documentary. Therefore making glaring mistakes highlights not only there failings as filmmakers but their glaring lack of aptitude at acting as historians. Im afraid that just because it is better than most tv programmes, it still doesn’t mean it is good enough.
Im not quite sure what dropping bags of flour out of a beech in the sunny skies of britain and flying happily around in the canadian lanc is meant to achieve.
best regards, steve
Hatton[QUOTE=Snapper]
But when I see about wartime hangars being demolished or scrapped it makes me wonder where they could be reused. Even if they aren’t 1940 era, a proper B52 hangar (I know nothing about that aspect btw) would be a good exhibit in its own right.
QUOTE]
Thats true Snapper. Thats admittedly something I admire Hendon for,
moving the White hanger can’t have been an easy task and for that they should be applauded. However, something they should not be applauded for is that stupid cafe in the middle of the helicopter display (I think there may be a few people here though who appreciate it’s location 😀 )
HattonSpot the irony card dealt and played exceedingly poker-faced above on this page.
Scrap Hendon and move the whole bloody lot of hangars and aircraft / exhibits to Duxford. Get some of the stuff flying, get the rest displayed, and bring the other collections into displays on the north side (which would be great developed into a further extension of the museum). Combine the archives with the IWM’s on north side too, and digitise the lot. For those of you who want to claim that Duxford isn’t the centre of the world; you’re wrong. It is. And while they’re at it, the IWM can send the Spit and 190 to Duxford (plus the other originals) from Lambeth and substitute them with fibreglass, as they have with the P51. Londoners deserve no better and couldn’t tell anyway.
Oh, and rip down that carbuncle of an AAM and replace with proper ‘period’ hangars (but preserve the glass memorial and place it somewhere around the entrance). Get rid of current upper and middle management at both places and replace with people of the same qualification but who actually care about history and their exhibits.
So from your post can I gather that only people in the south and people with enough money for a car/train tickets deserve to see and experience history? 😮 hope not snapper.
Which period hanger would you like to see acquired to house the countries only preserved B52? :rolleyes: 😉 Robin hanger would do it perhaps ;)Everyone likes to dig at the AAM, which is their right of course if they wish, but perhaps before we do that we should maybe have a dig at the other non-authentic, non ‘proper’ things. Coke vending machines? Modifications to Control tower? Aeroplanes on poles? Portacabins? At least the AAM does one thing these things do not…..it keeps valuable aircraft dry and on display. Same goes for the non-authentic superhanger. Duxford is past being a perfectly preserved example of a wartime airfield.
thats all imho though of course.
merry xmas everyone.
HattonAfter all it’s just a pile of Ali scrap.
Someone here is going to tell me that’s it highly significant Ali scrap but why is it?
We know from records almost all we need to know as historians about the Halifax so what do we gain by keeping some Halifax bits?
I’d say the same about why do we need a Stirling, Hampden, Whitley etc?
We know what these aircraft looked like, performed like and what they did.
Are we like some band of manic model collectors who want to tick off another new type on our ‘I’ve seen it’ list?It’s a thought innit??
Andy
Hi Andy, I’d respectfully disagree with you on this one. The Halifax at Hendon is an historical artefact. It is history alive and a powerful reminder of those crews who did not make it back. Suggesting that history can be taught solely by books/records is a strange way of thinking. Without primary sources such as these we are left with only corruptable secondary sources that leave us with a lesser understanding of the past. Are the fragments of ancient mosaic roman scrap? No, they are not. They are valuable resources from which we can learn about our past. Why do we preserve them? We preserve them to allow future generations to interpret ( seems to be in ‘in’ word 🙂 ) and study. Not simply to know they existed.
An interesting thread seems to have gone quite nasty, lets get it back on track.
best regards, steve
Hattontrevor howard 🙂
HattonIt will look even better when you fit it to the halifax pete 😉
fingers crossed.
Sign In
