Discovery Wings - The Cock ups.

[Conan the Librarian]

I have just written an email to the above UK TV channel to complain about the shoddy research and programme quality and now wish to catalogue some of the all too numerous cock ups and inaccuracies that abound, so that a fuller complaint can be sustained. I need your help!

Please post any howlers here, giving the nature of same, the programme and the time transmitted. For starters...

Ultimate Strike Aircraft, Sat Jan 14th @ 0415 (I know - head aching so can't sleep) Subject, 2 X F15 doing ACM, but lo!!! The no 2 suddenly becomes an F-14.


Come on chaps and chapesses. Lets' shame them.


Conan

[BEagle]

What bugs me most is when they try to use some modern videoclips in 'period' documentaries, rather than research the availability of genuine material. For example, in that 'Victors, Vulcans and Cuba' thing, most of the images were either of Victir tankers taken 30 yers later, or of '558 displaying. Surely there must be some period film stock available.

Though, that said, they did have a good weekend last year when they showed a few genuine old aviation documentaries.

[Wycombe]

A lot of dross, interspersed with a few good bits, like the "Classic British Aircraft" series from last year. The recent "building the A380" series was worth watching too, but they need to stop showing "Flightline" ("Hi, I'm Brendan O'Brian...."), and "An ex-RAF navigator flies..."

[Mr_Grubby]

What bugs me is how they always refer to aircraft performance in meters and kilometers.

A service ceiling of 20,000 meters means nothing. Aircraft height is measured in Flight Levels or thousands of feet. Not meters, unless in Russia !!
The same with speed. Use knots or mach numbers.

And another thing that gets me is how so many USA programms are so biased towards them. But thats not just on this station I suppose.

And another thing. The timing of their programms is often wrong. The number of times I have set up the video on timer only to find that I have missed the start/end because the programm started late or early.

There you go, rant over but I do feel better now.


Clint.

[Saab Dastard]

In a similar vein, the recent program on C5 about the development of the bomber had an (overlong) section on the amazing US Norden bombsight.

This allowed the USAAF to bomb with extraordinary accuracy etc. etc.

Yes indeed, the USAAF specialised in the Area Bombing of Precision Targets, while the RAF specialised in the Precision Bombing of Area Targets.

And as for introducing the B-17 as "the first strategic bomber"?

Weren't Wellintons, Stirlings and Halifaxes bombing Germany before the USA even entered the war? And weren't Lancasters in service before the B-17 arrived in Europe?

[Conan the Librarian]

Keep it up folks. I would love to get this thread to fill up and have sent a nicely worded "teaser" to the channel asking for a point of contact. It would be good to hit them between the eyes with the responses of an at least nominally well educated audience.

The programme that I watched this morning and referred to in the initial post, had another two points worthy of mention. The Typhoon factory in Clogland was called "Preston Airbase" and for a programme called Ultimate Strike Fighters, the lead in/out was a piee of film showing the dramatic shot of the runway on take off shot from just behind a twin nosewheel, belonging to the doyen of Air superiority/strike aircraft, the much feared C-130.

This is just bone idle and shoddy research. Come on - Let us put together a good list for them:}

Conan

PS If you can, include the name of prog and the date/time of Tx. Many thanks!

[Tim Inder]

I think the trusty zeppelins (lighter AND heavier than air) could lay claim to being the first strategic bombers - only about 20 years earlier than the B17!

I'll stick my name on the bottom of My Grubby's list re: units as well. 'pc' or not, aviation is mostly imperial...

[Reverand Lovejoy]

A service ceiling of 20,000 meters means nothing. Aircraft height is measured in Flight Levels or thousands of feet. Not meters, unless in Russia !!
The same with speed. Use knots or mach numbers.

MR_Grubby

With all due respect all pilots would refer to performance figures in knots or mach but not all people who watch Discovery Wings are pilots. I am a pilot and find it easier to compare aircraft performance in knots but the SI unit for distance is the meter which makes it fall in line with all the engineers and the normal people out there!!

It is not fair to say that because D.Wings are reporting a speed, distance, time measurement in a format different to your own that it is incorrect; different agreed, but still correct. Hwever, I do agree that mistakes are and will continue to be made. But credit where it is due. Atleast it's better than the wife making you watch 3 hours of soaps!!!!!!!! I don't care what units they use, as long as they stop the repeats! It's only a matter of time before Emmerdale becomes the viewing of choice.

The Reverand

[Mr_Grubby]

Reverand.

Thank you for pointing out the shortcomings in my posting.

I will be forever in your debt.


Grubby.

[Conan the Librarian]

2320Z Sunday 15 Jan

"Aircraft that never flew"

Talking of the B707 and yet showing a DC8


Conan

[Aeronut]

Having recently received "Discovery Wings" as a Christmas present (very thoughtful yet makes the MQ look more like a council house than before) I am disappointed with how often the shows are about custom cars - a few fins maybe but no wings! eg "RIDES" This is mis-selling. There are only 3 hours of aircraft shows each night (then repeated 9-12pm) so 2 hours of cars pretty much misleads. That is what the Discovery channel is for.......after American Chopper.

You have reminded me to contact Discovery Wings and complain.

[Bus429]

Why does "Aircraft that Never Flew" feature aircraft that did?

[Bahn-Jeaux]

What I want to know is why when I settle down for an evening of being a sofa orientated anorak do I have to watch some mega sized earth mover or car prancing across my screen with not an airfield in sight.

[LowNSlow]

My favourite is in program about the Battle of Britain. When talking about the fighters that won the Battle you are treated to a clip of a Spit doing a wing over followed by a clip of a Hawker TYPHOON complete with rockets on the underwing racks. Oops, bit of time travel going on there boys and girls....

[Archimedes]

The Flying Through Time episode on the F-104 is...er.... ahh... interesting.

Apparently, we should infer that the F-104 would be able to hand a good thrashing to the F-15 in WVR air-air combat. There were some other howlers (I'd have to subject myself to the programme again to remind myself what they were), but it suggested that someone had written the script using the Boys' Big Book of Aeroplanes as the key source.

While there was some decent contemporary footage of the F-104, the script was ill-informed tosh.

[Conan the Librarian]

This is useful stuff! Early days yet and no point of contact has been made known to me as yet, but the gaffes on "Wings" are so common, that it would be helpful to illustrate a goodly sample of them from a known and and plausible collection of critics.

I really don't know who the channel is targeted at, given the amateur quality of much of the programming (even that is when you find something aviation related these days.) Let's keep the thread going and have a body of evidence to present them with.

Conan

[FJJP]

Bus429 - I agree. I think 'Aircraft That Never Flew' is the wrong title - some of the ac were chopped after the prototype flew [eg, SARO 53]. Perhaps 'Aircraft Ideas That Never Made It' would be more appropriate...

[White Bear]

Quote:
Yes indeed, the USAAF specialised in the Precision Bombing of Area Targets, while the RAF specialised in the Area Bombing of Precision Targets.

And as for introducing the B-17 as "the first strategic bomber"?

Weren't Wellintons and Stirlings bombing Germany before the USA even entered the war? And weren't Halifaxes and Lancasters in service before the B-17 arrived in Europe?


Some days I visit this site and simply shake my head at the pedantry, then I read the above statement, and ON ONE says anything!

I do note that it is running down the cousins, but that is no reason to be horridly inaccurate, or blatantly wrong, especially in a thread whose subject is shoddy research……:uhoh:
Regards,
W.B.

[Tarnished]

In the Top 10 Fighters prog, they said that the F-4 Phantom was equipped with 2 Rolls Royce J79 engines.

[Saab Dastard]

WB - to what are you referring?

[TwinAisle]

Can I add another? The series (that hasn't admittedly run for a bit) with Neil Armstrong recounting aviation history. I wasn't aware that the 707 was the first jet on the Atlantic, I thought it was the Comet. Silly me...

[Tony M]

Most irritating for me are that most of the props in the post-ad sequence are going backwards.

[White Bear]

Saab Dastard,
Well apart from the jingoistic word games played in the first sentence, which interestingly enough, are not supported by Bomber Harris, (Harris knew just how inaccurate RAF night bombing had been until the advent of the PFF. Even with the PFF it took some time before things improved, further it could even be argued that PFF were the night time equivalent of the American ‘Lead Bomber’ idea, ensuring that all aircraft bombed the same target.), your statements about the B17 are simply not true.

The B 17 was quite possibly the first aircraft in the world that filled the role of a modern strategic ‘heavy’ bomber.
B17 first flight 1935. Range up to 3,500 miles
Stirling, first flight 1939. Range 1,500 miles
Halifax first flight 1939. Range 1,800 miles
Lancaster first flight 1941. Range up to 2,500 miles
Wellington, first flight 1936. Range 1,500 miles. (Fine air that is was, it was never considered a ‘heavy’ bomber.)

Lastly the B17 started RAF service in the summer of 1941, preceding into service almost all of England’s ‘heavies’ except the Stirling. B17’s remained in RAF service until 1946.

Personally I believe the Lancaster was a better bomber, but within the confines of your comments:

1. There is no good case to be made that either the RAF or The U.S. Army Air Corps were the more accurate with thier bombs.
2. The B17 probably was the world’s first strategic heavy bomber to fly.
3. B17’s preceded 2 of Britain’s ‘heavies’, the Lancaster’s and the Halifax, into RAF service.

I know American programs can be infuriatingly focused only on American involvement, but the problem is only they have the time, the money and the film to make these programs.

I think in the U.K. very little thought was given to preserving for future generations the record of WWII. (Imagine 1 Lancaster flying, no Halifax, no Stirlings, no Wellingtons, 1 Hurricane, it’s almost unforgivable.) Thank heavens the Americans have, in this at least, a different view.

Forgive them their arrogance, it’s only born of pride, and love of their country, something an Englishman should understand very well.
Regards,
W.B.

[Saab Dastard]

WB,

My point was about the OPERATIONAL use of the aircraft - I agree I didn't make this clear.

The B-17 was not used operationally by Bomber Command until much later in the war, post D-Day, by 214 and 233 squadrons - and even then in radio-countermeasures rather than bombing roles.

True, a few lend-lease Fortresses were used by RAF Coastal Command in 1940/41 - but this wasn't in the role of "Strategic Bomber", but as maritime / ASW patrol aircraft.

A more useful table of comparison:

B17 first operational sortie (Europe) August 1942, Bombload up to 4,000 lbs.
Stirling - first operational sortie Feb. 1941, Bombload 4-14,000 lbs.
Halifax - first operational sortie March 1941, 11,000 lbs.
Lancaster - first operational sortie March 1942, Bombload 14-22,000 lbs.

Even the Wimpey that you dismiss had a bombload comparable to the B-17.

Regarding bombing accuracy, at least the RAF admitted that they were area bombing. For the USAAF to claim that they were "Precision Bombing" is dis-ingenuous at best. The intention may have been there, but the reality was very, very different.

Come to think of it - the Germans really had the drop on all of these with the FW Condor, Range 2200 - 2700 miles and a bombload of 4500 - 5000 lbs. First flew 1936 and was in operational service by June 1940.

SD

[Onan the Clumsy]

I imagine one of the reasons there are so many more US aircraft than our plucky airframes still flying is that post war it was pretty grim in Britain and no one in their right mind would consider buying a surplas aircraft, in fact I hear a few people did, but just wanted them for the crates to make furniture out of. The Americans, on the other hand had a different sort of economy where buying a used airplane, for fun or profit was not quit so outlandish.

Then I think the terms of Lend-Lease meant we had to chop up a lot of stuff...Two; two main reasons Admiral!



Of course I could just be talking out of my hat (first worn in 1965, brim diameter 18 inches).

[brickhistory]

Oh, good! Another round of "ours were better than yours!" Always fun when a thread gets hi-jacked to that.....


One of the reasons so many of the shows are US-centric is that....ours were better! No wait, I meant to say that the production company for most of the shows is LA-based. Which translates to a US-slant due to, most likely, financial considerations. If the producers think most of the audience is going to be American, then the results are only to be expected. If UK channels/UK subsidiaries carry the shows, only more $ for the coffers............no excuse for the shoddy production gaffes and historical mistakes, however.


A point to remember, by the way, about the RAF and the then USAAF; RAF already was its own service. We still had to stage la revolucion to get free of our 'brown jobs.' Hence, the need to claim 'precision' bombing even after it was demonstrated as not always so.

[Conan the Librarian]

Just having a quick glimpse of tonights delights (33% cars again) and although this is not strictly the fault of Wings, I thought you might be as surprised as me, to find the following. (Click the info button)

7.00pm Flying through Time

"P47 Thunderbolt. Examine the Thunderbolt built during WW1." etc.etc.etc.

[Conan the Librarian]

Oooh... That prog about the P47.... (Flying through time) It does a bit about the F-104 too. According to it, the F-104 losses were largely due to the aircraft (Luftwaffe etc.) and yet the following prog (I saw that one a few hours ago) says that it was all the fault of the Luftwaffe. That following programme is titled, err.. "Flying thorugh time"...


Continuity error maybe?

Conan

PS I have already seen the following prog on the Starfighter, but until seeing it, I never knew that it would give the F-15 a hard time in air to air combat

[Aeronut]

What I want to know is why when I settle down for an evening of being a sofa orientated anorak do I have to watch some mega sized earth mover or car prancing across my screen with not an airfield in sight.


My point exactly. When I realised that I could identify a Ruston Bucyrus face shovel I felt duty bound to switch channels to watch "When Stunts Go Bad". Poor girl hurt her back dropping form a balloon onto a big mattress thingy - who'd have thought it eh?

[Conan the Librarian]

Wednesdays blog....

Did you know that the Sea Fury was powered by a rotary engine?

(Flying through time - Vought)

Confident that I might add more later.

Conan

[ICT_SLB]

Just a thought about "the first strategic bomber". My vote goes to the Imperial German Air Force Gothas & R Planes that carried out the daylight raids on the UK in the First World War. The loss of life & injured per ton of bombs dropped was so high that it gave the impetus to all the later "strategic bomber" theorists. If memory serves, London City expected casualties of around 40,000 per day if the same ratio occurred. (Don't have my copy of Constantine Fitzgibbon's The Blitz to hand to confirm that number).

[Conan the Librarian]

Woohoo! I got an email yesterday with a telephone number for complaints and will use that to get an address for a fuller response to Wings. I will give it another week, so remember - any howlers, please report them here, but also any comments about the channel good or bad, will be of use in putting a reasoned expression of general feeling together. Of course, the draft will go through this thread as well ( and the response too :} )

Thanks for your efforts all. Please give it another go this week.

Conan

[Off-Black]

Not sure if this applies to discovery wings (I don't get that down here, only history, natgeo, and discovery), but a lot of the doc's will be similar.....
My favourite is the american harrier doc that mentioned the types stunning combat successes.......in GW1. Having just shown footage of Falklands SHARS and GR3's.
A few recurring pet hates....

-inappropriate/wrong soundeffects that have been added to footage that would have been recorded silent.
-Basic lack of type ID. For example montage footage I've seen in an F15 doco included at various times, F14's, F18's, and even a Mig29 pretending to be Eagles.
-Further to above, bits about a particular type's combat success including gun camera footage of that type being shot down......

-Seems to be a basic lack of fact checking combined with a 'they will not notice the difference' attitude at work.

Not mentioning factual errors in narration, as they are too many and often. I basically just watch them for the footage.

[Conan the Librarian]

Sorry all, time has been very short this last week and have not been able to look at Wings much. However, last night the "Vulcans, Victors and Cuba" thingy was on yet again and I did note that while the narrator was banging on about the US mobilisation and the upped alert within its' Air Defence network, that the film was showing F-86s which were Canadian and of the national aerobatic team, the "Golden" somethings. Eagles? Swallows?

Told you I was too busy to watch at all closely! Many thanks for your help and views. Can't wait to fish them into biting, so to speak...


Conan

[MichaelJP59]

Just to add my thoughts and observations to this thread as I've been watching Discovery Wings since it started up in the UK.

- I think I've watched every single programme that they have, occasionally a new one comes on but they are few and far between.

- The channel is an "added value" part of the Discovery channels package, it's "cheap as chips" to run as virtually as all the programmes were bought years ago. It runs entirely automatically with no production staff required.

- There are some gems in there, just not shown very often. I thought the Aviation Nostalgia weekend was excellent, especially the 50's and 60's stuff and have recorded all to DVD for archiving.

- "Flightline" is well past its sell-by date. I've never met Brendan O'Brien and initially thought he came across as incredibly false, his speech larded with cliches, but according to people that have met him, he really does talk like that !!!

- Lastly, I don't think you'll change much by complaining, but it's still worth doing as Discovery will be no doubt amazed to find that people actually watch the programmes and listen to the scripts!