Re: history channel

What about it??? Are we talking about the Secret Planes series running
tonight?
Developed by Horten Bros. built by Gotha. The GO229 I think is correct. This
show was full of errors IMO.
Did anyone other than me have a problem when they said Northrop employees
paid a visit to the
Smithsonian to have a look at the Go229 in storage.
Then went on to develop the B-2. Pardon me but no mention of Jack Northrop
and his flying wing developments, nor the fact that the B-2 has the exact
wingspan of the YB-49. I guess the Germans had the market cornered on flying
wing technology. NOT!
Also I had a problem with there mis-pronunciation of several things. Ernst
oooohday (Udet). Although his name was correctly uttered during the Japanese
Planes show right after. Go figure.
Cmon guys.
The show on later about the Allied Secret Planes paid fair homage to Jack
Northrop though.
Not mentioning the P-59 even in passing was a huge mistake IMO.
Cheers,
Max Bryant
ho229?
Reply to
M Bryant
Loading thread data ...
yep, the kept saying ho229. they pronounced galland three ways.
Reply to
someone
Well said!
The Keeper (of too much crap!)
Reply to
Keeper
What's even stranger about some of these shows is that the documentary companies that make them on contract for the History Channel or Discovery contact people who know something about the subject. They then seem to ignore those peoples' advice. I've been e-mailed to and had phone calls from various people who work for these organizations and I tell them what they need to know or point them to a person that is a recognized authority, but you wouldn't know it by the end result your see on TV.
The other thing I've seen is if "experts" are interviewed for a show, they are often people that have nothing to do with the given subject. So you get former USAF fixed-wing pilots talking about Army helicopter operations, for example. It's not that the show producers couldn't find the people who know the nitty-gritty, it's just that the person who is being put up as an "expert" may have a contract with the History or TDC and you see them on multiple military history-related shows talking about stuff which other people may know in much more detail. A certain ex-director of the NASM comes readily to mind.
John Hairell ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com)
Reply to
John Hairell
: : Did anyone other than me have a problem when they said Northrop employees : paid a visit to the : Smithsonian to have a look at the Go229 in storage. : The original "Wings" episodes were pretty good, but the later crap are little more than entertainment, and only for spuds at that.
Had they mentioned that Northrop was working on flying wings, and was significantly along in that development, then the "gee whiz, if only they had had them sooner" aspect would have gone out of the window.
Same thing with the "Secret Weapons of Japan" show. Where where they going to get the trained pilots? How do you take off/land when the enemy planes are circleing your airfield? And when did they perfect the torpedo that could withstand a 500 mph impact with the water?
I find that I watch little that the Fantasy, err, HISTORY Channel airs. Far too much of their stuff is schlock from the historical perspective.
Bruce
Reply to
Bruce Burden
The F-18 program on tonight was kind of off too. At one point they talked of the MiG-25 and seemed to identify the Mig-29 shown flying as a 'Foxbat'. They skipped over the angled deck developed for carriers, got the chronology of deck improvements screwed up and totally did not mention that Northrop had developed the P-530 Cobra design before the LWF program came into being. I started to lose my interest midway into the show.
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Reply to
Mad-Modeller
Could be the ghost of Stephen. E. Ambrose wandering the halls of the History Channels archives? Mike IPMS
Reply to
Mike Keown
Good one. I found Ambrose's book Band of Brothers full of errors. He may know some areas of history, but his aviation history was bad. Worst thing was his claim that the DC-3 was the most advanced US airliner flying at US entry into WW2. Hope Lockheed (Connie), Douglas (DC-4), and Boeing (Stratoliner) don't get too upset with such claims.
Mike Keown wrote:
Reply to
Don Stauffer

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.