Battle of Britain: Model Squadron

[Nightflyer]

Enjoyed watching this so far, but then it is always good to get modelling some tv coverage and at a decent day and time too. Good to have both British and German modellers too and some of the personal stories too.

[Kim Taylor]

I'm a bit late to the party, having just watched the first episode on catch up.

I thought it went pretty well really, some of the flying was a bit 'iffy' but maybe that was the conditions - as others have said, the take offs in particular seem to have been affected by the 'strip'.

The point I really wanted to make was that I watched right to the end of the credits, waiting for the BMFA to be referenced for anyone wanting to take up the hobby, but nothing.

Bearing in mind that the BMFA were involved insofar as asking for 'volunteers' to come forward, I'd have thought they would have at least got a one line credit.

Massive opportunity missed, imo

Kim

[John Lancaster 2]

Posted by Kim Taylor on 14/09/2018 23:55:58:

I'm a bit late to the party, having just watched the first episode on catch up.

I thought it went pretty well really, some of the flying was a bit 'iffy' but maybe that was the conditions - as others have said, the take offs in particular seem to have been affected by the 'strip'.

The point I really wanted to make was that I watched right to the end of the credits, waiting for the BMFA to be referenced for anyone wanting to take up the hobby, but nothing.

Bearing in mind that the BMFA were involved insofar as asking for 'volunteers' to come forward, I'd have thought they would have at least got a one line credit.

Massive opportunity missed, imo

Kim

The BMFA appeared in the 4th group of names on the credits Kim, headed "With Thanks", along with the RAF and the RAFMAA. Easy to miss it the speed the credits scroll...

[David Elam]

This is one of those programmes that I feel as though I should watch in case I miss something interesting. Unfortunately at the end I feel as though it's been a waste of 60 minutes.

I actually applied to be one of the participants and got through the first interview stage before I realised that I had better things to do with the estimated 10 days of my time that I'd have to be there for.

[Chris Walby]

I might be wrong, but if the TV business is anything like the film industry then its a very time consuming process.

We opened our site for filming which consisted of three weekends (+14 hour days) and the clip lasts a matter of seconds in the film!

Still not sure about the documentary or the reliability of the models used, but the FPV is interesting.

[Kim Taylor]

Posted by John Lancaster 2 on 16/09/2018 18:51:03:

Posted by Kim Taylor on 14/09/2018 23:55:58:

I'm a bit late to the party, having just watched the first episode on catch up.

I thought it went pretty well really, some of the flying was a bit 'iffy' but maybe that was the conditions - as others have said, the take offs in particular seem to have been affected by the 'strip'.

The point I really wanted to make was that I watched right to the end of the credits, waiting for the BMFA to be referenced for anyone wanting to take up the hobby, but nothing.

Bearing in mind that the BMFA were involved insofar as asking for 'volunteers' to come forward, I'd have thought they would have at least got a one line credit.

Massive opportunity missed, imo

Kim

The BMFA appeared in the 4th group of names on the credits Kim, headed "With Thanks", along with the RAF and the RAFMAA. Easy to miss it the speed the credits scroll...

Ah OK my bad, as the kids apparently say nowadays.

Yes the credits do whizz by a bit and also on the catch up version I watched, went down to about 1/4 screen as they trailed another program. I should've double checked

Kim

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ASH.]

Posted by Martin McIntosh on 11/09/2018 22:21:34:

It would have been really nice if they had also shown what I would call `proper` i/c models being flown before the obviously necessary for the program foamie ones.

Totally agree Martin.

I found it amateurish and a bit boring. Some of the history was interesting though. (Episode 1)

 

Edited By ASH. on 17/09/2018 00:16:29

[Geoff S]

I've just watched episode 2 and, on the whole, enjoyed it but I was also surprised at how incompetent a lot of the flying was. I mean there was at least 3 pilots there who had no experience of flying fixed wing models at all and would have failed an 'A' certificate test comprehensively. It also seemed odd how may of the 110s had motor trouble and, as a result of (presumably) asymetric thrust spun in. I wonder if they were properly built and checked before flying. They can't be that bad. I've never had a serious (ie catastrophic) failure of a brushless motor in many, many hours of flying electric models.

I was rather sad at the attrition rate of perfectly good models. Still I'll certainly watch the next (last?) episode.

Geoff

[cymaz]

Even though rather programme is about the Battle of Britain, they’ve missed trick. It’s a shame they have not covered other events. They could have included the Dawn Patrol with a WW 1 item. And the Dam Busters with the LMA Lancasters

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by cymaz on 17/09/2018 05:58:16:

Even though rather programme is about the Battle of Britain, they’ve missed trick. It’s a shame they have not covered other events. They could have included the Dawn Patrol with a WW 1 item. And the Dam Busters with the LMA Lancasters

Maybe the success of this with Joe Public will sow the seeds for future programs.

[J D 8]

Those 110's were a bit rubbish,as the German team said they are supposed to be good to go from the box but overheating of the motors/EEC's was the problem.

[Colin Carpenter]

Just watched last night's program . The point of the newbies was they represented the young pilots with only 10 hours on Spits who often only lasted one patrol . Realistic !!! Good balance of history and fun .!! Colin

[John Roberts 9]

Overall I have quite enjoyed the 2 programmes so far,

There were certainly question marks in my mind about the quality of some of the piloting skills and the large number of models that were crashed and/or destroyed but I found the historical insights very interesting.

On reflection and giving the programme makers the benefit of the doubt I assume that the novice RC pilots were deliberately included in order to reflect that many of the incredibly brave real life WW2 pilots also had little training or experience before being pitched into deadly combat. Similarly, the attrition rate amongst the models served to emphasise the real life dangers when pilot life expectancy was less than 4 weeks. Sobering thoughts indeed.

Having 'show standard' pilots flying all the models would doubtless have made for a more impressive display in terms of pure piloting skills but no way would it have properly reflected the true historical perspective and, to be fair, that is what this particular series of shows is attempting to portray.

[Colin Carpenter]

John ! I fully agree ! Colin

[Nigel Heather]

Posted by Geoff Sleath on 17/09/2018 00:17:15:

I've just watched episode 2 and, on the whole, enjoyed it but I was also surprised at how incompetent a lot of the flying was. I mean there was at least 3 pilots there who had no experience of flying fixed wing models at all and would have failed an 'A' certificate test comprehensively. It also seemed odd how may of the 110s had motor trouble and, as a result of (presumably) asymetric thrust spun in. I wonder if they were properly built and checked before flying. They can't be that bad. I've never had a serious (ie catastrophic) failure of a brushless motor in many, many hours of flying electric models.

I was rather sad at the attrition rate of perfectly good models. Still I'll certainly watch the next (last?) episode.

Geoff

The programmed mentioned this as a deliberate act to simulate new pilots turning up with barely any flying hours.

The new pilots had one or more years flying FPV Quadcopters under their wings - so the programme makers were comparing this with green pilots that had dine some flying but barely anything on performance warplanes like the Spitfire and Hurricane.

The Bf-110 - I suspect that was a design error - I can’t see what the guys assembling it could have done wrong. In these cits the motors and ESCs are already in place - really just a matter of plugging the servo wire into the receiver.

The fact that it was the port motor in each case and the starboard one was fine smells of manufacturing error to me.

It did puzzle me that so many aircraft crashed in the final battle once they had been ‘hit’ and the smoke triggered.  I don’t beleive the pilots were that bad, I suspect this was under instruction from the programme makers to make the action more exciting for the viewers.  I know we look at it as a waste but in the big picture of TV production the cost of those kits would be trivial.

Cheers,

Nigel

Edited By Nigel Heather on 17/09/2018 10:21:41

Edited By Nigel Heather on 17/09/2018 10:24:16

Edited By Nigel Heather on 17/09/2018 10:25:02

[Ian Jones]

Hmm, very mixed thoughts on it.

The models, regardless of the construction or power source, were not realistic enough in flight, as mentioned elsewhere they could at least have weighted them a little to improve their sit in the air. The take-offs shown were too often rushed with instant high speed from standing. That might might be excused by the short strip but the immediate steep climb out is down the pilots, perhaps the good take-offs fell on the cutting room floor, or perhaps the producers/editors didn't know the difference. That the producers failed to provide/find a decent strip is by far the greatest weakness. Gives the impression of working to a budget with corners cut in the wrong places.

Still it's fair to say I have enjoyed the programmes so far, including the history and I think taken from "Joe Soap" point of view probably didn't to our hobby any harm, though I think they could have done better for us.

I'll watch the last one to complete the series and hope that if there's any follow up that the model selection is better. These looked good on the ground but in the air needed more "presence". They do not need to be foam to ensure they all the same scale which I think was mentioned somewhere and actually some spars and ribs in crashed models would have been more realistic.

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Ian Jones on 17/09/2018 10:35:41:

and I think taken from "Joe Soap" point of view probably didn't to our hobby any harm, though I think they could have done better for us.

I think on reflection, that 'we' were not the target audience. Not by a long way. Joe Public wants to see a lot of hairy flying, and crashes - it's part of the entertainment.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 17/09/2018 10:49:21:

Posted by Ian Jones on 17/09/2018 10:35:41:

and I think taken from "Joe Soap" point of view probably didn't to our hobby any harm, though I think they could have done better for us.

I think on reflection, that 'we' were not the target audience. Not by a long way. Joe Public wants to see a lot of hairy flying, and crashes - it's part of the entertainment.

I think this is a vital point to hang on to. The programme is not made for us, if it were:

a) It probably never would have been made at all!

b) If it was it would last 30mins,

c) be made as cheap as possible and

d) would be aired at 3:00am!

This is peak time television - the audience is Joe Public, so it has to interest him, entertain him, be comprehendible by him and at the same time build in some history and a bit of modelling/flying technique. A tall order!

I think they do well actually. One thing to remember about Joe Public (and bear in mind we are all 'Joe Public for some programme or other) is that he likes a small number of messages - he doesn't want the whole complex multi-dimensional truth of it all - the KISS principal applies. So what few messages would we like (remember we can't have it all!) I think the programme projects the following few messages relevant to our activities and what we want to see:

a) Model flying is fun - you have a laugh

b) Sometimes its difficult - both in the air and in the workshop

c) We are actually pretty "normal" and approachable - well as normal as most minority interests.

And that's it really - but if I was going to pick three messages to get across about our hobby as a first go on prime time TV I don't think I'd have chosen radically differently - they seem an OK choice to me.

BEB

[Nigel R]

Agree with BEB on all counts, it's doing a pretty good job of showcasing us as a bunch of fairly normal guys doing our niche interest thing on primetime TV, all things considered.

[Cuban8]

I was pretty scathing with my comments about the first programme, but I did watch it again and I stand by what I said. I wasn't going to watch part 2 but out of curiosity more than anything else, I've just watched it on catch up. I have to say that this episode started a bit better than I expected and from Joe Public's perspective there were plenty of models getting smashed up, and people acting daft. Perhaps a full on row between the pro and non buddy box camps would have gone down well in the Tiger Moth training piece.

James Holland, as before, is the moderating factor that stops the whole entity descending into game show or reality TV dross thank goodness. I thought I could live with it until the infantile, schoolboy antics of the 'barrage balloon' constructors and their chosen method of construction.

This whole endeavour could have been so much better in another format, but once again we get tarred with the slightly odd and boys with toys brush. I think its awful publicity for the hobby.

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 17/09/2018 12:30:03

[andyh]

Posted by Cuban8 on 17/09/2018 12:20:06:

... we get tarred with the slightly odd and boys with toys brush.

pretty accurate then

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by andyh on 17/09/2018 14:25:57:

Posted by Cuban8 on 17/09/2018 12:20:06:

... we get tarred with the slightly odd and boys with toys brush.

pretty accurate then

+1

[Mowerman]

Boys with toys, I doubt many of us would argue about that. No worse than boys knocking balls into holes with sticks or sitting by the pond drowning worms. The point that this was a hobby done for pleasure was made.

[Cuban8]

Posted by Mowerman on 17/09/2018 15:16:41:

Boys with toys, I doubt many of us would argue about that. No worse than boys knocking balls into holes with sticks or sitting by the pond drowning worms. The point that this was a hobby done for pleasure was made.

It's all a matter of tone IMHO. Take the myriad of angling programmes that can be found on TV - I'm not an angler but I find them entertaining, informative and amusing, which they manage to be without AFAIA, anyone falling into the water or reeling in an old supermarket trolly to howls of canned laughter. Same for golf - anyone remember the chat show format of 'A round with Alliss'?