How Historically Accurate is 'Masters of the Air' Trailer? Review & Analysis
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
- This is a NEW historical accuracy review of Apple's Masters of the Air trailer. Some of the clips are accurate some have some historical challenging content. The topic challenged include front sight posts on the upper and ball turret Machine gun barrels, parachute deployments too soon, German interceptor rocket attack tactics and like in the first review crew members not using oxygen masks at high altitude.
8 minutes and 20 seconds of non-stop wall-to-wall information. Awesome video! I love this channel.
As a model builder I greatly appreciate both your accurate information & supporting logical images, backed by evidence, rather than compiled assumptions, like many YT contributors. Keep up the excellent work.
Why are the krauts shown as flying bf 109 e? (In 1943?), instead of 109 g? That isn't accurate in detail. Otherwise it's not bad graphics or narrative 👍
@RollandB By 1942 the Luftwaffe had already retired the 109e and adapted to the 109f, as well as fw190 series. So, regardless of the year, the bf 109e wasn't intercepting USAAF bombers during the US daylight bombing campaigns (1942-45). Luftwaffe had already upgraded to the 109f & g model 109 before operation torch. Accuracy is important regarding educational films of value. Any additional questions? 👍
@RollandB In this case it's a lot like being truthful during the course of a technical discussion regarding accuracy of an interesting film based upon an actual historical event. There is also a sidebar debate regarding the accuracy of the film and whether it's a documentary or just an entertaining cartoon. I guess one had to be there to appreciate such details... And so it goes lol
@@togodamnus I think these video Graphic planes look real enough. In the Battle Of Britain movie the fake Spanish Bf-109s threw me off .
Graphic planes can show the real sizes of large formations much better than real planes can with better angels of view .
@@togodamnus What time in the video did it show a E version?
E version are easy to to notice with clipped wing tips (Not round) and a support bar holding up the rear elevators' .
Got to admit your attention to detail and backed up by hard evidence is impressive. Shame they didn’t use you as the technical advisor on this series.
Technical advisers are there to just be shown on the credits. They will rarely if ever consult them on anything. Lindybeige once described a conversation with a historian who was technical advisor to some medieval movie. They asked him once about some flags, he told them these are completely wrong and that was all he was asked to do.
I love your admittedly niche place in TH-cam. Details are important!
Just one minor note, those are actually P-40s dropping napalm, there's also a cockpit shot immediately after showing the pilot in a P-40.
100 percent agree, those are definitely p-40s. And I believe that it's supposed to be depicting the Tuskegee Airmen, who actually flew the P-40 for the first part of the war before they were giving P-51 Mustangs.
If that's the case then it does show that they have an attention to detail
@@Wyomingchief10 years we spent on it. the attention to detail is like NOTHING THAT HAS EVEBR BEEN MADE
Regarding the P-51 napalm attack: Dive bombing with pull-ups at tree top altitude, in close parade formation, at night? If this was actually done I am very surprised.
Yeah those are not p-51s, they're actually P-40 warhawks, which if I remember correctly is what the Tuskegee Airmen were flying at that time of the war just prior to getting the p-51s
As for the crew bailing out and pulling their chutes early, it happened more often than you might think. I'm NOT an expert but have read numerous 8th books and attended many reunions. There were many times when a crew member pulled his chute too soon. Chalk it up to young rookie crews or the fact that this was the first and only time they jumped from a burning plane.
Correct , You MUST Remember the official AAF Rule books were often Forgotten or Disregarded during ACTUAL
COMBAT Situations !!
sometimes the rip got caught too. but yeah I agree with below comment.
As someone who hates historical inaccuracies in films, especially high budget examples, I appreciate your time,effort and experience in bringing these comparatively small things to light, I would have only picked up on the two rocket scenes with the FW-190’s all the rest were just things that I didn’t know anything about.
I was wondering if you caught them on a normal speed viewing or if you had to slow it down, if you picked up on them at normal speed I must compliment you on your eyesight and quick mind, especially when it came to the gun turret/MG sights, my old eyes would have probably needed 4-5 times viewing, and that is if I knew what I was looking for.
Anyway, thanks again for an excellent review, interesting and informative. 😀👍🇬🇧🏴🇺🇸🇺🇦🇮🇱
This review was more than worth my time. :-) Excellent work, yet again, WW2USB.
"Creative license" is one thing but sometimes it's a little over-the-top. Sight posts is minor. Only history purists like us would notice that error. The rocket attack being done wrong is definitely stretching things simply to make it look more dramatic (as if actually fighter attacks weren't dangerous enough) but the one thing thus far that is the most glaring error is showing Tuskegee Airmen operating with the 8th Air Force.
It’s so frustrating living in this politically correct force fed time…
Yea, I don't think I'm gonna bother with it, after seeing that first trailer it burst the bubble for me that's been swelling up over the year's waiting for it to finally get made, but I just can't take anymore of the PC nonsense, they've ruined everything with it the past 6 years or so and I won't support it even by just tuning in.
There is nothing historically incorrect about inclusion of Tuskegee Airmen in the series. They are portrayed in single episode, attacking radar installations in Toulon, France. Some of them end up in Stalag with bomb crews. In the trailer, they are not shown flying with 100th and they will not be shown flying with 100th in the series.
There is literally no evidence of the show showing the Tuskegee Airmen operating with the 8th. Their inclusion only occurs in one episode as some are shot down over Southern France and are introduced to the main characters in Stalag Luft III. It was written as a vehicle to enter the POW camps.
@@dukecraig2402 There's literally no evidence of PC in the show.
This is one of your best videos yet.
High quality historically accurate information combined with modern media.
This cross over of topics should significanly improve the way the algorithm views your video. 👍
All filmmakers must be allowed a certain amount of poetic license. Many of these inaccuracies, however, go beyond reasonableness for the sake of what the director thought would look cool.
for example?
@@johnorloff3738 Firing rockets in a beam attack is just ridiculous. Beam attacks themselves were rare & desperate moves vs. US heavies.
Thanks for this accuracy check!
I see a great future for your channel after the premiere of this TV series :D Really nice review, i can't wait for yours reviews of the episodes :D
Full of fascinating snippets! All of which add a bit to help understand "what it was like".
I love that the TH-cam algorithm has surfaced these trailers to me on your channel, rather than to official ones.
Hopefully the makers take note and fix some of the more straightforward CGI errors
Sadly, it looks like the people doing the aerial visual effects for this series opted for fantasy over realism. (This is all too common, unfortunately.)
Not true.
It's not the primary job of a TV drama to be an historical documentary. Based on the evidence so far, the creators of this series have done a significantly above-average job of blending historical elements into something that is actually watchable and entertaining in the eyes of the mass audience it needs to attract and hold, in order to be a viable project at all
@@harryspeakup8452 Okey, but it will showing people wrong picture of such battles. For example this crew members bailed out and opened parachutes to early. It would be nice to show the audience that they need to go lower to open it, or maybe why they should do it lower.
@@harryspeakup8452 _Based on the evidence so far, the creators of this series have done a significantly above-average job of blending historical elements into something that is actually watchable and entertaining in the eyes of the mass audience_
(1) The live action seems pretty good in terms of historical authenticity. The aerial visual effects are apparently nowhere near that standard.
(2) Your statement presumes depicting aerial combat accurately cannot be exciting. This is a false presumption.
@@primmakinsofis614
"(2) Your statement presumes depicting aerial combat accurately cannot be exciting. This is a false presumption."
My understanding is that for most veterans 'combat' was 95% boredom and 5% utter terror and adrenaline.
Aside from a few moments watching movies when I was much younger (the 'cricket' scene in 'The Longest Day' springs to mind) there have been few scenes that have really captured that.
Often it's most effective when it's the sheer absence (The Dambusters and the missing crew).
I'll watch the series at some point but I have to admit I'm not in any hurry.
This series may end up being entertaining in a Star Wars type way but as far as it being a gritty realistic portrayal of WWII aerial combat, a aerial BoB of sorts, these trailers don’t fill me with much hope.
Agreed. This one just doesn't look up to the standard of the previous two so I'll take a wait & see attitude. Certainly not subscribing to Apple TV for it.
Great video!
Too bad they did not hire you as a consultant for the movie!
Yes, a historical documentary should be accurate
@@mazdarx7887But this is not a historical documentary. It is a fictional story in an historical setting
@@harryspeakup8452 Both of you are wrong. It is not a documentary, and it is not a fictional story. The characters are real people, and the story is based on true events, however the show itself is a drama series.
@@harryspeakup8452 That's right, so why expect it to be historically accurate as the vid portrays.
I bet they hired a diversity, equity, and inclusion council. I’d really like to be wrong on this, as I study the Army Air Corps during this time. Sadly, like every other program, my guess this one too will be plagued with woke Hollywood nonsense, yet ruining another potential series. These people just can’t help themselves. The last several (historically set) movies or series we’ve attempted to watch were plagued with either race/gender swapping, homosexual behavior, or an authoritarian smug “strong female” lead…
Great detailed video. My dad was a radio operator in b-17 from 42 -44. He was shot down on his last mission over Hungary (POW in Stalag iv) and informed me he did not receive any actual parachute training jumping out of a plane in his basic training. So far the trailer appears to be accurate enough to provide the viewer of what missions were actually like which is the intent of the movie. However, it is just a trailer but so far so good. Really enjoyed your expertise reviewing the finer points.
Love it, great content.
Another excellent evaluation. Thank you, I look forward to your uploads.
When bailing out, the two main reasons that they were told to free-fall until after "that old floating feeling" were to slow to a lower terminal velocity and to stabilize the crewman in his fall, thus reducing the chances of tangled shroud lines. When first jumping, the body was not stable, and might be tumbling or spinning, but air resistance would stop this within a few seconds -- relaxed body will arrow downwards.
Good point, thanks. I was wondering how they would tell their altitude, or if they were told to count to, say, 30.
If they don't have the love of the story to get the details right, then, in my experience, it is a sub par entertaining. I fear this is going to be no where near the level of Band of Brothers or The Pacific.
How do you know?
Very good. No fuss, no personality chatting away looking at the camera, just the facts mam. Looking forward to any reviews you do of the series.
I was fearing they could never top Band of Brothers in terms of accuracy. Seems like this is the case.
Band of Brothers put the entire cast through a nearly realistic boot camp, airborne school, etc and straight up recreated Easy Company. How do you do that with an 8th AF movie? I mean if they chartered all of the B-17's left flying maybe, but still it was night on an impossible task. Doesn't mean they couldn't have made the effort with the individual crews that are the stars of the show.
Band of Brothers wasnt accurate lol
Very insightful accuracy check. There is always a balance of accuracy and dramatic effect in any historical drama but a reasonable effort at accuracy is a necessity to portray the essence of the bomber crew (in this film) experience.
I do not think you can get more dramatic than been under attack in 1943 over Germany with no escort protection I once read the Mission Book writen about the infamous 2nd Scheinfurt raid or Black Thursday the biggest single day losses that the U.S Airforce ever had in its History in 1943 that saw all air deep penertration ops suspended for a time while the US Military came up with better tactics and the P51 and P38 long range Fighters came into use. The Book the Schweinfurt raid was a gripping read filled with first hand accouts from both attackers and defenders even people caught on the ground during the raid. There was more than enough drama in those tails without straying off real world facts something Hollywood keeps doing .at least CGI allows for the creation of period Fighters and Bomber in the correct amounts.
Errors will be more common now with most of those who served in the Air conflict having passed away from both sides of the conflict.
It is nice to see that after a long wait after the excellent Band of Bothers and the Pacific WW2 Drama's that they finally have produced a series telling the story of the Air war over Europe.
At a time when War is very much in the minds of us Europeans with the current conflict in the east again.
The sight post on turret guns is particularly egregious. You need only to have a bit of common sense to realize that turret/ball gunners are not sighting down those barrels, but rather between them. Nice catch, and the creators ought to go in and adjust their CGI on that asap.
Never expect show business productions to be historically accurate.
They should be accurate , if they are going to make a historical documentary, it should be right.
When Tony Scott was making Top Gun a bunch of the F14 RIO's were bitching at him one day about what the radar screen looked like in the film, which is like the typical image people have of a radar screen with an arm that's constantly swinging around 360°, he told them "I'm making a movie for the general public and not a training film for F14 RIO's".
His point was, and it's a very good one, if they built a set that had an actual radar image that an F14 RIO has nobody would understand that it's a radar because the real one doesn't look anything like what the general public has an image of in their mind when you say radar.
Even that aside little things like sight posts that shouldn't be there is no big deal, because it's a movie and not an educational film in a history course someone's taking in a university, small details like fighter's attacking from the wrong direction while using rockets is nothing compared to transferring a fighter unit into the 8th Air Force that wasn't in it for the sake of political correctness.
As soon as I saw that in the first trailer a while back I knew I'd be passing on this one.
@@dukecraig2402 Hehehe, guess he don't know the difference between TV movie and documentary.
@@mazdarx7887 It is NOT an historical documentary, nor does it portray itself as such
It IS a historical documentary. Based on the book. I read it and am losing faith.
Great review...👍
For comparison, as I recall, the effective range of the quad 50 and Vulcan 20mm guns used on B-52s in Vietnam was 1600 yards. This would constitute a 60% improvement over the 1000 yard range of the B-17 twin tail guns. Of course, these were postwar guns with higher cyclic rates, computer assisted sighting systems, and presumably superior ammo.
The CGI still isn't there yet. Still looks cartoonish to ppl who fly real airplanes.
Fair, but it's a lot better in this than in some horror like 'Pearl Harbour' though. Improving.
Yeah. Even normal computer games are getting pretty good. Give it another 5-10 yrs.@@harryspeakup8452
On an artistic level... The CGI is very crude and unsatisfying. It's essentially a video game. From what I can see, the script and acting are probably going to be equally superficial.
They're still doing post production even now. There's been some updates on some scenes from the first teaser and they already look better.
@6:24 - the guns would have been unloaded & cleared before landing? I mean for sure you don’t want MGs loaded if there’s a crash and fire? There must have been an SOP when to unload? I find it hard to believe that the waist guns would be stowed loaded? Like if one’s goes off it’s pointed straight up the aircraft.
Good catch on the sight posts. Wonder how they didn’t realize the impossibility of the turret gunners getting their eye behind either gun lol.
If crew came back shot to pieces and were dealing with a medical situation I could see that being neglected potentially
Great Video nd Commentary . There are a couple Mistakes as can be mistaken , but overall your Narration is Spot On ...
Keep up the Great Work : )
Those animated German fighters seem to be flying at jet fighter speeds.
Regarding that ring sight at the end, would they really have used 10-24 nuts and bolts to construct it?
Evidently post-production work is still being done on this series. Let's see if some of the inaccuracies highlighted here are corrected when the series airs Jan 26th.
Would love a critical look at Red Tails, about the Tuskegee airmen. The movie was so bad, I walked out 30 minutes into it. Atrocious. They deserved better.
Yeah, my bro amd I saw it opening day. We thought, hey, if the story was bad at least the dogfights would be cool to see. 5 mins into the movie we just looked at each other and said, "aw shit". Lol
If this does well maybe we can get a dedicated Operation Tidal Wave feature film.
Watched the first two episodes last nite. Two thumbs up from me. I assume we'll get a review from our host (?)
Fascinating attention to detail. Nevertheless Masters of the Air is intended to showcase the humanity and heroism of the 8th, not how they tied their boots or brushed their teeth. Mistakes will always be made in depicting historical dramas. Let the series speak for itself.
The Mustang in the trailer, I think, were Ds. If the setting is 43-44, it'd be great to see Bs/Cs in action.
Sometimes Things are done in a movie because it is not possible to duplicate the actual event and sometimes for dramatic license.
Having just jumped out of a B17, how do I know when I am at the right altitude to pull my chute?
Some early .50cals had those sites on them. The video footage shot of the Memphis Bell and other fortresses early in the war show them. So either that footage was done post-flight for dramatic purposes...or they did have those sites.
All single, hand-held, flexible guns (waist, radio, and nose) had ring and bead sights. Dual guns in powered turrets (upper, and ball), and in the tail, did not but rather used other sighting systems. This video is correct; there should be no posts on guns mounted in the upper turret or ball turret. Most of the gunnery footage in The Memphis Belle is of the waist and radio positions where the guns did have posts.
I would like to know if "bomber destroyer" German aircraft equipped with the 30 mm MK-108 likewise only attacked from the rear, or possibly the flanks as well. Given that their effective range was only something like 300 meters one would think that a head-on attack or a diving attack from directly above would result in them having to wait to open fire at ranges where a collision was likely.
Could you do a similar video on the movie "Twelve O'Clock High" from 1949? It has some interesting scenes, a mix of Hollywood and and actual footage.
I fear that what I’ve seen does not bode well for realism as far the shots of b-17s in formation. Some of these cgi shots have the proximity of the planes cartoonishly close and look like a cut and paste with even lighting on each plane. I expected better but maybe (and one can hope) there is a lot of post production still happening and producers are watching some of this feedback.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yeah I think you need to go back and do some more reading and studying about the 8th air force. When Curtis LeMay was teaching the pilots under his command he literally wanted the planes to have their wings overlapping. The closer and Tighter the formation was the better defensive fire they could put out.
One of the big criticisms of the hundredth Bomb Group during that Schweinfurt raid when they lost so many aircraft, was because they were not flying close enough together.
This is not modern bomber formations, so I think you might be overestimating your criticisms
And I think you're overlooking a lot of the details that they do get right. The brief image of the planes dropping napalm, are actually P-40 Warhawk. And I believe they are depicting the Tuskegee Airmen on a low-level mission, and that would be correct for them to be flying to p-40. They flew that prior to getting the P-51.
So yeah there's a few discrepancies, but yeah you're going to have that in every movie I think again you're being overly critical and overestimating what your thinking you see wrong
I’m sure it will be fine. I’ve done my share of reading. Just it was looking a little cut and paste. People seem very sensitive to anything offered other than praise.
awesome video, thanks.
This channel is great!
The movie wasn't too accurate if they had the Red Tails in the movie. The book Masters of the Air was the story of the 8th Air Force out of England. The Red Tails were based out of Italy and were part of the 15th Air Force and flew cover for the 15th Air Force. So, should not have been included in a movie based on a book telling the story of the 8th Air Force.
Point of interest - at 00:45 you write grey (GB English) rather than gray (US English). Any particular reason? (Sorry, English teacher so these things are important to me!)
It appears to me that the night-time ground attack scene in the trailer is actually P-40s and not P-51s. I suspect that the series will give a bit of a condensed backstory to the Tuskee Airmen characters showing their progression from P-40s to P-51s. There has also been a production still released of one of the black pilots standing by his P-40.
Still after all this time they cannot get it correct, such a shame..
Will you do checks on the full series?
That is the plan.
I tried one of those 21cm rockets in DCS and I don't understand how any pilot could have scored hits with one of those things.
as you can see here it was so easy that you could do it from any direction 😄
I'm not sure they were meant to. I think primarily they were to break up the formation, so it you can create a gap for a few seconds another fighter can get in and attack.
a wealth of information 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
1:31 ADF is an automatic direction finder NOT an aerial direction finder
The first thing that I noticed was how often they show the props turning the wrong direction in CGI....how hard would that have been to get right? I still don't understand why we have to show all WWII airplanes as being old rickety shaky rides that require the strength of two crew members to pull out of a dive or turn. The speeds at which the clouds and enemy fighters go screaming by at altitude is laughable and makes me think of a scene from Star Wars. It seems that nobody in CGI work knows how airplanes actually move through the air when turning or being shot down. I literally laughed out loud in the opening scenes when the B17 does a vertical go around from landing in Narsarsuaq and again in Ep3 when the B17 is pinwheeling out of the sky like a frizbee or something. It all completely ruins the immersion from me. You want to see airplane CGI done right, go watch the enemy aircraft and F14 scenes in Top Gun 2.
Movie looks like it was made with a video game.
In Adolf Gallant's book he describes a failed head on rocket attack. Failed because he got his switchology wrong. So it was done from ahead too.
I think these video Graphic planes look real enough. In the Battle Of Britain movie the fake Spanish Bf-109s threw me off .
Graphic planes can show the real sizes of large formations much better than real planes can with better angels of view .
Very interesting
Alot of your actual pictures are from the 15th Air Force out of Italy.
Belgium Flanders: Locals speak French instead of Dutch. Dropping bombs in the "Channel" while flying over the North Sea ...
Check out Military History Aviation Inside The Cockpit B-17G Flying Fortress "Sentimental Journey" Very informative video.
I've got a few issues but none as much as the pilots not wearing their oxygen masks at such high altitudes .. and no red flushed skin. I guess the goghles too but ... If they didnt do that in this show you may have trouble distinguishing the characters.
Can't wear masks when the actors wanna show their faces...🙄
and when that is also what the audience requires
I think that's completely reasonable to be lenient on since you want to see the actors performances
I honestly could give a shit about the actors faces. The fact is we can’t breath above 13,000’ for more than 30mins. You would still recognize them based on their voices and crew position. That is not an excuse to compromise on utmost historical accuracy. The miniseries is to tell the story as it happened and not deviate. Period.
To quote Alfred Hitchcock, “It’s only a movie.”
So? That doesn't mean it has to go full fantasy in its depiction of the aerial combat when depicting it more realistically could be just as exciting.
the problem is this--the vast majority of people know NOTHING of the actual history of the WW2 era. We won't even discuss their incredible ignorance of things that have occurred during their lifetimes. Outside of tv and movies, most people get no glimpse of history at all. I think it is reasonable to ask that the creators at least get the history correct.
@@CB-vt3mx It seems the people shooting the live action scenes have done a good (although not perfect) job at historical accuracy. Those doing the visual effects, on the other hand, apparently have not.
Then that's a problem with your society haha. If your kids aren't being taught history in school then you live in a craphole country and should fix that first, and not rely on freaking Hollywood to educate them. @@CB-vt3mx
But it's not a movie. Unless it's a 9 week long one 😂
Gramps had a FEW JOBS as a B17 air crew member, one mentioned was the single m1 upper aft chart/radio/ewo compartment in the ETO.
Other Gramps did same on PBY's Battle of the ATLANTIC and all of the America's!
Last or FIRST Gramps was a SEABEE Officer.
That's Just my Gramps! never mindall my other Family, Friends, Teachers, Bosses, Good BUDDIES!
RIP Greatest "I Miss" Ya'All Y'ALL! Sorry about The State of this UNION TODAY, Forgive US Fathers' PLEASE? GOD BLESS! and God's Speed!
No difference than firefighter movies where they remove both the nose cup from the mask and the smoke from the fire so you can see the actors better…
REGARDING the Practice of LOBBING MISSLES from the RFEAR:
My Dad, Col. F.J. Henggeler, was command pilot of that Schweinfurt attack on 14 Oct 1943. When the crew recognized that they were being tailed further then gunshot range by German plains, he went back to bear backwards out of the pane. When he saw that the German plane started to lift upward its angle of incline, he ordered this pilot (who was lead for all other planes) to bank left or right, which in doing so then all planes in the flight) would also do likewise.
The German plane would then straighten out again, & then would lock again, where it would the start tilting upwards again to attempt another volley of missiles. They kept playing cay & mouse until the German planes disembarked from tailing them.
Joe H.
A solid and informative video- as usual. Normally, I'd subscribe to your channel, but I can't- since I already have😉...
The average Joe is not worried about the details you highlight. As long as proper respect is shown to the bravery of these young men and the sacrifice they made.
I want the story to be told as accurately as possible it looks like they might be failing
This show has been the biggest let down in years. Producers and CGI artists should be ASHAMAED
Yeah, they rip their oxygen masks off in movies for dramatic effect, to get a deep breath of little air. The script sounds dodgy, young guys who would be full of beans, spit and vinegar coupled with a healthy fear of dying talk in weighty heroic hushed prose?
Hope they show them passing out within 30 seconds as you would at 25000ft
Engaging!
At 1:20 WWII US Bombers claims paint improved the performance of USAAF bombers by filling rivet crevices and the like. He made that claim in a previous video devoted to B-17 paint. It is the only example of WWII US Bombers making a big mistake.
The claim, although based on an obscure USAAF field memo, is utter nonsense. It was thoroughly debunked in the comments posted to that video. it is commonly known in the aircraft industry that paint adversely affects performance by adding weight. Filling rivet crevices is not relevant as they lie within the air boundary layer. The memo was based on completely unsound experimental methodology - fuel consumption in 2 aircraft compared when flown on separate flights by separate crews and unknown states on engine tune.
"Filling rivet crevices is not relevant as they lie within the air boundary layer."
I guess all the manufacturers using flush riveted butt joints, the air racers waxing their airplanes, and the crews of sailplanes and Formula One race cars taping over their seams are wasting their time. I just assumed Adrian Newey was aware of the boundary layer. . .
th-cam.com/video/IDbTUt3OG9s/w-d-xo.html
@@gort8203 The B-17 was a large slow bomber with all sort of protruberances - eg guns, wheels that did not fully retract, etc. Against all that drag the rivets didn't make much difference. If rivets didn't make much difference, then any crevices certainly would not. If flush riveting, which pre0dates the B-17, did make a noticeable difference, it would have been used on such a no-expense spared military aircraft.
Racing aircraft such as the Pitts were available with standard rivets and with flush rivets at extra cost. The difference in performance is very very small.
As for racing cars - yes they probably are wasting their time, if in fact they use flush rivets or rivets of any kind. The car racing game is well known for trying out daft things. And if some driver actually wins because of his skill and not because of some modification, the others copy the technology anyway.
Note though that Formula One cars reach speeds around 250 MPH, quite a bit faster than B-17.
@@gort8203 :The famous British fighter the Spitfire was originally specified to have flush riveting all over. Because of the cost and the need to speed up manufacture, Supermarine made one with standard domed rivets - it was found to be 20 MPH slower.
Now, a B17 flew at 182 MPH on bombing missions and was not aerodynamically clean due to protruding guns. The Spitfire tested flew at 370 MPH. Drag is proportional to speed squared, so at 182 MPH, drag would be only 24%. The Spitfire designers went to a lot of trouble to make it aerodynamically clean and thus have low drag, by means of clean lines, thin wings, attention to wing blending into fuselage, etc, so allowing rivets to have a larger proportionate effect on drag. And it is much smaller than a B-17, about 1/10th the flying weight.
So, we can reasonably conclude that flush riveting on a B-17 would make perhaps 1 or 2 MPH difference at most. Any increase in drag due any discontinuity at the base of rivet heads must be much less than that.
Conclusion: Paint cannot have made any measurable difference to drag on a B-17. The weight of paint is another story - it generally makes planes a tiny bit slower and burn a slightly more fuel. The claim about paint in this video is crap.
@@keithammleter3824 Of course flush riveting is more expensive, but that doesn't keep it or other bonding methods from being the standard on sophisticated aircraft. The question is not whether flush riveting was cost effective for the B-17 (which like all military aircraft designed in peacetime had to meet a cost target). The question is whether protruding rivets and lap joints are hidden by the boundary layer so that smoothing them over with a coating makes no appreciable difference. All your talk about the magnitude of the difference doesn't obscure the fact that most designers and operators act as though it does indeed make a difference.
th-cam.com/video/IDbTUt3OG9s/w-d-xo.html
By the way, I'm not sure the wing panels of the F-104 has any rivets at all. They were milled as a thick single piece from a billet of alloy so as to incorporate skin and substructure in a single smooth homogenous surface, obviously a more expensive process than attaching skins to ribs and stringers. This milling process left a very slight surface roughness compared to sheet aluminum. Now this slight surface roughness had to be more shallow than even flush rivets, yet they painted the wings to smooth the airflow.
@@gort8203 : One can say with complete confidence that all your talk about what modern designers do does not obscure that fact that simple calculation shows that flush riveting would have made no noticeable difference in the performance of the B-17, due to its high drag design and low speed.
The B-17 flew at about 180 MPH. The F-104 flew at 1580 MPH at which drag would be more than 120 times larger. Clearly your referencing of the F-104 is silly, as at that speed the tiniest changes have a significant effect. Especially at mach numbers greater than one, since once you have enough engine power to exceed mach 1, only relatively little more power gets you well past mach 1. That's why there was a sudden post-war jump in aircraft speeds from about mach 0.9 to about mach 2.
The B-17 had flat windscreen glass, even though curved glass had been available. Clearly that wouldn't cut it aerodynamically anywhere near F-104 speeds. And it had damn great holes cut in the sides so gunners could swing their guns and shoot out of it. That wouldn't cut it even at B-29 speeds.
Paint gets applied to aircraft, despite the weight penalty, as suitable aluminium alloys corrode when exposed to weather. Milling indeed does leave a surface roughness, but it can easily and cheaply polished smooth. But that would not offer the protection of paint.
Flush riveting had been made available 10 years before the B-17 was designed. It cost more, but against the total cost of the B-17 it would not have added much at all. They didn't do flush riveting because they just didn't need to.
Lastly, I didn't say the whole rivet heads were ENTIRELY within the boundary layer. I said any crevices were within it. If in fact there were any crevices - competent riveting would leave no crevices.
I am losing hope with this series.
Almost all the factual errors in the movie are understandable - they added dramatic impact, allowed the audience to recognise actors, etc. But why did they add forward gunsight posts if they did not exist in real life? It neither aids recognition nor adds dramatic impact. Perhaps the post production artists saw an obscure photo of guns so fitted.
they could be reusing 3d models and thought it wasn't worth the time to fix
I take issue with some of your notes. firstly, the rocket stuff is 💯 accurate (if we show a rocket attack, that’s because what it said, in the after report for that particular plane on that particular mission). So is the fact the Luftwaffe went INTO the US formations. The parachute stuff is also accurate (i am assuming you haven’t gone through the logs of every downed plane). The masks? Maybe watch the show? they wear masks 99%- but only when they are above 10,000 feet. the machine gun sights? that seems to have been a mistake. don’t know why on that one.
The Luftwaffe did attack through the formation, but not with the 21 cm Nebelwerfer 42. They would have attacked with their 20mm and 30mm auto cannons. The 21 cm Nebelwerfer 42 was used as a standoff armament. The fuse was set to around 5 seconds, this necessitated a lobbing distance of around 1200 yards and they generally attacked from the rear of the formation. It was not trigger by contact. See the channels video, "German 21 cm Air-to-Air Rocket Combat Effectiveness and Tactics" regarding usage of this rocket. I stand by my referenced German rocket usage tactics evaluation. Crews were trained to free fall down to around 5,000 ft prior to chute deployment. They could deploy sooner, but risk issues as discussed in the video. I look forward to see mask usage adopted in the series conforms with Bomber SOP. Hopefully, the turret sight posts and formation echelon position relative to the sun are are fixed prior to series release. See the channels first trailer teaser review, "Masters of the Air Trailer Teaser, Combat Clip Historical Accuracy Review and Explanation" for a couple more trailer evaluation discussion points. The FLAK clips are well done.
@@WWIIUSBomberswow. you really are being reductive. you are telling me what they planned to do, not what happened in real life. i had the same issue with some of our tech advisors telling me we had pilots do things that were impossible in a B17- only problem? they actually did what i wrote. so i appreciate your notes, and while some are correct, many are, quite simply incorrect. Cheers.
one last thing to demonstrate: you say, correctly, that the goal was fire at ~ 1200 yards. what is the difference in time between 1200 yards and 500 yards with a b-17 closing in with a FW190 ? a second, yes? closing in at 500 mph. so do you think any errors could have been made by luftwaffe pilots or only perfection? sigh. Also- it’s a trailer! the next shot is not the next shot in the show. Also, i had a long talk with one of the pilots just a few days ago- he told me what so many did. they said sometimes the could see the faces of the fighter pilots. and rockets were shot all the time in formation- remember there are planes BEHIND the plane we are seeing the missile shot from. but you do you!
Regardless of who's in the right here, you need to learn how to handle criticism. @@johnorloff3738
Did you know that Masters of the Air was a television series and not a historical documentary?
Well obviously.
This is a comparison not a criticism.
@@MrB1923 yea, like comparing Scooby-Doo crime solving to the FBI
Yes we know but that doesn't mean you can't pay attention to detail and spend time getting things right. They've got plenty of time and money to do so.
@@andrewwaller5913 They don't bother being any more accurate than to make passable entertainment. Again , it's not a historical documentary as much as you would like it to be, it's a TV entertainment program. It would be like complaining that helicopter spins out of control when it loses it engine and crashes in a large expulsion. great entertainment but not real, 99% of the time.
@@mazdarx7887did you know that this series is being promoted as being historically based, and follows in the footsteps of the highly historically accurate Band of Brothers?
There’s a reason people are talking about the accuracy of this project; it is making its own claim to being accurate.
you are rushing through your own video. it is not possible to take a look at a half second to a second shown picture, and it is not possible to follow what you mention while you are talking. having to be concentrated to youir not easy to understand speak, while the picture is gone again....this sucks.
After 3 min, i cannot rush after your pictures or speak any longer.and i dont want to pause every new picture. this is sad cause you do a great job with the video in itself.......please change that.
Cannot have an US Army Air Corps movie without the black boys in red tail paint mustangs... Truly gets annoying.
If they were portrayed correctly, ( escorting the actual bomber groups within their areas of operation, ) then it would be a more satisfactory series.
Unfortunately, it appears that politics and attempting to cater to a small minority of racially insecure folks, etc, was deemed to be more of a priority than historical correctness.
Once again, this takes away from and erodes the actual exemplary actions and contributions made by the Tuskegee Airmen in WWII. 😕
Yikes, you could have said that without sounding blatantly racist.
@@stevewhisperer6609 They are portrayed correctly. At no point in the series are they portrayed escorting 8th formations.
@@FirewallFilms1 My reply is based on the information put out by this channel from the first part of this series.
With the exceptional attention to detail normally provided by this channel, I'm comfortable standing by my reply.
If it can be conclusively proven otherwise, then I will edit my reply.
@@stevewhisperer6609 except he doesn't have any more information than you. At no point in the series is the 332nd shown escorting 8th bombers. You'll see a couple sorties in southern France and Italy during a single episode when Alexander Jefferson was shot down, captured, and taken to SLIII where he meets the main characters from the 100th. This is entirely historically accurate.
Yet another crap CGI movie.