For the Good of the Outfit - S2-E4
Factual error: During Henry Blake's command, a model of a Bell UH-1 'Huey' can be seen hanging from the ceiling of the commander's office in several shots. In fact, the Huey's first flight was only in 1956.
M*A*S*H (1972)
1 factual error in For the Good of the Outfit - chronological order
Visible crew/equipment: After Charles confronts Choi Sung Ho about the candy, Ho explains that he sold it on the black market to buy real food, and when Ho reenters the mess tent through the side door, we can see that outside there's a director's chair, which actors also use, with something printed on its back.
Sometimes You Hear the Bullet - S1-E17
Henry Blake: All I know is what they taught me at command school. There are certain rules about a war, and rule number one is that young men die. And rule number two is that doctors can't change rule number one.
Trivia: There were no American planes shot down over the Sea of Japan during the Korean conflict. It is rumoured that producer/director Larry Gelbart knew that, but wrote Henry Blake's death scene as he was very unhappy with the way Mclean Stevenson had left the show, and was determined to make it clear that there was no way he would be coming back.
Question: Talking with stripper Candy Doyle, Potter remarks that he still remembers how she used to spin her tassels and that he is reminded of this every time he sees a C 42 revving up. On the net I do find references to a C40A, a C47 and others, but no reference to an aircraft of the time called a C 42. What would he have been referring to?
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: The C-42 was a military variant of the Douglas DC-2. Very few C-42's were built, so it's questionable that Potter would specifically have seen that particular model, but, given his military background, it's not entirely unreasonable that he might use the military designation even when the aircraft in question is actually a civilian DC-2.
Tailkinker ★