There should be no doubt that this is a highly biased and jingoistic American program, though, to be fair, it is primarily aimed at an American audience, the concept of American military supremacy ("Americans have never and will never lose a war.") being a large part of the American identity--like it or not. Overall, I regard this series as more entertainment than a collection of historically correct documentaries. If you read official reports of the engagements portrayed in these animations you will, in many cases, discover that some significant details have been omitted or down-played for various reasons. For instance, in the second season episode with Lou Luma, the American RCAF Mosquito pilot, they fail to mention the somewhat important fact that in his portrayed strafing mission (I agree, not really dogfighting) to the German aerodrome, his tail was nearly shot off by anti-aircraft fire (http://www.acesofww2.com/Canada/aces/luma.htm).
Americans are generally fond of emphasizing their role in various wars all the while down-playing or ignoring those of their allies, especially in cases where their allies'accomplishments were as good or better. Take for instance the clear anti-British and anti-Canadian (Canadians barely mentioned) bias shown by the celebrated, though increasingly discredited, American "historian" Stephen Ambrose particularly in his books concerning the D-Day landings. Also, consider the attitude that generated the American half-joke regarding the alternate meaning of the acronym of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) in World War 1--"After England Fails". I believe the Australians also have some legitimate complaints regarding the overshadowing of their role early on in stopping the Japanese advances in New Guinea, and their overall achievements in the Pacific Theatre during WW2. Often, it seems that General MacArthur and the American media neglected to fully acknowledge the considerable efforts of the Australians under his command.
I think it is inevitable that if this show is to continue they will have to begin focusing more on the aerial exploits of non-American allies and possibly even enemies. There has been absolutely nothing about the Russians in World War 2 (or in any conflict) which is largely inexcusable considering the prime importance of battles on the Eastern Front from mid 1941 to the end of the war (the Americans may not want to recognize the longer and possibly greater role of the Soviet forces in destroying the German Reich), and very little concerning British Empire and French dogfighters in either war which I also think is a shame. I doubt that further depictions of "dogfights" of the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf wars or Israeli-Arab conflicts will be of sufficiently broad appeal as these are more controversial in terms of the motives behind the conflicts(Americans/Israelis won't necessarily be seen as the good guys) and in most of these cases the battles don't involve true dogfighting skills. Also, I think that they have already covered a lot (most?) of the territory regarding significant American dogfights of WW1 and WW2. Any additional focus on the same will make their biases undeniable.
The Americans were "Johnny come latelies" to both of the World Wars so, I don't know how much interest the producers of this show would have in aerial battles/campaigns before their entry, or in the early days following their entry into the wars, (e.g. in the Tunisian Campaign wherein they didn't do that well in the air or on the ground), but it is certainly something to hope for.
I await the third season which I assume is now in production.
