Oleg - Spitfire Cockpit.

[RedToo]

Hi Oleg,

have you seen this:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3003475/Spitfire_modelled_is_currently.html#Post3003475

I have no idea how accurate the information is, but it sounds as if he knows what he is talking about.

RedToo.

[philip.ed]

the link is kaput ;) But I have seen the thread ;)

[T}{OR]

The link is 'deadish'...

[tailchopper71]

Try this one.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3003475/Spitfire_modelled_is_currently.html#Post3003475

[RedToo]

D*mn - the one time I forget to check a link! Fixed it now.

RedToo.

[T}{OR]

Interesting...

[2GFlea]

I saw this too. My quick glance at a Spitfire MkII Pilots Notes and some of the screenshots we've seen to date make me think that what we've seen is the MkII and not the MkI.

Can anyone here research that a bit further?

[KG26_Alpha]

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/images/cockpitspit2.jpg

From

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/spitfire.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1pn-port.jpg

From
www.spitfireperformance.com

You have to be careful with early Spit pits there were hybrids into MkII etc etc

[zakkandrachoff]

Hi Oleg,

BOBC
SimHQ Junior Member

Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 10 Hi,
I hope Oleg and team see this 'heads up', some excellent work indeed, in fact mind blowing. However the spitfire cockpit created is a later war MkV, with some Mk ll in places.

A Mk1 spitfire has the following in the cockpit:-
Volts and amps gauges one above the other to right of gunsight
Two Fuel gauges bottom right with two press to read buttons
One starter button not two
No red light bottom right
Two fuel cock levers.
Landing Lamp raise lower lever and control arm, sited on frame 8 to left of compass.
Switch to turn lamp on, sited below Nose UP/down gauge
Large MkIIIa time of trip clock face flush with panel surface and not the later smaller type that sticks out a lot as they have.
Single tier rudder pedals, very collectable and highly prized as they typify Mk1 BoB spits.
Elevator Trim wheel they have is the bakelite MK II onwards type, Mk1 had an aluminium dish with grit/rubber coated edge curled inwards (v tricky to make)
Subtle details would be a blanking plate to left of gunsight covering the hole for the flaps indicator gauge.

They also need to replace the all brass Hurricane gun button with the aluminium front half spitfire one, again a classic collectors piece. Also ditch the green lettering and details on the Turn Bank as that’s a post war or late war usage.

See the Mk1 Spit cockpit in BoB Wings of Victory for how it should be. Some of these are significant differences so I hope its not deemed to be rivet counting, they are how one tells the difference between Mk1 and later cockpits.

Just a little surprised with all the apparent research the team are doing that this has happened. Hope they see this and amend before release.

Could someone indicate this has got through to the team there please.
(Post 'heads up' suggested by Pilgrim_UK )

BOBC

RedToo.

:o
so many differences
Oleg's Team 10 in simulator and 7 in history.;)

[IceFire]

Tough job trying to track down some of these details... but it's great to be able to share so much and find out these things as well.

[Romanator21]

:eek: so many differences
Oleg's Team 10 in simulator and 7 in history

Try to do better ;)

There are hundreds of us who know minute details on just one subject. BOBC may know a ton about early Spits, but I doubt he knows much about about late war Japanese aircraft. Oleg and his small team are trying to tackle everything within a limited time frame, dealing with translation issues, you name it, and they're still doing a damn fine job.

[KG26_Alpha]

There were many Spit MkI pits variants depending on year/month/squadron etc etc.

Its incorrect to say this is the standard Spit MkI pit :)

There wasn't one.

[philip.ed]

There were many Spit MkI pits variants depending on year/month/squadron etc etc.

Its incorrect to say this is the standard Spit MkI pit :)

There wasn't one.

Half-right. The AM would have had a standardized version, which in all sense would be 'the standard' to go by ;)

[BOBC]

Hi,
Glad to see this 'heads up' on the Spit Mk1 differences has got this far, still not sure if Oleg is aware of it. I did try and PM him offering my services, just wish to see accurate BoB sims wherever they exist !...but his inbox is full, despite trying again recently. Just how does one contact him ? If anyone has observations to get across, it seems impossible to get them across !
Yes I haven't a clue about Jap aircraft, I just know the Spit Mk1 thoroughly after 10 years of dedicated research. I have studied five surviving Mk1 inst panels, and footage of a Mk1 being serviced. Also I know very well the Ju88A1, shape and cockpit of the Do17Z (for which I need some head on shots to see if the usual assumption has been made), Hurricane and Me109E.

I also know my Luft and RAF camouflage and markings. 30 yrs of studying such. Cosfords Spitfire Mk1 is in ACCURATE green/brown by the way, matching AM swatches. The Me110 I saw from BoBSoW is in two shades of olive green which isn't right. Consult books like Merrick for RLM70/71, or even some modellers websites give rgb mixes for such. Incorrect Luft colours should not be occurring nowadays with all the references out there. Someone knows their trimtabs and pitots and has flagged that up.

Agreed Oleg has such a mountain to climb data wise. He should open his doors to observations if backed up by proof of knowledge, experience etc.

By the way the Albion AM463 refueller (three boom) should be in RAF dk green and Dk earth. Stations used aircraft paint stock to camouflage up vehicles from the uniform RAF blue grey at the outbreak of hostilities. I have colour shots of the Brockhouse/Zwicky refueller supporting this green/brown.

Somewhere I had also made observations on the Luft parachute, tunic colours and so on. Not sure if they were ever seen. If Oleg wishes to run WIP past me before artwork is set in concrete thats fine by me. Perhaps have a thread where those in the know can make observations.

Anything to assist this fine work. My mission is to assist any BoB sim to be accurate before its too late. I awiat contact with Oleg.

BOBC

(P.S. wish someone did a Bomber Command sim also)

[jocko417]

Interesting stuff BOBC, what's your opinion on the chord-wise stiffeners over the wheel wells on the SoW Spitfire model?

http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww152/whirlybirda2a/spit3.jpg

Should they be there? Or were they a modification added after the BoB had ended, in order to beef up tired airframes? I know K9942 has them today but I can't see them on any Spitfires in period photos.

[BG-09]

Oleg...is this so...No authentic Spitfire for SoW...It is a TRAGEDY for me...and us...So many Years of believe that SoW is the REAL BOB SIMULATOR...
It seems we would not be able to join "The Few" in to the skies...but we will have nice ARCADE SHOOTER...

[kendo65]

Oleg...is this so...No authentic Spitfire for SoW...It is a TRAGEDY for me...and us...So many Years of believe that SoW is the REAL BOB SIMULATOR...
It seems we would not be able to join "The Few" in to the skies...but we will have nice ARCADE SHOOTER...

I sincerely hope that this is a tongue-in-cheek comment. A 'tragedy' ...? Suddenly BOB is to be downgraded to 'arcade shooter' level.

I'm hoping for authenticity too, but at the end of the day this is a game. It won't be perfect and it won't recreate every facet of 1940 England as some people have been hoping for in other threads.

Please keep things in perspective!

[KG26_Alpha]

Half-right. The AM would have had a standardized version, which in all sense would be 'the standard' to go by ;)

Well by the nature of anything manufactured there has to be a standard for production of course.

Its just at the point of actual use and implementation, the cockpit was in a state of flux, that's why its difficult to pin point a definate "at field level" standard pit at that time.

It could be deemed as rivet counting but would make sense to have a "basic" type pit for the Spit MKI / MKII.

But as we know what ever they do it wont be 100% correct for every one.

[philip.ed]

Well by the nature of anything manufactured there has to be a standard for production of course.

Its just at the point of actual use and implementation, the cockpit was in a state of flux, that's why its difficult to pin point a definate "at field level" standard pit at that time.

It could be deemed as rivet counting but would make sense to have a "basic" type pit for the Spit MKI / MKII.

But as we know what ever they do it wont be 100% correct for every one.

I agree. It's probably easier to go by AM specs, although really it's a no-win situation, as there will always be some people who know more and are unhappy. The same is true for all aspects of the sim; people who work with, say, tracer rounds in their real-life may not be happy with the way it's presented in game, whilst others may like it if it looks like Hollywood ;)

[BOBC]

Jocko417
My memory of the facts about these are that they were not widespread during the Battle.
I have just looked closely at R6693 just prior to the Battle commencing and it is without the stiffening strakes. That then makes the L series, P series also without such. Next I need to find an X series.

I would have to go back through spitfire detailed amendments to see when the instruction for these to be fitted came out.
Also a major sift through books here to focus on that aspect and provide solid evidence. My instant reaction to did they have these though is no. Only added later to those that were still surviving.


KG26_Alpha......It could be deemed as rivet counting but would make sense to have a "basic" type pit for the Spit MKI / MKII.

It goes without saying that the basic features that denote a Mk1 should exist.

I dont think a list with that many notable differences is counting rivets. I can understand a forum poster saying the roundels are out of place by 3 inches may be deemed such.

Accurate sim or arcade game as someone said, the choice is Oleg's. There is eye candy and there is historical accuracy. Look beyond the stunning 'skins' to the basic structure, should it be right ? Should it look like the item photoed in 1940 ?
Does the Do17Z have its asymetrical glazing, does the Ju88 have BoB period wingtips or later war, does the Defiant have just two brownings. Should the sim aim to get basic details correct, and modify whats done if errors are spotted ?


I simply point these differences out for anyone wishing to go for a Mk1. Take it or leave it. Such notable observations are always going to be met by the phrase rivet counting by some, (do they want notable errors to remain ?) and welcomed to achieve a better result by others.

KG26_Alpha.....But as we know what ever they do it won't be 100% correct for every one.

In this case follow it and it is 100%, follow some of the more notable differences like the rudder pedals and only one fuel gauge, and it will be better for it, not immediately looking like a MkV/II.

Those that don't know their spits wont mind either way, but those that are expecting a strong degree (not 100%) of accuracy will now know they are flying a Mk1.

Philip.ed.....as there will always be some people who know more and are unhappy

There are always those that know more....yes... if that advice is available but refused early on in development its a shame, as its just as easy to get things right as it is wrong. I flagged this up a year ago and still it exists, surprises me a little.

Unhappy...not in my case, just surprised if the apparent aim for a quality sim lets such findings pass.

If details on an aircraft or vehicle make it a different mark than is aimed for and the developer is after accuracy, one would presume they are taken on board. Perhaps accuracy within reasonable expectations is not the aim.

Bottom line is, are notable differences to be pointed out to allow for correction, or is a forum simply for responses like 'looks good'...'fab' etc. Its all down to whether the developer has amassed the knowledge base required and is self sufficient with enough experts to ensure the sim meets a certain pre-set standard, the forum simply being a one way advert, or if they seek to find notable changes to be made, observations on errors and so on.

Perhaps its source code can be tweaked after its release by users for them to make corrections, as was Rowans BoB.

As mentioned, all Oleg needs to do is contact me to check on details, its just as easy to get it right as it is wrong. This was sent through a year ago. Along with other basic errors spotted recently on things like Luftwaffe pilot artwork, bowser colours etc I hope these are corrected. I personally wish to be in a Mk1. For others, what the user doesnt know, they can't grieve about. Others though are now also aware its not a Mk1.

Lets not detract though from what is shaping up to be an awesome sim.

BOBC

[K_Freddie]

Jocko417
Lets not detract though from what is shaping up to be an awesome sim.
BOBC
Yup.. let's just get the sim, and leave the minor details for updates :grin:

[KG26_Alpha]

Jocko417
My memory of the facts about these are that they were not widespread during the Battle.
I have just looked closely at R6693 just prior to the Battle commencing and it is without the stiffening strakes. That then makes the L series, P series also without such. Next I need to find an X series.

I would have to go back through spitfire detailed amendments to see when the instruction for these to be fitted came out.
Also a major sift through books here to focus on that aspect and provide solid evidence. My instant reaction to did they have these though is no. Only added later to those that were still surviving.

It goes without saying that the basic features that denote a Mk1 should exist.

I dont think a list with that many notable differences is counting rivets. I can understand a forum poster saying the roundels are out of place by 3 inches may be deemed such.

Accurate sim or arcade game as someone said, the choice is Oleg's. There is eye candy and there is historical accuracy. Look beyond the stunning 'skins' to the basic structure, should it be right ? Should it look like the item photoed in 1940 ?
Does the Do17Z have its asymetrical glazing, does the Ju88 have BoB period wingtips or later war, does the Defiant have just two brownings. Should the sim aim to get basic details correct, and modify whats done if errors are spotted ?


I simply point these differences out for anyone wishing to go for a Mk1. Take it or leave it. Such notable observations are always going to be met by the phrase rivet counting by some, (do they want notable errors to remain ?) and welcomed to achieve a better result by others.



In this case follow it and it is 100%, follow some of the more notable differences like the rudder pedals and only one fuel gauge, and it will be better for it, not immediately looking like a MkV/II.

Those that don't know their spits wont mind either way, but those that are expecting a strong degree (not 100%) of accuracy will now know they are flying a Mk1.



There are always those that know more....yes... if that advice is available but refused early on in development its a shame, as its just as easy to get things right as it is wrong. I flagged this up a year ago and still it exists, surprises me a little.

Unhappy...not in my case, just surprised if the apparent aim for a quality sim lets such findings pass.

If details on an aircraft or vehicle make it a different mark than is aimed for and the developer is after accuracy, one would presume they are taken on board. Perhaps accuracy within reasonable expectations is not the aim.

Bottom line is, are notable differences to be pointed out to allow for correction, or is a forum simply for responses like 'looks good'...'fab' etc. Its all down to whether the developer has amassed the knowledge base required and is self sufficient with enough experts to ensure the sim meets a certain pre-set standard, the forum simply being a one way advert, or if they seek to find notable changes to be made, observations on errors and so on.

Perhaps its source code can be tweaked after its release by users for them to make corrections, as was Rowans BoB.

As mentioned, all Oleg needs to do is contact me to check on details, its just as easy to get it right as it is wrong. This was sent through a year ago. Along with other basic errors spotted recently on things like Luftwaffe pilot artwork, bowser colours etc I hope these are corrected. I personally wish to be in a Mk1. For others, what the user doesnt know, they can't grieve about. Others though are now also aware its not a Mk1.

Lets not detract though from what is shaping up to be an awesome sim.

BOBC



Lets just say there has to be a cut off point for detail for all aircraft otherwise nothing will get done with constant nit picking/rivet counting whatever you want to call it.

I would suggest that if someone's not happy submit actual certified manufacturers blueprints, even better to save 1cTeams time, make the aircraft/cockpit yourself and submit it for approval with aforementioned documents.

There's enough errors in the IL21946 that's been going for nearly 10 years to keep the "train spotters" happy, but its still going strong.



.

[jocko417]

Trust me folks, I want to see this sim installed on my HDD ASAP just like everyone else! :grin:

I asked BOBC's opinion about the stiffeners because IMO they shouldn't be there, but of course I can't find anything in print to prove it. It's a shame that this sort of thing is caught after the model is finished, it's like discovering the phone guy missed installing a wall jack in a room in your new house only after the drywall guys have already covered the walls... much more of a pain to correct afterward than at the time.

Details concerning airframe construction, flying equipment and clothing, and old fashioned rivet counting may seem like 'who cares' items but to BoB junkies it's the difference between a good sim and one that will be the benchmark for all others for years to come.

...and I'll repeat myself, I want to see this sim installed on my HDD ASAP just like everyone else!

[kendo65]

Accurate sim or arcade game as someone said, the choice is Oleg's. There is eye candy and there is historical accuracy. Look beyond the stunning 'skins' to the basic structure, should it be right ? Should it look like the item photoed in 1940 ?
Does the Do17Z have its asymetrical glazing, does the Ju88 have BoB period wingtips or later war, does the Defiant have just two brownings. Should the sim aim to get basic details correct, and modify whats done if errors are spotted ?

I think it is unfair to present any deviation whatsoever from 100% accuracy as demoting BOB from 'accurate sim' down to 'arcade game'. I completely understand and share the desire expressed here to have a simulator that is as accurate as possible and I am somewhat in awe of the level of knowledge of many of the contributors to these forums.

However COMPLETE accuracy in a complex, historically-based game/sim like BOB will be an elusive or impossible task to achieve. Designing a 'simulator' involves compromises. The realistic aim, I think, is not to achieve a one to one, direct reproduction of every facet of the external world, but to 'simulate' to an acceptable degree enough features of that world to give an impression of reality.

This is more obviously the case with the map and terrain - there is no way that anything more than a rough approximation of 1940 England can be created.

For the aircraft models it is somewhat different and I agree every effort should be made to achieve as near to 100% accuracy here as possible. Where there is adequately documented reason for changes I believe the developers should listen and try to implement them, BUT...


Bottom line is, are notable differences to be pointed out to allow for correction, or is a forum simply for responses like 'looks good'...'fab' etc. Its all down to whether the developer has amassed the knowledge base required and is self sufficient with enough experts to ensure the sim meets a certain pre-set standard, the forum simply being a one way advert, or if they seek to find notable changes to be made, observations on errors and so on.

...I fear that it may be too late in the development cycle now to implement significant changes to the aircraft models. Financial and economic realities may necessitate compromise on the goal of 'complete' accuracy.

We may have to reconcile ourselves to the likelihood of the sim not being 'perfect', but in my opinion this was never a realistic expectation. SOW has been so long in preparation that it has been possible for everyone to build their fantasies and expectations of what it will be so highly that the reality is almost guaranteed to disappoint.


Perhaps its source code can be tweaked after its release by users for them to make corrections, as was Rowans BoB.

Possibly, or more likely by the developers if a good enough case can be made to them?

[BOBC]

Hi,
One could look at the case for correcting perceived important changes this way.
Compromising the finish date, though it does seem to be somewhat fluid, with perhaps just fixes for major observations anyone makes, needs to be balanced against the importance of those changes versus the addition of a vehicle or extra piece of ground equipment or even a bush type which may well not be missed if it wasn't there. If someone is about to be spending hours creating a schwimmwagen would it not be better to forget the vehicle and spend that time fixing something that will then provide a more accurate or well known appearance to something that many will be looking at for most of their sim experience. Would it be good to sacrifice the example of a schwimmwagen for a pair of Supermarine marked single tier rudder pedals, two fuel gauges and a large clock, three distinctive Mk 1 cockpit items ?

Have the initial release able to declare with pride that it provides a Mk1 cockpit, then let the post release work on upgrades be on things like a schwimmwagen. Get the important things right. I would think a Mk1 spit cockpit is quite important versus one more item that helps populate a scene. Temporary becomes permanent, there is a danger that once released the developers don't then set about fixing errors, they remain with us.

Has Oleg and team in the past acted upon observations made in this forum; does someone filter out worthy facts from it and forward them to him and the team or is it that he has to read threads himself ? Thread reading can be quite time consuming and I just wondered if this happens given that he must be very busy with development. Is he open to feedback ?

The procedure for flying a Mk1 spitfire I presume is also being put forward in the sim as accurate, so how that would be written if its lacking the second fuel tank readout and control levers to switch tanks, the flying procedure if going to the detail of fuel control as done in other sims would find it awkward to do so ? The fuel gauges are more a part of the way the spit is flown than a clock or rudder pedal.
The ability to withstand G forces was increased with the introduction of the two tier pedals, raising feet up bent the legs and lessened blood flow to the legs, so Olegs BoB pilots have an advantage over the real BoB pilots if the raised pedals are written for in the code. Thus a non historical advantage over the Luftwaffe.

How to land the spit in the dark ?..BoB spits had a landing lamp but this cockpit lacks the dashboard switch and lower/swivel control, so unlike the real thing, we cant go landing back after dark.

The flying accuracy no doubt will get compared to existing BoB sims by those that are interested in how it flies.

Looking at a revi gunsight its been created right down to the three screws on the side knob, gives the impression this sim is 'top drawer', gets me excited...the developers are about to market a stunnigly accurate item, then its possible to spot fundamental errors and my bubble is burst...and I wonder why the attention to fine detail when the more basic stuff has faults ? Example..I had in a previous email many months ago mentioned that the gun troughs on the 109E had the back ends looking like those on a G...having an 'eyelid' over the gun port. I also see the MG17's sit in yellow tubes that protrude out through the gun ports. That was never the case. The emil gun ports were a slanting elipse shape with the edge of the ferrous trough running around their aft edge. This is clear to see in hundreds of photos and all kit models of the type. The Emil cowling is crucial to its looks. I also see that it has wheel hubs for an F or G, being filled in with a series of indentations around the edge. Again the look of the E requires the earlier spoked/hollowed out black wheel hubs, its a well known characteristic, yet attention is going into a loudspeaker attached to a hanger ? Any 109E student will point out these errors. Enough have made E's as kits in their lifetime, if they are into the BoB.

I just find it hard to equate all the fine artwork with some real bloopers I am seeing. RAF parachute harness was a cream webbing strap like the Luftwaffe one, only difference a single strand of colour stitching down the middle. Olegs team have instead a cream strap with what can best be described as a brownish green railway line running down it , the rails being near the strap edge. Each rail is further detailed with a lighter centre. Between the rails is a heavily patterned/textured cream area...looks most odd and is a lot of work compared to the single colour cream strap, perhaps finished off with a subtle texture and a central dk grey/red thread. Just what they were looking at to do this I dont know, a lot of extra work for nothing. Parachute straps are easy enough to find in books and on the web. We are going to be seeing this silly looking harness in all cockpits, I personally would like to see such basics researched more and less time on the shape of a tannoy, the data is easily to hand. They also have this on the Luft figure..double the error !
Luftwaffe kapok mae west is another example, unless its a work in progress, any BoB pics will show it was sausages all round, not just at the front, that type came in late October 1940. Rarely seen...but will be seen a lot in this sim. Luftwaffe unifom I see is a light silvery grey, far from reality, it should be similar to the RAF but a bit more grey. We will see loads of these. I do feel they need to focus on basics and not minor scene details. I am only pointing out large fundamental features that hit me immediately without studying in detail. Any modeller will spot the hub, Luft tunic colour, G ports, perhaps less the harnesses and kapok. There are loads of features going into this sim that a user wouldnt know about but expects to have been researched and reproduced fairly accurately.

Should it be basics corrected, or another 1940 car type on the road ? I leave the choice to forum readers.

BOBC

P.S Jocko417 I saw wartime footage this weekend and the BoB spits had no stiffening strakes. I couldnt see the serial numbers though.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Hi,
One could look at the case for correcting perceived important changes this way.
Compromising the finish date, though it does seem to be somewhat fluid, with perhaps just fixes for major observations anyone makes, needs to be balanced against the importance of those changes versus the addition of a vehicle or extra piece of ground equipment or even a bush type which may well not be missed if it wasn't there. ...

Would it be good to sacrifice the example of a schwimmwagen for a pair of Supermarine marked single tier rudder pedals, two fuel gauges and a large clock, three distinctive Mk 1 cockpit items ?
...

The ability to withstand G forces was increased with the introduction of the two tier pedals, raising feet up bent the legs and lessened blood flow to the legs, so Olegs BoB pilots have an advantage over the real BoB pilots if the raised pedals are written for in the code. Thus a non historical advantage over the Luftwaffe.

....

Should it be basics corrected, or another 1940 car type on the road ? I leave the choice to forum readers.

BOBC


Hi BobC

It all really depends on how balanced the developers want the game to be for it's players.

Flying for the RAAF most pilots would be more interested in aerial targets, but If your flying a Ju-87 you probably want a wide variety of ground targets to lay some hard loving on.

All the detail going into this sim will lay down foundations for the following releases. If we move to another theatre we'd see that perspective change. North Africa without any ground targets for the RAF would be sad! :( Without the proper foundations Oleg&Co will dig themselves into a hole where the next release would require a masive effort. If they do it right they just have to worry about the content and pull in the moo-la!

To get a balanced sim they will have different teams/developers working on seperate aspects of the sim. Sometimes their skill sets will not be transferable. Hey They're the experts and know what they're doing.

Also from my understanding all frontline Spitfires had been fitted with the two-step pedals by the Battle of Britain. That would leave the single step models being used in OTU's and second line areas. Is it worth having a seperate model for these minor area's?

I guess one of the problem is that by the battle of Britain the Spitfire had been in production for over two years and had been continually improved and upgraded throughout that time. There is no such thing as a "Standard" Mk1. The production Mk1 Spitfire of May '38 and those from September 40 were two very different beasts.

Cheers!

[jocko417]

Hi BobC

To get a balanced sim they will have different teams/developers working on seperate aspects of the sim. Sometimes their skill sets will not be transferable. Hey They're the experts and know what they're doing.

In defense of the 'rivet counters'...

Yes, they are the experts in creating extremely detailed simulations, but the correctness of the details is in direct proportion to the accuracy of their reference material.

There are many line drawings out there which show strakes above the wheel wells on early Spits, including the dust jacket illustrations drawn by Rikyu Watanabe for Bill Sweetman's SPITFIRE book of 1980, a popular publication in it's day. As most (if not all) surviving Mk. I Spitfires have the strakes installed it could be assumed that they were standard equipment in 1940. They were not. The Spit hanging in the IWM is a great example. It is seen as it appeared at the END of it's service life, not as it was when it came off the assembly line years earlier.

Also, as English (or German) is not the first language at 1C there have been spelling and/or grammatical errors made in the past (no fault of the developers, their English is still better than my Russian) in some cockpit placards, such as the "A <crown> N" label on the Art. Horizon in the Spit and Hurri cockpits. This was corrected to A <crown> M.

My point is that 1C should be congratulated for the huge job they have undertaken, I am awed by the amount of objects being added, like ground support items (fuel bowsers, accumulator carts, etc.) for the airfields, not generic ones, the ACTUAL equipment used by both sides. Getting all the small stuff right is the curse of offering that much detail in the first place. However, if anyone can pull off '1940 in a box', it's Oleg and Co.

[KG26_Alpha]

Well I just got back from Duxford and had quite a chat with a couple of the restoration guys there.

They are working on 3 Spits including a MkI and found it quite incredible anyone thinks there's a "standard" MkI pit.

I asked how they referenced the cockpit for the MkI and what its history was,

"It was one of the first 300 hundred produced and eventually went to an OTU where it was finally upgraded to MKV specification".

"There never was a typical MkI cockpit as there were too many modifications made at squadron level and constant improvement made during production, we have never found any early pits to be the same all are different to a certain degree".

"It would be quite silly to actually say "This is the standard MkI pit layout" it's impossible to be that precise".

I agreed but wanted to hear more, unfortunately I was in a restricted part of the hangar and the conversion ended as my camera started to level at some Spit parts on the work bench :)

Anyway

I was more interested in the HE111 they have there, and managed a really nice close walk round with another restoration fella, the main spars are useless and need replacing but with so many parts needed its become too expensive to restore. :(

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/DSCF2183.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/DSCF2186.jpg

As its a Spitfire thread here's one you wont see like this that often.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/DSCF2166.jpg

[BOBC]

Hi,
I hope I read wrong but thought something had been said about the He111 being scrapped. Just because it won't fly again is this reason to scrap a potential static and important exhibit. Imagine it back in Luft camouflage, tractored out to the Duxford line up. ..or is it that without new spars its dangerous even as static ? In which case other museums may also have an issue.

I am not aware of two tier pedals being used in the BoB. Being in touch with aviation archaeologists who have dug BoB aircraft for many years, they only ever found single tier. I shall check on this but thats my experience to date.
I also have studied all the BoB period crashed Spit Mk1 instrument panels and all were with two fuel gauges. Likewise all had the landing lamp switches and thus the landing lamp and thus the controller. All had the large clock hole and no step down plate for fitment of a smaller clock and both Volt and amp gauges.
The variations existed in the generator switch and flap gauge hole.
I agree its safer to say they were not all exactly the same spec, but certain features appear to have been common throughout as mentioned above.
I must pay a trip to Duxford as Spit Mk1s are my bread and butter !

The R serialled spitfire filmed just prior to the BoB (see dvd Spitfire - frontline fighter (IWM The Official Collection) has the features I refer to, so at that point in time, so did L and P series spits. I studied an X series panel and that too had those features.

BOBC

[KG26_Alpha]

Re: He111

Nope no mention of it being scrapped by me, IWM don't have the interest or funds.

1. Its a non WW2 historical ac
2. Too many parts missing
3. Spars are corroded

So with the Spars issue its a static display liability.

[LukeFF]

1. Its a non WW2 historical ac

From the looks of that over-sprayed roundel, it's a Spanish-built model, a la the CASA 2.111.

[KG26_Alpha]

Hi


It was used as a transporter, then left as a spares donor for the rest of them.

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

@ BOBc i am at awe to how much you know about the spitfire. Amazing. I truly love this bird and have found the whole thread a really interested read with both sides showing valid points. But i think someone hit the nail on the head here by saying that"there was no standard cocpit layout" . Imo i would say this was true especially as the MK1 hadnt had too much field testing at the time. I mean who else were better at giving combat data than the combat pilots themselves. I would of thought especially as pilots at that time developed there own flying stlyes and preferences would have had the engineers make subtle changes to their flying machines. Also you need to take into account the lack of raw materials here as well. Many downed spitfires were salvaged and used again. Maybe you talk of two fuel gauges, in olegs case his research may have noted the fact that his particualar was "short" . But i think you need to take into account the human element to this picture. This was no -peace time production line. Changes were constantly made while in the factory and on the airfield.

I can remember watching a program about Douglas Bader`s spitfire where they tried to find out where it crashed landed. There was a bloke there that REALLY knew his stuff and was able to identify any part of the aircraft mangled or not. Maybe with a little research you could locate this guy and ask his opinion.

At the end of the day i would rather Oleg get the spitfire Historically correct than pretty tanks(unless i can drive them btw:grin:) but at the same time through out the history of Il2 many people have ever changing opinions about WW2 and its birds. I think that we/he needs to find the middle ground so that he can get on with his work. Perferction takes time and money.
my two pennies. :grin:

[major_setback]

At the end of the day i would rather Oleg get the spitfire Historically correct than pretty tanks(unless i can drive them btw:grin:) but at the same time through out the history of Il2 many people have ever changing opinions about WW2 and its birds. I think that we/he needs to find the middle ground so that he can get on with his work. Perferction takes time and money.
my two pennies. :grin:

There are scores of posts on this forum alone telling Oleg that 'this and that' are completely wrong (by me included). He can't possible be expected to read them all, and even if he did, it is asking way too much that he should be able to perceive which of those posters has a relevant point (there are a lot of mistaken nay-sayers here). He simply doesn't have the time to both research the issues and correct them (all).



I agree, it is time to get the thing finished. The worst problems can be patched over later.

[BOBC]

MD_Wild_Weasel. There was a bloke there that REALLY knew his stuff and was able to identify any part of the aircraft mangled or not. Maybe with a little research you could locate this guy and ask his opinion.

I know them well ;)

I have been studying spit Mk1 30 yrs and the cockpit for 25 yrs. Not just from books, far from it, from hands on experience. Touching panels that flew in the BoB. I know my cockpits.

Major Setback...it is asking way too much that he should be able to perceive which of those posters has a relevant point
I did email him and indicate my experience to him. The points I raised should have been enough to convince him I know my Mk1.

Another way to look at this by the way is as follows.
What are the most obvious differences between a Mk1 and a MkV.
They are:-
Two tier pedals
small diameter clock standing proud of inst panel surface.
One fuel gauge
Only Volts not Volts and amps below it.
Box type radio port wall.
No landing lamp controller
Bakelite seat and not grey green aluminium.
All black bakelite deep recessed trim wheel.

Apart from the radio currently this is the cockpit in the sim !

Purchase and play the dvd Spitfire Frontline Fighter and get to see awesome rare Mk1 BoB aircraft being fully serviced. The complete footage, Thorn EMI featured only part of this before. Followed by re-arming, E pens etc. See the Mk1 cockpit, your only way of ever doing so ! You'll even see filling the screen the Trim wheel of the Mk1, remember this is by now an R serial, only X run to go...and the large clock, and amps gauge and two fuel gauges, and the correct starter button, (not mentioned that error before..not so obvious but its there, like the fact that the compass card holder was anodised aluminium and not black, in this video and all those dug examples).

It would I still feel, be right to release the sim with a Mk1 cockpit and not expect users to wait for a Mk1 fix. I pay money for a BoB sim, I want to see a Mk1 as I fly it and not be told I have to wait, surely thats a reasonable expectation when buying a BoB sim, never get this hassle with BoB WoV.

pilots at that time developed there own flying stlyes and preferences would have had the engineers make subtle changes to their flying machines

Those pedals were not fabricated in squadron hangars, they are castings.
Talking to someone that has a lifetime of BoB digs, they have never dug a two tier one yet !
Spitfire Spares say two tier used after the Mk1. they should know !

The R serialled spit in the video inspection by the way has a single tier pedal, they had the word Supermarine on the tread area. That puts L,N, P and R serialled production runs as far as this aircraft with Single Tier pedals. Only leaving X serialled production. Thats most of the BoB aircraft.
Pilots are not going to say to the groundcrew, I prefer my spit without the amps gauge, or I think I will dispense with knowing whats in the 48 gallon fuel tank, please also perfectly fill in the hole and shift the 37 to the left a little...oh and rip out the landing lamp control, and get the smaller clock that is still in development at Smiths, I fancy a smaller one....and so on.

The only mod was armour plate instigated by Dowding, addition of rear view mirrors, gun harmonising distance.

MD_Wild_Weasel I think that we/he needs to find the middle ground so that he can get on with his work. Perferction takes time and money.

Perfection ..I think asking for a Mk1 cockpit is a fair request, perfection would be demanding that the lettering saying Artificial Horizon was picked out in brass.
I still say, so as to not prolong release time, simply forget about another vehicle and spend the time on pedals, fuel gauges and clock, just those three will be a start, and make a massive difference. I just have a gut feeling we will never see this cockpit corrected. Surely of all the fixes this is the one, as opposed to a Fiat CR42. Spit fliers will be staring at these mistakes hour after hour.

I would like to hear the developers thoughts on this question of fix it to become a Mk1 and the time it takes versus adding tannoys to a hangar side or creating a this or that which may not be seen for ages in the sim unless you happen to come across it.

Perhaps a vote from thread readers..Mk1 before or after release, if ever.

I say 'before'.

BOBC

[AndyJWest]

I would like to hear the developers thoughts on this question of fix it to become a Mk1 and the time it takes versus adding tannoys to a hangar side or creating a this or that which may not be seen for ages in the sim unless you happen to come across it.

Perhaps a vote from thread readers..Mk1 before or after release, if ever.

Modifying the cockpit of a flyable aircraft would be a lot more complex than 'adding tannoys' to hangers would.

'Voting' for something where you have no idea of what is involved and no say in the decision anyway is a waste of time.

If Oleg was to make every change asked for prior to release, SoW:BoB would never get finished. Which would you rather have - a release with minor inaccuracies, or no release at all?

[TheGrunch]

I'm continually bemused by the perception among players of this sim that minor 3d corrections are hard work (probably due to the convoluted process by which modders perform these corrections due to using reverse-engineered tools), even when MG obviously have the official import and export tools and several thousand pounds' worth of software to do the job. It'd be half an hour to an hour's work for some of these people, they're professionals. It'd take far longer to do the research than the actual 3d work, and by the sound of it, BOBC's done that already.

[AndyJWest]

I'm continually bemused by the perception among players of this sim that minor 3d corrections are hard work (probably due to the convoluted process by which modders perform these corrections due to using reverse-engineered tools), even when MG obviously have the official import and export tools and several thousand pounds' worth of software to do the job. It'd be half an hour to an hour's work for some of these people, they're professionals. It'd take far longer to do the research than the actual 3d work, and by the sound of it, BOBC's done that already.
But will it involve just a 'minor 3d correction', Grunch? If you are dealing with a clickable cockpit with working instruments, there is more than just the 3d model to consider. I don't know how much work would actually be involved, but I do know that outsiders almost always underestimate such things. If Oleg is (a) convinced it needs fixing, and (b) has the resources to do it, I can't imagine he would refuse out of principal, but holding 'votes' on what he should do isn't a sensible way to approach things.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I'm sure that I read somewhere before that the bar major errors the 3D models for BoB had been frozen. (Please correct me if I'm wrong I went searching for the post but couldn't find it! :( )

Given that there is only one flyable MK1 left and a handfull of Mk1's on static display I (Most having been scrapped or converted into later models) I doubt this issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone.

I, never having been given the opportunity to look into the cockpit of a MK1 Spitfire, would blissfully enjoy the sim in my ignorance even if they gave us an X-Wing pit!

On the otherhand you have a variety of people who have studied some of the survivors and documentation and each have a perfectly valid though different description of a Mk1 cockpit that they would like to see implemented. Like I said not everyone is going to be happy.

Maybe if the developers could post a list of the documents/aircraft that they used as the basis for their models everyone would at least be assured that what they have modeled is an authentic representation of a MK1 Spitfire.

Just a thought

Cheers!

[LukeFF]

But will it involve just a 'minor 3d correction', Grunch? If you are dealing with a clickable cockpit with working instruments, there is more than just the 3d model to consider. I don't know how much work would actually be involved, but I do know that outsiders almost always underestimate such things.

Having modeled a cockpit myself for IL2, I know it's not a lot of work to change a gauge or two - and mine went through a number of corrections before getting it right.

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

@BoBc ,
"I have been studying spit Mk1 30 yrs and the cockpit for 25 yrs. Not just from books, far from it, from hands on experience. Touching panels that flew in the BoB. I know my cockpits."

You lucky git:) can i be your friend? LOL The closest ive got to a spit is when its being rolled out for an airshow at Duxford. I did however manage to get one of the owners to take a picture of a Spit MkvcX4h!!

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d77/md_wild_weasel/PHTO0013.jpg
ooh sorry just remebered this cocpit was for the Vb next door. I wanted a picture of the vc4 pit but the old git said"we dont touch each others planes"
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d77/md_wild_weasel/PHTO0015.jpg

If these changes are not that time consuming to correct then i really believe that they should be corrected prior to release. After all we are all after historical accuracy.

[322Sqn_Dusty]

All RAF planes used similar lay-out blindflyingpanels, but even those differ in models, rectangular like the one in the attachment and rounded-off versions as seen in above picture.
For as I know instrumentpanels were fitted with parts at hand so Spitfires used by the same flight could differ.

Attachment panel is in use by the Dutch MkIX

[BOBC]

Hurricane Mk1 and Spitfire Mk1 in the BoB only had the square type blind flying panels. The way to tell the difference if holding both and not knowing which is for which aircraft is that the spitfire panel has a larger radiused curve top left, why...to allow function of the flaps up/down lever, else the corner gets in the way.
The curved top came later after the BoB.

Surviving spitfire Mk1's cannot be used as accurate reference for what the BoB pit looked like, with the exception of the Spitfire Mk1 at Cosford, it sat at Hendon many years called a Mk1 but inside it had seen changes taking it beyond what it should have looked like during the BoB, let alone during the period that its paint scheme represented. Therein lies the dangers of believing what you see in a Mk1 is what it was like during the BoB.
It was restored to Mk1 May 1939 spec by MAPS. Cockpit doesnt represent BoB in that it has a ring and bead gunsight.
I bypass the dangers of studying preserved aircraft by seeing what they had when frozen in time, the moment of the crash. If I see this part in a preserved aircraft then I can better details from it as its complete.

Aircraft undergo changes, Supermarine were forever issuing amendments and if you look at the MkII spitfire instrument panel drawing (there isnt one for the Mk1) you will see down the left side the amendments and when they were issued. As each amendment comes out its added to the master drawing.

I meant the survey to gauge simmers wishes, should there be a chance for a refit. No way can we go telling Oleg and co what we want, we can but form an 'orderly queue' and let him gauge the length of it and decide himself.

BOBC

[322Sqn_Dusty]

BOBC,

Sadly i can hold only the Spitfire Mk IX parts, so i haven't noticed the little difference before.

I'm still looking for a good Mk V mainpanel blueprint with measurements for a simpit though.

I'm sure the dev team sorts it out, i'll love flying the Mk's.

After a landing accident in 2007 the Dutch Mk IX finally flies again..she's still a delight to see roaring between the clouds.

[BOBC]

322Sqn_Dusty...have you tried RAF Museum Hendon. They have microfiche (spelling ?) of all the Spitfire plans, and when last there you stick it into the reader then throw a lever to fit the plan to A1 or A2 etc paper sizes and hit print. if you cant get there I am sure they can print you off a plan at original size.
You need to get one fully dimensioned as some are partially dimensioned. Dont ever trust the plan to be to scale, it isn't. They were deliberately drawn non scale. Paper changes size so by doing so, they force engineers to plot it out accurately. You need to re-create the drawing onto your chosen surface using the dimensions on it.
If no MkV plan then the Spitfire II is fully dimensioned and may prove a good start point. From what I remember when studying a MKV cockpit for 10 yrs, the panel was the basically the same as a Mk2. They dont move the holes around much.That though is said without researching it again, but you get my drift !

BOBC

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

o.k.. found these pictures of a spit mk1 pit. maybe this will help

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d77/md_wild_weasel/spitmk1cockpit001.jpg

[kristorf]

Hendons MkI

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v320/Kristorf/New%20stuff/DSCF1143.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v320/Kristorf/New%20stuff/100_1179.jpg

[philip.ed]

Chris, any more pictures of the one at Hendon? (any of the pilot in the cockpit?) ;)

[kristorf]

A couple, a jobsworth 'shood' me away, I dared to go off the carpet area....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v320/Kristorf/New%20stuff/DSCF1163.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v320/Kristorf/New%20stuff/DSCF1156.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v320/Kristorf/New%20stuff/DSCF1147.jpg

[philip.ed]

Excellent work mate, so how'd you get the pictures of the cockpit?

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

so all i can make out the only wrong in olegs cockpit are the addition of the fuel pressure gauge whereas in the photo of the mk1 pit its absent. No evidence of two fuel gauges nor two fuel cock levers. It sound like in your description that you may have been looking at a Pr version. This would explain extra tanks/gauges and fuel cocks for extra range?

o.k ive just found a drawing of an early mk1. fitted with a ring sight not a refelector gunsight. This one DOES have twin fuel cock levers and the addition of the fuel presure gauge. Still no extra fuel contents gauge. Which takes me back to one of my orignial posts that changes made to spitfires where a constant occurance.

Also with the lack of a radio(im going to have to reasearch this more btw) why would they require night landing lamps. early spits in BOB were ground at dusk. (and i will get back to you on this to be sure)

[TheGrunch]

But will it involve just a 'minor 3d correction', Grunch? If you are dealing with a clickable cockpit with working instruments, there is more than just the 3d model to consider.
Sorry Andy, forgot I'd posted in this thread...I can't see that there is anything other than the model to consider for most of the things BOBC mentions. And where there's not minor 3d corrections to make, there's only deletions to make, which are even easier! :)

Two tier pedals - extremely minor 3d correction, texture and normal map to add text if necessary
small diameter clock standing proud of inst panel surface - 10 second 3d correction, texturing at a stretch if anything changed about the clock-face.
One fuel gauge - deletion
Only Volts not Volts and amps below it. - deletion
Box type radio port wall. - slightly more involved but still very minor 3d correction
No landing lamp controller - deletion
Bakelite seat and not grey green aluminium. - recolouring, maybe material/shader changes
All black bakelite deep recessed trim wheel. - minor 3d, recolouring
Just...not very much to do now that the vast majority of the work is already done. I just have to point this out because I'm sick of people pulling out their fanboy suits (I'm not putting you at the top end of that category by any means) and shouting "too much work" over 10 second fixes. Especially when they're in areas of the game that people will be constantly exposed to (well, except for the wonder-woman crowd ;) )
It's possible that these are meant the other way around (can't remember, too busy looking at econometrics ergh), but even then, it's not a HUGE amount of work for a model that people are going to spend years looking at, an ammeter, an additional fuel gauge, and a landing lamp controller (two of which obviously don't even desperately need to be visibly functional)

[AndyJWest]

Maybe you're right Grunch. I think I was really aiming my comments more at the general 'fix everything' comments we were getting. The trouble is, there doesn't even seem to be a consensus in this thread about what a BoB Mk 1 Spit instrument panel should look like. It will be a bit difficult to make a case for changes if we can't agree what they should be.

You have my sympathy over the econometrics. Doesn't sound like fun...

[KG26_Alpha]

As already stated on page 1 the two images I posted there show correct rudder pedals but............

Make changes sure.

But you will never make the right one 100%.

Some one somewhere will tell you its wrong unless you state that the MkI ac modelled in BoB Sow is a particular one including manufacturing number and squadron allocation date.

Then the assigned ac details can be referenced and check as accurate for the sim.

Now that's then generalizing all Spit MKI's in SoW as one particular plane so everyone gets to fly the one referenced ac.

If like me on the other hand, I don't really care, as I know there were differences between MKI's at squadron level, if we have a "general" pit. it covers then most squadron level Spits instead of tying the MkI down to one particular aircraft.

Whatever :)

[kristorf]

Excellent work mate, so how'd you get the pictures of the cockpit?

Before he saw me........

[philip.ed]

Before he saw me........

:D haha LOL. If you're telling the truth mate, that is pretty cool.

If I could pull off a good Polish accent I'd try this.

[TheGrunch]

The trouble is, there doesn't even seem to be a consensus in this thread about what a BoB Mk 1 Spit instrument panel should look like.

Agreed, it seems to be the problem in the vast majority of arguments of this nature...given the fact that museum aircraft have almost without exception been subject to minor upgrades during and after their periods of front-line service, not to mention compromises made in restorations. Aircraft that still fly are subject to even more of these compromises, of course. Modern radios, no gunsights, new harnesses, etc.


You have my sympathy over the econometrics. Doesn't sound like fun...
If I hear the words 'multiple regression analysis', 'multicollinearity' or 'heteroscedasticity' ever again after tomorrow afternoon I'm probably going to vomit. :-x

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

heteroscedasticity? sounds sexual :P

[AndyJWest]

heteroscedasticity? sounds sexual :P

Perhaps you should try plesiomorphy or homoplasy - from cladistics...

Sadly, looking up the meaning of 'heteroscedasticity' reveals that one would have to have very odd tastes to get sexual pleasure from it.

[BOBC]

Hi,
quoting myself :-
Surviving spitfire Mk1's cannot be used as accurate reference for what the BoB pit looked like, with the exception of the Spitfire Mk1 at Cosford....Aircraft undergo changes, Supermarine were forever issuing amendments and if you look at the MkII spitfire instrument panel drawing (there isnt one for the Mk1) you will see down the left side the amendments and when they were issued

Hi MD Wild Weasel, The photos on that page you have found cannot be used to indicate what that Mk1 spit looked like during the BoB, it only shows what official and unofficial modifications were carried out since the BoB. That aircraft structurally (frames etc) would show what it had in 1940, but the instrument panel can be removed, and was. Note the later trim wheel, its also received two starter buttons. BoB spits had a single starter button, an aluminium button mounted on an oval plate with the words engine starter vertically chinese style either side. Then this was replaced along with production spits featuring such, with the square mounted bakelite button, still with a spring loaded protective flip up cover. The double type came later after the BoB.
One fuel gauge , the size of the pic, I can see or can I. a vacant hole, certainly a darker spot ?. All BoB spit crashes had two.
One of the pressure gauges is missing.
Its also seen the gunsight changed to a later square glass type.
The cream hose stbd wall is a later mod for oxygen masks, the BoB period had a fitting on the cockpit wall into which the Mk III* brass bayonet coupling on the end of the braided hose was plugged. That hose is for a type E and onwards mask (rubber concertina hose).
Two tier rudder pedals, again a post BoB mod.
Pics of surviving spit Mk1's simply dont portray what they had during the BoB.

You mention a ring and bead gunsight pic with one fuel gauge. Can you post that pic here please.

so all i can make out the only wrong in olegs cockpit are the addition of the fuel pressure gauge whereas in the photo of the mk1 pit its absent. No evidence of two fuel gauges nor two fuel cock levers. It sound like in your description that you may have been looking at a Pr version. This would explain extra tanks/gauges and fuel cocks for extra range?
Do read again what I have said and see my own quote above. All panels referred to are those frozen in time, crashes from the BoB, not PR spits...oh and that fantastic R serialled spit at Brize Norton footage I mentioned, showing what K,L,P and R serialled spits featured in the 'office'. The X panel I studied also had these features.

Also with the lack of a radio(im going to have to reasearch this more btw) why would they require night landing lamps. early spits in BOB were ground at dusk
..eh ?..they did have radios, VHF then UHF by the time the BoB arrived, they could talk to Ops and also to each other. Mitchell put a landing lamp in, the fact that they found night flying dicey came after the design saw it on the production line.


Hendons Mk1 ..likewise the golden rule applies, do not assume that it indicates a cockpit frozen in time from 1940, they had mods done throughout the service life of the aircraft. Again one fuel gauge and a later square glass gunsight, also a missing pressure gauge, they would have had two, a wine/red coloured one and a mustard yellow coloured one.

Someone has been round that cockpit with matt black paint, they have overpainted the oil pressure gauge and the boost gauge bezel as well as the instument panel, and fittings stbd wall. Their approach to restoration in the period when the BoB hall was created is not what it is now. The Ju88 saw someone with a tin of grey paint do the entire cockpit, sticking masking tape over any lettering on black items, so a mix of black and rlm66 is now all grey with text on black backgrounds peeking through !

TheGrunch...Two tier pedals - extremely minor 3d correction, texture and normal map to add text if necessary

small diameter clock standing proud of inst panel surface - 10 second 3d correction, texturing at a stretch if anything changed about the clock-face.
Larger clock face with different knobs and face artwork.

One fuel gauge - deletion
um...no...addition..needs two.

Only Volts not Volts and amps below it. - deletion
..again...no...addition.,..needs Volts and amps

Box type radio port wall. - slightly more involved but still very minor 3d correction
um..no... its ok as is . a box type would be wrong!

No landing lamp controller - deletion
I think you lost track..it needs a landing lamp controller.

Bakelite seat and not grey green aluminium. - recolouring, maybe material/shader changes
recolour to grey green.


All black bakelite deep recessed trim wheel. - minor 3d, recolouring
The aluminium trim wheel is somewhat different, see b/w pic in this thread, and that video I refer to.

It's possible that these are meant the other way around
certainly some were :!:

QUOTE]it's not a HUGE amount of work for a model that people are going to spend years looking at,[/QUOTE]

an ammeter, an additional fuel gauge, and a landing lamp controller (two of which obviously don't even desperately need to be visibly functional)
Glad to see someone thinks its worth a little time on it.

BOBC

[Biggs]

Hey BOBC, slightly off topic but do you know what version of propeller we should be seeing in SOW? the deHavilland 2- pitch or the Rotol Constant speed.

I thought in the early part of 1940 most of the spits were fitted with de Havilland but by the late spring they were producing them with the better performing constant speed.

I asked Oleg a while ago but I dont think I got a definitive answer.

[TheGrunch]

Yeah, my mistake BOBC, I forgot which way round was which on some of the changes (knew it as I was writing it though, heh), I was busy studying some rather harrowing statistics work at the time. :( Either way it's not a lot of work.

[BOBC]

Biggs...Hey BOBC, slightly off topic but do you know what version of propeller we should be seeing in SOW? the deHavilland 2- pitch or the Rotol Constant speed.

I thought in the early part of 1940 most of the spits were fitted with de Havilland but by the late spring they were producing them with the better performing constant speed.

I asked Oleg a while ago but I dont think I got a definitive answer.

Information I have managed to obtain now (and thanks to those suppliers of same, summarised says:-
By Dunkirk almost all of the RAF home fighter force had De Havilland variable pitch (2 settings, three blader). According to Al Deere, in "Nine Lives," 54 Squadron were trialling Rotol constant-speed props, during the Dunkirk evacuation
The Rotol (hydraulic) constant speed was introduced for production of MkII Spits and retrofitted to MkI from June 1940. It's a manual constant speed (ie. fully variable )
The constant-speed propeller (same propeller but with internal adjustments) modifications were carried out in the field from June 26th to August 15th on 1,051 Spits and Hurris by De Havilland engineers and squadron staff as the further performance advantages were obvious by then over the 2 speed props..
de-Havilland propellers were licence-built Hamilton designs, Rotol being a home-designed product.
The Hamilton Standard is electric and less prone to overspeeding in dives; it came later.
Rotol were a bit further ahead with their constand speed propeller developments during the first year of the war.
The Rotol electric props utilised the Curtiss Electric-designed propeller pitch change mechanism for their electric props, presumably as an alternative to hyydraulic should any serious production problems arrive with the hydraulic types.

BOBC

[KG26_Alpha]

Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment
Boscombe Down
30 July 1940

Comparison of Performance of Rotol and DH Airscrews on Spitfire

Both the aircraft are similar externally and are fitted with bullet proof windscreen and armour plating over the tank, etc.

Aircraft R6774 is fitted with DH airscrew and N3171 with Rotol airscrew.

It will be noted that these aircraft are about 12 miles an hour down in speed against the previously tested K9793, but the relative comparison remains. This loss in speed is accounted for, by 6 miles an hour for the bullet proof windscreen and 6 miles an hour due to loss in engine power.

Level Speed miles per hour.

Aeroplane Altitude Feet

14000 16000 Max. speed 20000 22000
R6774 342 349 355 @ 17,800' 350 341
N3171 336 343 354 @ 18,900' 354 352

The above tests were all carried out using 87 octane fuel with boost limited to +6.25 lbs./sq.in. Climb figures were achieved using the 2600 rpm 1/2 hour climb limit. By the Battle of Britain all operational squadrons had changed over to 100 octane fuel and the engine limits on the Spitfires had been increased to +12 lbs./sq.in. 3,000 rpm with 1/2 hour climb limit increased to 2850 - 3000 rpm. Royal Aircraft Establishment figures for a Spitfire I using +12 lbs/sq. in. boost are 314 mph at Sea Level and 359 mph at a full throttle height of 11,500 feet.

From

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html

[Skoshi Tiger]

Also that the CSU cut still air take off distance to 225yrds vs about 320 and increased rate of climb compared to the 2 pitch propellers.

http://www.spitfiresite.com/hobbies/art-memorabilia/uploaded_images/rotol-constant-speed-propeller-ad-1941-777660.jpg

[BOBC]

Do we know if Oleg and team have corrected the Mk2/5 hybrid cockpit to a Mk1 Bob period spit yet ? ...and if the observations have in fact ever reached them ?
I just cant see how what is the most awaited sim can have us in a later war cockpit.

BOBC

[major_setback]

I don't think there will be any major changes this close to release. And I don't think it is reasonable to expect any.

[WTE_Galway]

"It was one of the first 300 hundred produced and eventually went to an OTU where it was finally upgraded to MKV specification".


I am not sure if an example that was retired to a training unit and then fitted with a later cockpit (MkV was mid 1941) to keep it contemporary for training purposes is a particularly good example for your argument that DURING THE BATTLE no two MkI Spitfires were alike :D

[BOBC]

Quite right,
Now are Oleg and team aware of the errors and are they making a conscious decision to keep them, or are forum posters doing their decision making for them. I would like Oleg to reply to all this, to know that they want a later spit in this sim.
Oleg...where are you ?
BOBC

[Ze-Jamz]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/DSCF2166.jpg

Just seen this here...Such a good picture

thks

[MarckCargo]

Red Too that is very intellectual discussion. Himmm , informative post discussion it is.
Have you heard about plan crash accident because of bee in the cockpit. Next time I will share a link of that video on youtube. That is very strange to hear about.