@ 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
) 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.