Oleg - Spitfire Cockpit.

[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

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

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.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

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.

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

heteroscedasticity? sounds sexual

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by MD_Wild_Weasel

heteroscedasticity? sounds sexual

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