Cripple

More progress. This is a dry-fitting of the dash panel and the head armour. Large grin here as I cut the dash panel according to the original plans while the frame is from a secondary source - and it all fits! Lovely to sit in too... (Interesting point: I was wondering why the original plans say to glue an L-section of metal to the bottom of the dash panel. Then I pressed when the starter would be... Booooing, as the panel bends inward. Ah, that'll be why. I'll do as they recommend then!) Also included a wee shot of the workshop/hanger/dispersal room. New workbench makes it a great deal more tidy, and it should look great once I get the WW2 maps and adverts up on the walls. :)

Well, the AI would be simple...:megalol:

... and a V-1 "Doodlebug"?

Wow! That looks amazing in the aluminium. Bet you can't resist running your hand along the side whilst making 'vrooooom' noises... :P

Yup. :thumbup:

Interesting. When I've been thinking about this I kinda considered the shifting of the head to be an undesirable side-effect, particularly when wearing an HMD as the whole viewpoint would move. Turns out that's what actually happens... :thumbup: (Funnily enough I've never flown a military jet.:music_whistling:)

I'm hoping for at least the option of bombs and drop tanks. Even if they are added later. Rockets I could do without (I believe they were only tested in 1945 anyway). Heh heh, I must be something of a rarity then. Much as the raw power of the Griffon appeals slightly on a visceral, I'm not a fan of the later marks tbh. Low back, cluttered panel, twisty throttle grip, and a prop that rotates the wrong way - call that a "Spitfire"? :music_whistling: Seriously though, I still reckon the IX is about the pinnacle of the Merlin'd Spits (just as well, as I'm building one, eh?) Under different circumstances the Griffon models may have been named differently too...

Apologies for going off topic... :doh:

Cool. Here's a good vid on how to DIY a tactile transducer (which is what the BK is). It's in Foreign, but very easy to follow regardless: [ame] [/ame]

Cheers for the mini-review, John. I'll admit that I've been in two minds about the 'kicker - gimmick, or effective. You've swung me across to the latter camp now. Hmmmm. As it works off the bass from the audio, shouldn't some bright spark be able to mod the audio cues for the wheels-up/canopy/etc so that the trigger the 'kicker too? Basically add a "spike" of bass?

Interesting post. I've been thinking along parallel lines myself (along with airspeed based control tensioning), but it's very much a secondary or even tertiary stage for after the 'pit is flyable. Unfortunately I've lost the links (or maybe they were on my 'phone) but I remember reading a couple of articles that indicated: a) g seat type cueing is more efficacious for immersion that motion platform systems - assuming each is used alone. b) air bladder g seats were not well regarded by the testing pilots as they seemed to "squirm" under one as one's weight shifted. If you google "nasa g seat" you can find a few more articles - none that seem to implement your idea though. Commercial seats seem to use a combo of both, rather like the linked DIY version. At the moment, from my own (probably flawed) reading of the research, a three-fold system would probably be best: two inflatable bladder on the seat back for simulating +/- thrust, mechanical two "flaps" on the seat base for simulating roll/heave, and tightening straps (at least shoulder) for simulating negative g. The devil, of course, is in the details.... The burning question is: can we even extract the necessary info out from DCS?

Omg... please don't turn this thread in to a CoG debate too. :( It was my understanding that the mkIX was very similar to the mkV, essentially being an up-engined mkV airframe with a few wee tweeks. I believe early models were even converted from mkVs on the production line, before dedicated production of the mkIX got up to speed. Certainly, if you read the manuals for the mkIX (AP 1565J&L?), they refer back to the mkV manuals (AP 1565E) - with Section 2, the flying and handling info, being a placeholder that says "same as a mkV" (image attached). I'm not going back through this thread, but I am sure I read she's going to have the Merlin 66 too. That should even the playing field nicely...:D

Heh heh - believe it or not I've actually not glued the upper and lower sections, so she will (with a bit of wiggling) fit through a normal domestic door. I already did that with the lower frame... seems like *years* ago now. Wings... forgot them...:doh: Right, here's a wee update too. Got the frames painted up and added the voltage regulator. It's just window dressing (literally), has a few differences from the authentic model, and will be mostly hidden behind the rear canopy. However, I think you'll agree that it simply wouldn't look the part without those twin cylinders behind the pilot's head. (Besides, they help me prove to myself that I'm actually making progress on something other than green wood... you know?)

That's the Natter, isn't it? Interesting aircraft, but very much the product of desperation rather then innovation. Effectively a manned-SAM, and one that killed the test pilot... In answer to your question: No - my considered opinion is that given the limited endurance and payload of this aircraft it would have had little impact upon the final outcome.

I think it's a good idea, for as and when 2-seaters become viable. The financial outlay is ... minimal, compared to bona fide IRL flight training (simulated or otherwise). Personally, I'd like to see a two-seat prop trainer though. Some of us aren't (virtual) jet jockeys. ;-)

Pity. I rather like the idea of modelled engine life-span... I think one of the other Spitfire Sims does it. You have to remember to put the kite in for maintenance and all that.

What accents do you need? I'm Scottish, but my natural accent is generally more like RP English... (I am delighted to see posts like the OP too. Keep up the good work!)

And another wee update. Got the first coat on the framework. She's looking a bit less balsa-kit-plane and a little more Spitfire.... :)

A *single* medium bomber for each faction (argue the specifics amongst yourselves... :P). Now, the principle behind getting one for each faction before expanding should be obvious, but why a medium bomber rather than a more iconic heavy? Simple. Solo play. An unescorted medium bomber can be brought down by fighter relatively easily. I don't know about the rest of you, but watching a wounded heavy fly off home because I've run out of ammo - again - doesn't really appeal...

Other - the fabled WW2 map/campaign to get rolled out. What's the point of more WW2 fighters without a place to fly them? (Like we really need *more* current jets too...)

I hope so too. Hopefully when the WW2 map is released there will be a bigger uptake. Warbird pits are probably slightly easier to make too - lower switch-count, plans are unclassified, vintage parts available... Speaking of which, I nabbed another wee bargain on ebay. Got myself a filthy as hell kigass primer for about half the going rate. This thing was black though, looked like it had been knocking about a barn floor for a few decades - probably because it had! :P Anyway, a spot of elbow-grease with a kitchen sponge and a cocktail stick and it cleaned up nicely. Greased, and moves smoothly. Nice wee surprise too - not only is it marked '1942', but it has the Air Ministry crown stamp on it as well. Oh, and after a spot of head-scratching I've worked out how to interface it too. I was wondering if I'd have to use pressure switches or diaphragms or some nonsense like that. However once I (non-destructively) removed the valves it became clear that if one added push-rods to suitable switches then the plunger could operate them at the end of the push stroke. It's going to make starting her all rather good fun!

I think I saw her flying south around about Gorebridge (south of Edinburgh) a couple of weekends a go... Very elegant lady.

Bluethorton - Thanks. :) How's that hogpit coming? This is the stuff: http://www.diy.com/departments/selit-5mm-expanded-polystyrene-laminate-floor-underlay-5m/252020_BQ.prd Raceguy - Interesting technique, and it has worked really well. Looks the business.

Paradox - excellent point. Someone in another thread who was claiming the F-18 was "better" than the A-10 needed reminded of that too.:music_whistling: Bongodriver - ... and here was me thinking this was friendly little debate to kill time until the IX surfaces.

Raceguy - no probs, and that is looking really good! The slight grain works very well with the silver. How did you paint it up? I'd love to see a full build thread too. LynxDK - Cheers. It's just foam stuff, but the frame takes the weight so it doesn't need to be weight-bearing. Oh, and I'll not be duct-taping it on when I do it properly. :P