dark light

Matty

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 165 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: History Channel – Dogfights, Season 2 #1244905
    Matty
    Participant

    yes, they’re on the History Channel UK!!

    Just wondering if it had trickled down onto any other (free) channels really.

    Is it any good? There seems to have been a lot of effort gone into it.

    in reply to: Flying Legends 2007 Feedback (merged) #1248427
    Matty
    Participant

    ….So the commentary was OTT, but I’m sure that to most of the crowd it was funny in a way unintended to the commentator.

    The lowlights? After a whole day of exhorting us to stay on after the flying finished to ease the exit jams, to find all the museum buildings closed so soon after the balbo fly past was irritating.

    The F15 lady was hilarious, I didn’t notice anyone angry, just folk with bemused smirks.

    I agree about the staying behind bit. Perhaps the show could be shifted an hour earlier? I still haven’t managed to see the AirSpace exhibit, it had closed by the time I’d walked all the way down there. :confused:

    in reply to: Flying Legends 2007 Feedback (merged) #1248588
    Matty
    Participant

    thunder flies, of Biblical proportions

    I thought it was incredibly well organised. In particular, the traffic management was very well done. I hadn’t been in many years but do remember sitting in half hour traffic jams trying to get in. None of that this time.

    I didn’t count on the thunder flies though, what do the little ******s want?!

    I really like that people bring chairs now. Last time I went there was a lot of standing and unless you were near the front you didn’t stand a chance.

    That Bearcat display while they were off forming the Balbo was fantastic, awesome flying.
    Oh, and the loud American lady, with the musical accompaniment, ‘narrating’ the F15 was highly amusing, although I’m sure it wasn’t intended as such. 😉

    in reply to: Twin-engined Spitfire! #1265718
    Matty
    Participant

    single late mark fuselage with a rounded nose like hornet, twin griffon engine’s 2 stage supercharger, five bladed rotol prop, twin 20mm cannon or single 30mm cannon with provison for external stores/fueltank, or radar for night fighter role. am i getting warm? just a thought thats all.

    Do you think they would have gone all out with that fancy newer stuff considering they wanted it in production in ’41? Even the Hornet avoided going Griffon.

    in reply to: Twin-engined Spitfire! #1267101
    Matty
    Participant

    What if Type 327 had been made?

    Based on the information we have on the real twin Spit (the proposed Supermarine Type 327) does anyone want to hazard a guess as to what details we might have expected to see in it?

    Specifically, what Spit variant/s might it have most resembled based on the knowledge that it was expected to go into production toward the end of 1941 in place of the Tempest/Typhoon?

    in reply to: Twin-engined Spitfire! #1269999
    Matty
    Participant

    Wow, I’d never heard of this. I fairly quickly found this picture of the mockup.

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/SuperMarine05.jpg

    I’m sorely tempted to throw together a CG version just to see what it would have really looked like. I’m wondering if anyone else already tried?

    in reply to: New "Dambusters" film in "Sunday Express" #1292949
    Matty
    Participant

    Wouldn’t it be good if they filmed all the night stuff in black and white? I’ve just thought about the CGI issue with animating a damn explosion and B&W might give it an edge with the run-in and Moehne going down.
    BR
    Two-time Moehne “dambuster”

    Peter Jackson’s visual effects company is well known for doing as much as they can as models and real props. I don’t think there’s much to fear in regard to too much CGI.
    In fact we’ve already seen how they deal with destroying dams in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. It looked pretty good to me 🙂

    Regardless, CGI fire and explosions are still fairly uncommon in most movies – most choosing to composite with real footage.

    in reply to: SR.45 Princess CGI recreation – need help #1314255
    Matty
    Participant

    Yeah, I’ve already checked out Pathe, it was the first port of call. I’ve now got a DVD with quite a bit of colour footage but after scouring that I still couldn’t make out how the control surfaces work, almost all footage has it in straight flight. It’s like the thing never turned! 🙁

    in reply to: SR.45 Princess CGI recreation – need help #1314283
    Matty
    Participant

    Ah! That’s great. Sort of. So, what does that all mean in real terms. By that I mean, how might they have moved? In unison or in sequence? Differing angles even?
    I’ve attached a picture, you can see the flaps are segmented also yet the wing is not curved. The ailerons are not built in yet. Once I’ve got more info on them I’ll build them in.

    I’ve got some video footage now, but this sort of detail is not apparent. At least not on the ailerons. The flaps seem to move in unison, but they don’t appear to be particularly precise, they’re often slightly out of line with each other.

    cheers!

    Matty
    Participant

    Great work as always.

    Not wanting to detract from the planes themselves, but where do you source those great background photos from? Do you think up the composition first and then find a fitting background or vice-versa?

    in reply to: Martin Shaw TV series (Very old thread) #1282102
    Matty
    Participant

    Twofour,
    It sounds a really interesting series but I cannot view it. Is there any chance of it being available on DVD in the future?
    Cheers,
    Trapper 69

    Likewise. Is this an obscure channel? I only have Freeview, and when I did have a Sky subsciption I don’t remember getting a Discovery RealTime – just regular Discovery.

    I read about this in the Express (I think) at the weekend, had an interview with Martin. It’s not often I look out for stuff on TV, so it’s a shame I’ll miss this one. 🙁

    in reply to: Area 51? #1284101
    Matty
    Participant

    keep yer eyes peeled on this webcam here and you might find out 😉

    http://www.flyingsaucercam.com/

    in reply to: SR.45 Princess CGI recreation – need help #1284572
    Matty
    Participant

    whilst somthing may look straight on a drawing, it may have a surface curvature which would not allow for feasible actuator geometry. I guess only the horses mouth can really tell us!

    That’s quite true, and I do hope so. 🙂

    in reply to: SR.45 Princess CGI recreation – need help #1285556
    Matty
    Participant

    pure geometry may not allow actuators across the control surface (such as the flap to operate in harmony.

    another reason could be redundancy but i would have thought the first would be more likely, along with manufacturing constraints etc etc.

    The wings in all the reference I can find are quite straight. I did think maybe the wings had a slight curve and were segmented like an F4U, but it doesn’t appear to be the case.
    And if length was a problem I’m sure they wouldn’t have that problem on much smaller surfaces like the elevators and rudder.

    Along the lines of your second thought, I did consider they might only be like this on the prototype. The following ships might have done without this complexity…. Honestly I’m more interested in the operation rather than the reasons behind it.

    Unless I hear otherwise I’m tempted to offset them all just to add to it visually – I’d just like to be accurate if I could though. 🙂

    in reply to: SR.45 Princess CGI recreation – need help #1286174
    Matty
    Participant

    Thanks guys. Wow, this forum really moves, I’ve been away 2 days and I’m on page 3 already!

    low’n’slow: That would be great if you could get that info from Mr Stratton. I should amend my original statement – the flaps were segmented into the 3, the ailerons into 4.
    From the pictures the play on the ailerons is so subtle as to be not be noticeable but the flaps are fully extended in a number of shots – but the segmented sections appear to be aligned each time.

    Philip: Thanks very much for the photo there. I popped down to Southampton a few months back on a recce but sadly could find little information – that photo you’ve got there is the best reference I have so far. Do you know of other places to look for similar reference?
    You mentioned birth 50, do you know of where BOAC had planned for the Princess to operate?

    If I can’t find specific reference for a 1950’s era flying boat port, what airports where built during this period that I might take reference from and extrapolate?
    (Of course I could find this out myself, I’m just wondering what you chaps might think is more suitable in this instance).

    Thanks once again.

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 165 total)