I came across this Russian site one day…

http://www.rusring.net/~levin/k7/k777.htm

Wonder how it fared against the Nazi UFO!:D

Not sure – if you’re going to spend all that time building a replica Mossie why settle for a 3/4 size one….

I guess it’s just a trade off, relatively small reduction in dimensions for a huge reduction in size, weight, materials, required engines etc etc.

In very simple terms, picture a 4m cube. 4 x 4 x 4 = 64m3
At 75%, you get a 3m cube, at 3 x 3 x 3 = 27m3

So, for dimensions scaled at 75%, you get about 40% of the volume, which translates directly to weight and materials.

Also, if someone can conjure up some more interior pics of this type turret, I think you will find your electrical panel may have been by the gunner’s left waist… I have a small diagram in a book that suggests ‘Panel Lamp & Switch’.

My guess is turret, possibly rear turret.

The diamond shape in the first pic looks like the hole that the control column would extend through, and the next pics look like it could be a small electrical panel for a turret…

Good entertainment makes you think – bad entertainment reassures you that’s not worth the bother.

But! Defining good and bad entertainment is very subjective!

What we can never know is how many people will come away from an altered portrayal of history in film with the interest to seek out the reality for themselves versus the numbers of those pursuing an interest after watching an accurate portrayal of history.

I guess, if they care about the history of the story, the film makers have gone with the idea of portraying an altered view on history (if indeed they have..) as an investment on keeping history alive (and to a greater degree, their bank accounts!)

Gee, you guys all STILL here?

Let me save you all some time and abbreviate the next 4 pages:

“It’s going to be crap.”

“No it’s not.”

“Yes it is.”

“How can you say that, you’ve seen only 2 1/2 minutes of it!”

“It’s CGI, they’re always crap.”

“That’s you’re perception.”

“Agreed. And my perception is the right perception.”

“Why? Because you are learnered?”

“No, because I’ve sat in a plane before. And it’s spelled ‘LEARNED’.”

“I’m just going to wait and see how it turns out before I judge it’s worth.”

“Don’t bother. I can predict how they turn out. And this one is clart. Black people 70 years ago weren’t like that.”

Etc, etc… :diablo: 😀

Ok, so is this what you are saying JDK?:-

As evidenced from the short trailer, the film ignores historical reality by:
– using incorrect aircraft types with markings…
– depicting completely incorrect units/squadrons/groups whatever,
– pursuing political issues etc that may or may not be true,
– depicting flight characteristics that appear impossible,
– depicting the pilot’s characteristics and sentiments incorrectly,
etc etc etc…

And as such, to defend the film as either good or helpful in promoting history and aviation is a lazy and simple view of the reality?

If so, I think most here would largely agree.

Although, all a few of us were doing was defending the quality of the CGI.

If ILM did indeed model the flight characteristics realistically, it appears that the efforts may have been wasted at times, because the portrayal of some scenes do not convince many here. Whether it be a speeding up of time, ‘creative’ positioning of cameras or whatever, they have failed to convince (at least some more discerning) audience members. If they can only convince the ignorant and those experienced with the use of CGI (who may be able to say “I think this is what they did there..”) then it is just lazy directing.

If ILM have NOT modelled the scenes realistically, then THEY are the lazy ones.

So, while some have been able to appreciate the scenes in the trailer from whatever understanding they may or may not have, the discussion here has suggested that whatever it is the makers have tried to do, it hasn’t really worked as well as it should have.