Need an old trainer?

[YoYo]

I notice than Just Flight put the new model in his "incoming" section - DHC-1 Chipmunk.


http://assets.justflight.com/productimages/dhc1-chipmunk_2_ss_l_140515154151.jpg

http://assets.justflight.com/productimages/dhc1-chipmunk_13_ss_l_140515154230.jpg

http://www.justflight.com/product/dhc1-chipmunk

[Ferry_vO]

Just saw it on Facebook too; great news! :encouragement:


coming next week!

[Oliver]

AHEM! "Old Trainer"?

Less of the old please!

I learnt to fly in a Chippie!

[Ian Warren]

Another superb cockpit and external details :adoration:

[noddy]

At last, great news.

[Roger]

Yes...at last:applause:

[YoYo]

AHEM! "Old Trainer"?

Less of the old please!

I learnt to fly in a Chippie!

Lucky man! :applause:

[Naismith]

It'll be a sad day when I have to retire my Rick Piper Chippy, but seeing this she will have to go. :-(

[bazzar]

Civilian and military versions with removable pilots.Ground starts, Detailed engine...a few more shots:engel016:

[srgalahad]

It looks lovely!

The RCAF-painted version is actually a Chipmunk 22 (demobilized Chipmiunk T.10) of the Shuttleworth Collection.


For those who are less familiar with the a/c here's a pic of the prototype:
http://www.shu-aero.com/AeroPhotos_Shu_Aero/Aircraft_C/de_Havilland/DHC_1_CF_DIO_X_01_large.jpg

Now, Baz, I imagine you expect the following comment (and someone HAS to say it), so....

What, no Canadian version with the blown-perspex 'bubble' canopy???

8564
DHC-1B-2

Sigh.... :dejection:

(Not released? then there's still time...)

OK, before everyone gets all excited, I certainly understand the modeler's right to make what they want and to balance time/effort. On the other hand there are those of us who are really proud of the Canadian aircraft industry and will be sad to see 20% of the Chippy production ignored.

BTW, today -May 22 is the 68th anniversary of the Chipmunk's first flight (1946). Interesting that HRH Prince Philip is touring Canada this week - his first training flight was in 1952 - in a Chipmunk.

[stiz]

looks good, bout time someone did one of these :applause:

[Martyn]

(Not released? then there's still time...)

Yes :encouragement:

[T6flyer]

I for one, am looking forward to this as only last week flew a Chipmunk and I hope that we will be able to install this on our Museum simulator as give rides to the public in the real thing and then replicate the learning experience on the sim.

Martin
Classic Air Force
www.classicairforce.com

[guzzi]

Yep should be a Canadian version - after all it is a Canadian designed aircraft! Would be nice to see a Supernunk (180hp Lycoming engined) -the RAFGSA and a few civilian gliding clubs use them in the UK as glider towplanes and believe the Portuguese airforce re-engined their Chimpunks with the Lycoming. Of courses there's the heavily modified aerobatic versions with even bigger engines, like Art Scholl's. I believe their was even a Chippie on floats - I know Rick modelled one but don't think it was ever released.

Have been towed by standard and 180hp Chipmunks- on a very hot day (we sometimes get them in the UK) I have know the standard Chipmunks to be incapable of towing out of a 900 yard grass field, and had one or two marginal tows myself.


Sadly looks like Rick's might be going to the back of the hangar?. However the wings as pointed out over at CBFS don't seem quite right - look a bit too ribbed and wooden! Hope the developer realises they are not!

However it has my favourite paint scheme on a Chippy included in this pack!

[Paul J]

Well, I guess I am the only nit-picker here! While I love the Rick Piper version, you're all correct - it is a "dated" aircraft model, and it shows - and it is about time someone did an updated version. I dislike that blurry, dented and worn instrument panel intensely - believing Rick could have found a much better VC panel than he did. However - it is what it is, and has given hundreds (thousands?) of simmers some great hours of Chippie experience - especially those who have the Bernt Stolle FDE.

If this new one had been produced by A2A - I would have been raving over it's realism, it's textures, it's documentation, and its flight model, and so on; however...this one is so typical of a Just Flight product - all the advertising would indicate an aircraft of A2A quality, but instead we are treated to another aircraft which is constructed almost entirely from graphic art instead of actual 'photos of the real thing.

Does Just Flight think we are blind? That we have no knowledge of airfoil sections? Or experience of the full-sized Chippie? The airfoil on the original (and on Rick's) is very different to the boxy "effort" they have created: the r/w (and R. P's) Chip has washout-out - and - undercamber - at the tips. If Rick P. et al could create this wing (FSX version) some eight years ago - why cannot JF achieve the same - or better?

Still on the wing - r/w fabric looks nothing like that depicted on the yellow liveried aircraft. Only by moving in close to the wing should one actually perceive any weave. On top of this - there's sag between the ribs???? What the devil?? There should be zero fabric sag anywhere on the wing; indeed - the only part where ribs are somewhat pronounced - is on the rudder. Other noticeable points - the square(ish) noses.... the not-very-round rear fuselage... the "Lift here" hole, missing from all fuselages - all picked out from eight or nine small pics.

In it's defense - I have to say the interior shots look pretty good - better than Ricks, in fact, and will do for me until I see the finished product. The exteriors, however - are abysmal.

I love the old girl: she was my first back in 1957, and went on to both scare the pants off me, and to most often amaze and delight me. Truly a Pilot's aircraft.

For me, this offering is a disappointment; Just Flight could - and should have done much better. Or maybe this is just me?

Apologies for being a wet blanket - I would have much preferred warm and cuddly, for sure.

pj

[ThinkingManNeil]

It's always puzzled me as to why DH UK and the RAF chose to go with that framed canopy when the blown Canadian bubble version is clearly superior (forgive the pun). I can't see any advantage in it and, not to trash anyone, it just ruins the look of a very smart, clean looking aircraft IMO. I do hope Just Flight includes the Canadian bubble version; I think I'll pass if otherwise...

N.

PS. I noticed that the FSX version of Rick Piper's superb FS9 Chippie lacked the bubble version as well. Pity...

PPS. Speaking of canopies, I would love to know why Lockheed never opted for bubble canopies on later models of the P-38 Lightning (J-model on...) or why Republic fitted heavily framed ones to their early F-84's. It's not like blown canopies were new technology by that point. If any one knows the reasoning behind those I'd like to hear...

[Martyn]

I do hope Just Flight includes the Canadian bubble version; I think I'll pass if otherwise...

Yes, a Canadian bubble version will be available.

[Paul J]

It's always puzzled me as to why DH UK and the RAF chose to go with that framed canopy when the blown Canadian bubble version is clearly superior (forgive the pun). I can't see any advantage in it and, not to trash anyone, it just ruins the look of a very smart, clean looking aircraft IMO. I do hope Just Flight includes the Canadian bubble version; I think I'll pass if otherwise...

PS. I noticed that the FSX version of Rick Piper's superb FS9 Chippie lacked the bubble version as well. Pity...


My source folder includes an RCAF Chippie, Neil: I thought it was included in my original d/l from Rick's site? Do you have his Chip?

pj

[ThinkingManNeil]

My source folder includes an RCAF Chippie, Neil: I thought it was included in my original d/l from Rick's site? Do you have his Chip?

pj

I do have the Chipmunk, Paul, but it appears to be a civilian, framed-canopy British version painted up as an RCAF machine, not an actual bubble canopy Canadian version...

Thanks,

N.

[Paul J]

I do have the Chipmunk, Paul, but it appears to be a civilian, framed-canopy British version painted up as an RCAF machine, not an actual bubble canopy Canadian version...

Thanks,

N.

You're right Neil; I only fly the '60 RAF DayGlo/Aluminium version, and I never see the RCAF livery. I thought it had the blown canopy, sorry.

pj

[Roger]

I've checked all the screenshots and I belive it will be credit to the jF stable!

[JimmyRFR]

I'm watching this with some interest. It's good to hear the bubble version will be available, as the inclusion of the Canadian models will surely help sway me to purchase!

[peter12213]

This is certainly looking good, looking forward to it.:applause:

[guzzi]

Yes, a Canadian bubble version will be available.

and what about the other 'shortcomings' people have pointed out? Will they be addressed before release?

Hope the FDE is accurate as well.

[guzzi]

It's always puzzled me as to why DH UK and the RAF chose to go with that framed canopy when the blown Canadian bubble version is clearly superior (forgive the pun). I can't see any advantage in it and, not to trash anyone, it just ruins the look of a very smart, clean looking aircraft IMO. I do hope Just Flight includes the Canadian bubble version; I think I'll pass if otherwise...

N.

PS. I noticed that the FSX version of Rick Piper's superb FS9 Chippie lacked the bubble version as well. Pity...

PPS. Speaking of canopies, I would love to know why Lockheed never opted for bubble canopies on later models of the P-38 Lightning (J-model on...) or why Republic fitted heavily framed ones to their early F-84's. It's not like blown canopies were new technology by that point. If any one knows the reasoning behind those I'd like to hear...

You'll find the answer in here. http://www.dhc-1flyer.com/ Brillant book if you can afford it. Hope the developer has a copy!

[delta_lima]

If this new one had been produced by A2A - I would have been raving over it's realism, it's textures, it's documentation, and its flight model, and so on; however...this one is so typical of a Just Flight product - all the advertising would indicate an aircraft of A2A quality, but instead we are treated to another aircraft which is constructed almost entirely from graphic art instead of actual 'photos of the real thing.

Does Just Flight think we are blind?

For me, this offering is a disappointment; Just Flight could - and should have done much better.



Seriously??
For starters, I see no "offering" here - just a number of WIP images, for crying aloud.

Indeed, if we're going to talk about "having done much better", why not try this on for size. How about taking all the alleged insider experience/perspective, and approach JF with an offer of constructive input? At the very least, give a developer the benefit of the doubt while its WIP - rather than judge the product as if it had already been released.

A very disappointing example to set.

For my part, I'm quite excited about an FSX Chippie too, having had some very fond memories in one many years ago. I too, welcome the blown canopy, though would not consider it a deal breaker. With the considerable amount of material available for both privately and museum-held examples, I'm hopeful that a fairly accurate model(s) set is feasible for JF.

DL

[Paul J]

Seriously??
For starters, I see no "offering" here - just a number of WIP images, for crying aloud.

Indeed, if we're going to talk about "having done much better", why not try this on for size. How about taking all the alleged insider experience/perspective, and approach JF with an offer of constructive input? At the very least, give a developer the benefit of the doubt while its WIP - rather than judge the product as if it had already been released.

A very disappointing example to set.

For my part, I'm quite excited about an FSX Chippie too, having had some very fond memories in one many years ago. I too, welcome the blown canopy, though would not consider it a deal breaker. With the considerable amount of material available for both privately and museum-held examples, I'm hopeful that a fairly accurate model(s) set is feasible for JF.

DL

Indeed "seriously" - absolutely. A WIP? The release of these pics, DL, and the detailed descriptions of its features suggest different. I see a "Coming Soon" announcement on the Just Flight site. That would suggest perhaps a few - a number of minor changes or alterations needing - work t.b.d on the flight model, perhaps - but not a wholesale replacement of the mainplane airfoil, nor a replacement of those strange fabric textures. They suggest that's the way the end product is going to look. Yes - I too, am excited about it's upcoming release - and will certainly purchase the aeroplane, as like you, I have many fond memories from the '50's and '60's. The Chippie is my all-time favourite, and if a freeware enthusiast like Rick can produce what he did - including the conversion to FSX - in 2006 - then JF ought to be able to improve on it for 2014.


A very disappointing example to set. Pardon?? I'll be the judge of any example which I choose to set - not you or anyone else. If you've at all followed the ascendancy of the DX10 api as it applies to FSX - you'll know what kind of example I've been setting.

Apologies, Roger. I think it may be time to retire altogether.

All the Best,

pj

[kilo delta]

Hope G-ARGG makes it into the pack..or one of our esteemed repainters can do the honours!

http://photos3.pix.ie/F4/A2/F4A2126F3FF5491987A18DBFA7D7088F-0000321957-0002846887-01024L-E2EA881250B240639273DBE55FA27D59.jpg (http://pix.ie/nforce/2846887)

[stiz]

Its worth noting that Just Flight publish addons from various developers, there not a single dev group like a2a,pmdg etc etc. If this is from the developers i think its from (AH?) their texturing has improved over previous offerings :applause:

As to the bluriness of the pics, i'm wondering if thats more p3d rather than the textures. As i've notice p3d tends to blur things a fair amount with the type of AA it uses.

[bazzar]

Yes I am sure this release will be a complete wash-out...

For those interested in these things, the airfoil on the Chippie is NACA2412 at the root and USA35B at the tip with approximately 2 degrees of washout.
This is actually very similar if not the same as a Piper J3 Cub, I believe.

If you do purchase the JF Chipmunk you will find these airfoils present in the production model, along with many other accuracies.:engel016:

[SeanTK]

Ah, very much looking forward to this! :)

And on that note, I'll probably get a few upset for observing this, and stating this as purely my personal opinion/observation, and understanding that it's still not finalized.....etc...etc....but....

Will the blue(-ish) tint on the canopy glass be toned down a bit? While I'm sure there are a few real examples with the tint applied, the majority I am seeing is just clear glass without a blue hue or tint.

Regardless, I'm sure it'll be an excellent seller. I also, just for my personal tastes, may try to tone down the high-gloss look of the textures just a tad as it makes the model look a bit plastic-like to me, but that's my own tastes that I'll work with on my own time, as I'm sure I'll still enjoy the model.

Again, looking forward to it.

[Anthin]

Well this looks really exciting to me. Hope there is an Irish Air Corp
one. If at all possible please include option for clear glass. This
would be the best for Orbix scenery. Also for my old eyes. Looking forward
to this.
Regards. Ps. if any JF guys are watching, Please clear glass option.:jump:

[T6flyer]

Well, I'm still looking forward to it. Always try to have at least one Chipmunk flight a year for interest's sake and managed that last week in the form of G-APLO at Newquay. After reading the comments here yesterday as to the wings, nipped into the hangar and took a few reference photos. Note that on our example, the landing light is on the starboard leg, whilst the majority of others are on the left. Will ask the engineers why this is so.

Awaiting the release!

Martin
Classic Air Force

[T6flyer]

Just noted in the nice screenshots on the previous page that the silver and green Chipmunk is registered G-AKON. This was a DH Rapide. Registration should be G-AKDN.

But then again, it could be my eyesight! :)

Martin

[Lawman]

Well, I guess I am the only nit-picker here! While I love the Rick Piper version, you're all correct - it is a "dated" aircraft model, and it shows - and it is about time someone did an updated version. I dislike that blurry, dented and worn instrument panel intensely - believing Rick could have found a much better VC panel than he did. However - it is what it is, and has given hundreds (thousands?) of simmers some great hours of Chippie experience - especially those who have the Bernt Stolle FDE.

If this new one had been produced by A2A - I would have been raving over it's realism, it's textures, it's documentation, and its flight model, and so on; however...this one is so typical of a Just Flight product - all the advertising would indicate an aircraft of A2A quality, but instead we are treated to another aircraft which is constructed almost entirely from graphic art instead of actual 'photos of the real thing.

Does Just Flight think we are blind? That we have no knowledge of airfoil sections? Or experience of the full-sized Chippie? The airfoil on the original (and on Rick's) is very different to the boxy "effort" they have created: the r/w (and R. P's) Chip has washout-out - and - undercamber - at the tips. If Rick P. et al could create this wing (FSX version) some eight years ago - why cannot JF achieve the same - or better?

Still on the wing - r/w fabric looks nothing like that depicted on the yellow liveried aircraft. Only by moving in close to the wing should one actually perceive any weave. On top of this - there's sag between the ribs???? What the devil?? There should be zero fabric sag anywhere on the wing; indeed - the only part where ribs are somewhat pronounced - is on the rudder. Other noticeable points - the square(ish) noses.... the not-very-round rear fuselage... the "Lift here" hole, missing from all fuselages - all picked out from eight or nine small pics.

In it's defense - I have to say the interior shots look pretty good - better than Ricks, in fact, and will do for me until I see the finished product. The exteriors, however - are abysmal.

I love the old girl: she was my first back in 1957, and went on to both scare the pants off me, and to most often amaze and delight me. Truly a Pilot's aircraft.

For me, this offering is a disappointment; Just Flight could - and should have done much better. Or maybe this is just me?

Apologies for being a wet blanket - I would have much preferred warm and cuddly, for sure.

pj

With all due respect for your opinion, but have you ever considered the fact that the majority of the FS-market may not care for a "hardcore" A2A-type simulation and that companies like JF simply cater for that specific (and BTW much larger) market:peaceful:?

[Tim-HH]

Some more informations: http://www.justflight.com/articles/dhc1-chipmunk-available-end-may-2014


Our DHC-1 Chipmunk for FSX and P3D v1/v2 will be available next week and this all-new aircraft will be a treat for anyone wishing to fly a great new model of the famous twin-cockpit post-war trainer.

The Chipmunk will come in nine military and civilian HD paint schemes, with special textures on the wing surfaces for a realistic ‘stretched, doped linen’ appearance and will feature a fully functional virtual cockpit as well as a 2D panel, optional navigation instruments in the rear cockpit, working emergency canopy release, correctly animated flying surfaces, animated pilots and a functional P8 compass - see the Chipmunk page for a video and the full feature list.

This new Chipmunk will be priced at just £9.99 / €12.95 / $14.99 for an introductory period (normal price £14.99 / €18.95 / $21.99) and shortly after release a Royal Canadian Air Force variant with a 'bubble' canopy will be available FREE to all buyers. Larger than the standard version, and with less framework, the canopy on this variant is designed to provide an ever better field of view.

Greetings
Tim

[Paul J]

Gosh. I've spent the longest time with flight sims, going back to the TRS80, C64, et al - and following forums since they began to appear - I don't know how long - and by far the most common comment or request that I've come across in all that time is "How is the system's fidelity""; "How about the FDE?" Talk to the followers of the PMDG line; the LH Maddog group: A2A's following; RealAir aficionados; Carenado; Alabeo, VATSIM, and so on - not to mention the growing realism attached to scenery, airport and weather development - mainly airport, but FTX Global, FS Global Real Weather, REX, FSDT, FlyTampa, Flightbeam - all come to mind.

I was quite serious in my opener: "Am I the only nit-picker here?". It would seem so, and being somewhat new to SOH - perhaps I expected that my "wants" for a true replica of the r/w aeroplane would automatically be shared by most of the folks here, as is most often the case in many other forums. I was not expecting a "look-alike" payware Chipmunk to be so enthusiastically welcomed, with barely a single person mentioning any of what, to me, at any rate - are significant errors. I truly didn't expect this response.

I also fully expected that, given the large number of Chipmunks still in flying condition, the many more found in museums, the plethora of very good aircraft documentation - especially in combination with the terrific info contained in the "DHC-1 Chipmunk Poor Man's Spitfire" (mentioned by Guzzi earlier) - that a sizable commercial company like Just Flight would indeed, be producing a payware aircraft which would be a substantial improvement over Rick's "old" Chip.

Yes, Lawman - there may well be another, larger market which Just Flight caters to, but I'm not so sure it exists in the size alluded to, and I think the Microsoft "Flight" experiment might suggest this is the case - but that's just my speculation - I have no personal knowledge of it. I do know that the average flight simmer is an aviation enthusiast, and that enthusiasm lasts for most of that person's lifetime. Flying, flight, books, the sounds, the smells, the experiences - one holds on to these for ever, and those are the people, like me, who are long-term "simmers", and generally have a heightened sense of "As real as it gets". Not every simmer drops into this "category", but thousands do, and so I find it somewhat odd that few other simmers in this thread - feel the way I do about the JF Chipmunk - at least, based upon the dozen or so pics posted.

All the best,

pj

[SeanTK]

With all due respect for your opinion, but have you ever considered the fact that the majority of the FS-market may not care for a "hardcore" A2A-type simulation and that companies like JF simply cater for that specific (and BTW much larger) market:peaceful:?

Striving for visual accuracy is now considered to be only a trait of "hardcore" simulations? How strange.

While the concerns and issues outlined with the product throughout this thread are valid, perhaps stating them in a more diplomatic manner would be more successful.

Of course, there are always a few who are strangely happy with anything and everything released, regardless of accuracy, amount of bugs/issues, or any other factors, as well as those who may be overly sensitive to any type of criticism on behalf of developers.

Imagine where we'd be if no-one in the community pushed (politely) for high standards in development. While I know there are some here who are even satisfied with using (or attempting to use) FS2002 models in FSX, why not (politely) highlight issues of accuracy and/or quality and push for high standards when you see a new release approaching?
I've seen a few other freeware and payware releases with sometimes very notable bugs (missing textures, major non-working components, etc) and there's always a few that, regardless of the scale of the issue, say that we shouldn't complain, and that we should just be happy that it exists. Supporting a push for quality and accuracy should not be perceived as being "nitpicky" or "hardcore".

Anyway....looking forward to the Chipmunk....
:)

[Roger]

Well as the jF Chippie is not yet with us, any debate about realism in systems is purely hypothetical. For myself I have no pretensions to be a real world pilot but more, I demand that my virtual world looks as good as it can. If a model takes more than 2 or 3 minutes to get airborne then I'm not interested...I simply haven't the time or patience.
I'm amazed that this latest offering in the pipeline from jF has caused such controversy and would suggest that we let this thread inform and wait for the finished product.
This thread is being closely watched and will be closed if necessary.

[Naismith]

IMHO I thought the relevant word in MSFS was Simulator otherwise it would ne MSFG where G = Game.
but
8612

[Paul J]

Sean - Naismith - you're both way more eloquent than I. Do either of you give lessons? :biggrin-new:

You've echoed my sentiments in a way that I should have perhaps - so a big "Thank You".

Also looking forward to this release.

pj

[Roger]

IMHO I thought the relevant word in MSFS was Simulator otherwise it would ne MSFG where G = Game.
but
8612

And this is relevant to this thread in what way?

[Naki]

Jeepers it's only $15 US on release....if it $40 I would expect a lot more but at $15 it's a bargain...although it does go up to $20 later but that is still pretty cheap

[guzzi]

Well as the jF Chippie is not yet with us, any debate about realism in systems is purely hypothetical. For myself I have no pretensions to be a real world pilot but more, I demand that my virtual world looks as good as it can. If a model takes more than 2 or 3 minutes to get airborne then I'm not interested...I simply haven't the time or patience.
I'm amazed that this latest offering in the pipeline from jF has caused such controversy and would suggest that we let this thread inform and wait for the finished product.
This thread is being closely watched and will be closed if necessary.

WHY? Can't people express an opinion? Is the developer a mate of yours? I see no bad language - just debate and some criticsm. Sorry Roger some of us are R/W pilots and maybe do have higher standards, and some of us have first hand knowledge of the aircraft so may tend to be more critical than others. RP set the bar high when he released his original Chipmunk,although now dated -it is natural that JF's/AH's? new model would be compared to this. The same deficiencies in the model from the several screenshots released have been pointed out over at CBFS, (where knowledge of British built aircraft, dare I say tends to be superior than here) and debated - that I think is nature when a new model is released - especially if it is intended to be payware.

Off course no one knows exactly what the model will be like until release, then we'll be able to judge further. The price seems apealling, the cockpit looks good as pointed out previously by PaulJ. (Paul don't know if your member over at CBFS -but think you would be appreciated over there if not!) It has my favourite paint scheme to be found on a Chippy http://www.captainnevillesflyingcircus.org.uk/page14.htm .

[delta_lima]

Polemic, axe-to-grind criticism - even if supported by fact = no likely to be productive.

Constructive criticism based on fact with the aim of helping produce a better outcome, in a collegial tone = higher chance of being productive.

Don't we all work with people in our day jobs? Is this not obvious?

Sheesh.

Back to the Chippie - I echo the preference by whomever it was that pointed out the clearer, as opposed to more bluer, canopy texture. I can appreciate what the effect is trying to achieve, and it may look good from the outside, but the sim just doesn't seem to replicate real world tinted optics that well. Again, I'm no expert here - just stating a preference.

Reviewing PJ's comments about the top wing/rib surface - I can appreciate there appears to be an exaggeration of the skin contours between ribs in the screenshots - fair is fair - even if the tone was offensive, there appears to be some merit in that particular observation. Again, I think JF has heard this loud and clear, and believe it's fair to give them the benefit until the product is released.

DL

[Roger]

WHY? Can't people express an opinion? Is the developer a mate of yours? I see no bad language - just debate and some criticsm. Sorry Roger some of us are R/W pilots and maybe do have higher standards, and some of us have first hand knowledge of the aircraft so may tend to be more critical than others. RP set the bar high when he released his original Chipmunk,although now dated -it is natural that JF's/AH's? new model would be compared to this. The same deficiencies in the model from the several screenshots released have been pointed out over at CBFS, (where knowledge of British built aircraft, dare I say tends to be superior than here) and debated - that I think is nature when a new model is released - especially if it is intended to be payware.

Off course no one knows exactly what the model will be like until release, then we'll be able to judge further. The price seems apealling, the cockpit looks good as pointed out previously by PaulJ. (Paul don't know if your member over at CBFS -but think you would be appreciated over there if not!) It has my favourite paint scheme to be found on a Chippy http://www.captainnevillesflyingcircus.org.uk/page14.htm .

The model has not been released hence the reason for my post. How can anyone pass judgement on a product that isn't available for assessment? Unfortunately Paul was not aware that as staff we stand back from judgement unless we feel that a product has been pirated or plagiarised or bashed unfairly.

The thread will be closed now. Martyn and Bazzar please feel free to open a new thread closer to release.