rjw

My only concern is that if I die before it is released, how do I get it sent to whereever my spirit lies??

And what about a good single malt back at the barracks?

I have both loaded and everything seems ok to me. I don't think they are mutually excluseive.

I had two e-mail communications with Wayne Ralph relating to info on William Barker and he gave permission to quote him should anyone be interested. So here are two replies from him which might be interesting to anyone who has read the book or is interested in Barker. 1st Reply "I did not ever find original log books belonging to Barker VC. There is one photocopied log book in the National Archives collection. It presumably came from the Barker or Mackenzie family in the 1980s when they donated his medals, uniform, and personal letters. This log book only deals with his time as observer and pilot in Corps Cooperation. If he kept a log book when flying on Sopwith Camels and Sopwith Snipes (he was not required to!) it has disappeared. The log book of Sopwith Camel B6313 is held by the Imperial War Museum in London. Barker did not write in that book; it was kept by maintenance engineering personnel. B6313 was disassembled in Sept-Oct 1918, but some wise person retained the book and forwarded it to RAF HQ in England. Orval Barker told me that personal family material inc letters, weapons, pieces of enemy a/c, etc was stolen and/or never returned sometime after the Second World War by an American author. No other details. Cheers now" 2nd Reply "It is only a guess by me that he did not bother to write a daily entry for combat missions. He was not chatty or informative with his only surviving book (unlike his pal Gerry Birks) so even if a missing book surfaces it won't be educational. Much of what I am telling you is published in the footnotes and comments of my biography. You are welcome to share. Just please credit me online or in print. Cheers" Best Regards;

Thanks Shredward. It's exactly an example of what I was speaking to. Much appreciated!

Hi Fltby-PC; Yes, I concurr with your observatins. That is why I always try to find out if logbooks are known to exist and if they are available when I read books about pilots. There is so much more to learn about the ;pilots nature and characteristics beyond the normal statistical data and related occurrances that are normally written in the biographical books. Letter home, diaries and log books can add so much more.

I agree 100%! Great work Andy, and thanks!

Hi JFM; Not to mention, probably shaking it to pieces!

Hardly enough room on the fuselage for squadron markings!

Thanks for the post Hauksbee! Vey interesting little beasty. It's also an interesting notation of armor protection and purpose built for ground support use!

You have to wonder what twin vickers mounted on the cowl would do to that little baby!!!

Now here is a mod I would love to have. I call it "Finally a view from a Camel". This photo makes me wonder/speculate if the WOFF Devs might possibly have some field mods for us in the works. I'm not holding my breath for that, but who knows!

You may be correct Olham, I just thought there might be some impact on lift and less air resistance in tight turns. I can't substantiate any of this so it was more or less just a case of "wondering"!! I would think that if this was a field mod and proved to be effective, why wouldn't the whole squadron adopt it? Just a thought!

I wouldn't be surprised if there would be some performance/handling issues as a result of the cutouts as well.

Sorry Olham, that is my fault. I took it for granted that the upper wing cut out would be obvious but it "obviously" isn't. Note that the upper wing cutout is significantly wider and the rear portion of the wing has also been removed.

For you experts, this shouldn't take long. I on the other hand have far less knowledge in this area and I found this one interesting. Can you identify it?

Olham; Using the word "Truth" and "Politicians" in the same sentence, in my opinion is an "oxymoron"!!!

This is probably old news to most of you but I'm thinking some will gain from it. The article explains the history of the interrupter gear with photos to support it's operation. Hope it is useful and if anyone notes discrepancies in the info please respond with your knowledge. http://en.wikipedia....nterrupter_gear

What I found fascinating was the information which indicated that with the interrupter gear your firing rate dropped significantly when you throttled back. Imagine overtaking an enemy, throttling back hard and discovering your rate of fire drops so drastically that you are ineffective! The following link is a You Tube vid of how the interrupter gear works: Best Regards;

JFM; Thanks for your voluminous knowledge. It amazes me! I'm just scratching the surface in comparison! Can you shed any light on the handling characteristics. I hear it was not great but then I know so very little about the aircraft. Only what I have obtained online. Great photos you posted, and thanks! Best Regards;

Agreed!!!

OLham; I hope I didn't give the impression of argueing. That was not intended. Just soliciting clarification! Here are some links to the Aerodrome that imply these aircraft saw active service and therefore could be included in WOFF if the devs wanted to add them http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/36312-ago-c-i-c-ii.html#post385147 http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/36312-ago-c-i-c-ii.html#post385647 http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/36312-ago-c-i-c-ii.html#post385667.

Ah, then if you have other photos it would be nice to see them as they may provide other angles of view which would be nice. I was wondering how you came up with the serials as I couldn't decipher them from the photo I submitted! Here is some futher info I have extracted from the web: AGO C.II Reconnaissance Aircraft (1915) The AGO C.II only served the German air force for about one year before being replaced. The AGO C.II was the product of the Aerowerke Gustav Otto (abbreviated as "AGO") concern and is considered by some as one of the best of the early reconnaissance aircraft of World War 1 despite having served for only a short time in the conflict. The C.II fulfilled the reconnaissance role capably and incorporated several design features that would have appeared rather conceptual or revolutionary for the period. The aircraft would eventually give way to the changing technological requirements of war and be superseded by more capable types within time. Design of the C.II was based on the AGO C.I design prior and given an uprated engine. The aircraft was managed by a crew of two consisting of a pilot and machine gunner/observer. Armament was limited to a single Parabellum machine gun for self-defense and managed by the gunner/observer in the front cockpit with the pilot to his rear. The most distinct feature of the AGO C.II was in that the powerplant was set at the rear of the fuselage nacelle in a "pusher" type arrangement (the engine at the rear of the fuselage "pushing" the aircraft) as opposed to the more traditional "puller" arrangement (the engine at the front of the fuselage "pulling" the aircraft) common elsewhere. Furthermore, the C.II was designed with twin tail booms, a rather novel design concept feature during a time when most military aircraft were settling on a single boom fuselage arrangement. Each boom o the C.II straddled the fuselage nacelle and was connected to the aircraft between the upper and lower wing assemblies at their front end and by a horizontal stabilizer at their rear (the twin-boom arrangement would later resurface in World War 2 aircraft designs such as the Lockheed P-38 Lightning and Northrop P-61 Black Widow some twenty-five years later). The wings were of a conventional biplane arrangement consisting of an upper and lower assembly attached through parallel struts and applicable cabling. The undercarriage was fixed in place and showcased four wheels supported by a network of struts under the fuselage and lower wing assembly. Performance for the C.II was rated above average for the time and maneuverability was deemed good. The maximum listed speed for the C.II was 86 miles per hour, made possible by a single 217 horsepower Mercedes D.VI 6-cylinder, liquid-cooled, inline engine. Range proved a respectable quality of the design at 360 miles. The C.II performed admirably well from 1915 on and was eventually replaced by more conventional and modern types before the end of the war. A pair of C.IIs were converted for maritime service with the Imperial German Navy by having floats installed. These aircraft were operated as coastal patrol defenders during the war and received the designation of C.II-W to indicate their modified form and distinct role. Total production of AGO C.IIs totaled 15 examples. Specifications for the AGO C.II Reconnaissance Aircraft Country of Origin: Imperial Germany Manufacturer: Aerowerke Gustav Otto (AGO) - Germany Initial Year of Service: 1915 Production: 15 Focus Model: AGO C.II Crew: 2 Length: 32.28ft (9.84m) Width: 47.57ft (14.50m) Height: 10.40ft (3.17m) Weight (Empty): 2,998lbs (1,360kg) Weight (MTOW): 4,290lbs (1,946kg) Powerplant: 1 x Mercedes D.IV 6-cylinder liquid-cooled inline engine generating 217 horsepower. Maximum Speed: 80mph (128kmh; 69kts) Maximum Range: 360miles (580km) Service Ceiling: 14,764ft (4,500m; 2.8miles) Rate-of-Climb: 0 feet per minute (0m/min) Hardpoints: 0 Armament Suite: OPTIONAL: 1 x 7.92 Parabellum machine gun in forward cockpit Variants: C.II - Base Model Designation C.II-W - Floatplane derivative; two examples were operated by the German Imperial Navy for a time.

You could be right JFM but I don't think it is possible to discern the numbers on the rudder of the AGO photo I submitted. Good speculation though and possible. The black band on the boom could be useful in identification if we could determine what it meant.

You gentlemen are on the mark!! The AGO C.I was a German reconnaissance biplane of World War I of pod-and-boom configuration. The C.1 was designd by A. Haefeli and manufactured by AGO Flugzeugwerke. The AGO C.I entered service in 1915. The design is notable in the fact that it is one of the few pusher aircraft designs coming from Germany. The central nacelle contained the cockpit and pusher configuration powerplant. The twin booms carried the tail and the four-wheeled landing gear. The observer sat at the nose and was armed with a single 7.92 mm Parabellum machine gun. It was produced in both two bay and three bay versions. A single example was fitted with floats for coastal patrol duties for the German Navy (designation C.I-W). Type: Reconnaissance Manufacturer: Aerowerke Gustav Otto Flugzeugwerke Designed by: A. Haefeli Country: Germany Entered Service: 1915 Primary User: Germany Number Built: Not Available Wingspan: 47 ft 7 in (14.5 m) Wing area: 430 ft² (40 m²) Length: 32 ft 3½ in (9.84 m) Height: 10 ft 5 in (3.175 m) Empty Weight: 3,000 lb (1,360 kg) Loaded Weight: 4,290 lb (1,946 kg) Maximum Takeoff Weight: 4,290lbs (1,946kg) Powerplant: 1 × Mercedes D.IV, 6-cylinder, liquid cooled inline, 217 hp (162 kW) Or: 1 × Benz Bz IV, 6-cylinder, liquid cooled inline, 220 hp (164 kW) Maximum speed: 90 mph (145 km/h) Service ceiling: 14,800 ft (4,500 m) Crew: two, pilot and observer Armament: 1 × 0.312 in (7.92 mm) Parabellum MG14 machine gun Design of the C.II was based on the AGO C.I design prior and given an uprated engine. The aircraft was managed by a crew of two consisting of a pilot and machine gunner/observer. Armament was limited to a single Parabellum machine gun for self-defense and managed by the gunner/observer in the front cockpit with the pilot to his rear. The most distinct feature of the AGO C.II was in that the powerplant was set at the rear of the fuselage nacelle in a "pusher" type arrangement (the engine at the rear of the fuselage "pushing" the aircraft) as opposed to the more traditional "puller" arrangement (the engine at the front of the fuselage "pulling" the aircraft) common elsewhere. Furthermore, the C.II was designed with twin tail booms, a rather novel design concept feature during a time when most military aircraft were settling on a single boom fuselage arrangement. Each boom o the C.II straddled the fuselage nacelle and was connected to the aircraft between the upper and lower wing assemblies at their front end and by a horizontal stabilizer at their rear (the twin-boom arrangement would later resurface in World War 2 aircraft designs such as the Lockheed P-38 Lightning and Northrop P-61 Black Widow some twenty-five years later). The wings were of a conventional biplane arrangement consisting of an upper and lower assembly attached through parallel struts and applicable cabling. The undercarriage was fixed in place and showcased four wheels supported by a network of struts under the fuselage and lower wing assembly. Performance for the C.II was rated above average for the time and maneuverability was deemed good. The maximum listed speed for the C.II was 86 miles per hour, made possible by a single 217 horsepower Mercedes D.VI 6-cylinder, liquid-cooled, inline engine. Range proved a respectable quality of the design at 360 miles. The C.II performed admirably well from 1915 on and was eventually replaced by more conventional and modern types before the end of the war. A pair of C.IIs were converted for maritime service with the Imperial German Navy by having floats installed. These aircraft were operated as coastal patrol defenders during the war and received the designation of C.II-W to indicate their modified form and distinct role. Total production of AGO C.IIs totaled 15 examples