Website for World War II aircraft

[BasilBarfly]

Greetings,
I am not sure where I can post this information, so I will put it up here and see what happens. I created a website about 4-5 months ago for a quick reference for flight sim pilots to get a little knowledge on what aircraft they were flying in flight sims. I know that in this day an age, you can just go to wikipedia and get everything you need, but I have tried to make a site easy for people to get the technical specs, development, in combat and some colors and 3 views of each plane I have made. I also fund this with links to sites that have my graphics on t-thirts and alike. Running and hosting a website isnt free! Anyway, I also do this as I am a full time carer so I am sort of retired and have a lot of time in my day. I enjoy putting up new plane information and I would like to keep you fine people abreast of what I am putting up.

I hope this doesnt break any TOS rules by me putting this up and if so I apologise and hope the forum mod could put my post in the correct forum.

Anyway, here is the site: War in the Skies

I hope you like what I have done. I will continue to put new aircraft up so long as I see people still coming to my site.

Thanks
BasilBarfly

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Flight sim "pilots"? Flying?



Just messing with you.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Very cool Basil, thanks.

 

[Lucky13]

Flight sim "pilots"? Flying?



Just messing with you.

Isn't that like fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

 

[Marcel]

Isn't that like fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

Haven't seen the kid for ages. Probably grown up, I guess.

 

[GrauGeist]

Haven't seen the kid for ages. Probably grown up, I guess.

Or had his internet taken away for embaressing his parent's efforts at raising a child...

 

[Alex .]

What did I miss? Forum pet?

 

[fubar57]

Who had that as his signature?

Geo

Never mind, just saw Alders post

 

[GrauGeist]

As far as the site goes, BasilBarfly, it's a nice effort.

I didn't get a chance to take a long look, but I did notice a few things that would need to be addressed.

In the Luftwaffe section, there is no mention of the MTO, which was a very critical theater for the Luftwaffe. Also in the Luftwaffe section, the Balkan Crosses had more variations (roughly 13 variations), such as a thin white outline, a thick white outline, a "gray" or subdued outline. There was also the black cross with a black outline among other styles. You'll also find that the Swastika icon for the horizontal stabilizer (rudder) also had several versions beyond what's represented (about 7 versions total).

The same applies for the USAAF insignia (there's at least 6 variants in all), like the star/blue background having a gold outline (North Africa, operation torch), the star/blue background with white tabs and red outline (red outline, summer '43) and so on...

 

[Wurger]

I think there are more mistakes there. For instance... I-16 Rata. To be honst the Polikarpov I-16 didn't have an official name. The name Rata was given to the plane by Spanish Nationalists while the Spanish Republicans were calling it Mosca. In the USSR the kite was named Ишачок - Donkey . The Finnish nickname for I-16 was Siipiorava - Flying Squirrel. Japanese pilots called it Abu and the Germens at the beginning of the Великой Отечественной войны - Flieger im Dienst. So.. calling it with the name Rata only is a kind of mistake methinks.

 

[BasilBarfly]

I think there are more mistakes there. For instance... I-16 Rata. To be honst the Polikarpov I-16 didn't have an official name. The name Rata was given to the plane by Spanish Nationalists while the Spanish Republicans were calling it Mosca. In the USSR the kite was named Ишачок - Donkey . The Finnish nickname for I-16 was Siipiorava - Flying Squirrel. Japanese pilots called it Abu and the Germens at the beginning of the Великой Отечественной войны - Flieger im Dienst. So.. calling it with the name Rata only is a kind of mistake methinks.

Thanks, you are correct, it was the Spanish Nationalists that called it 'Rata'. I would like to use your provided information to correct my website,if thats ok with you?

Basil

 

[BasilBarfly]

As far as the site goes, BasilBarfly, it's a nice effort.

I didn't get a chance to take a long look, but I did notice a few things that would need to be addressed.

In the Luftwaffe section, there is no mention of the MTO, which was a very critical theater for the Luftwaffe. Also in the Luftwaffe section, the Balkan Crosses had more variations (roughly 13 variations), such as a thin white outline, a thick white outline, a "gray" or subdued outline. There was also the black cross with a black outline among other styles. You'll also find that the Swastika icon for the horizontal stabilizer (rudder) also had several versions beyond what's represented (about 7 versions total).

The same applies for the USAAF insignia (there's at least 6 variants in all), like the star/blue background having a gold outline (North Africa, operation torch), the star/blue background with white tabs and red outline (red outline, summer '43) and so on...

Yes, you are correct in regards to German markings and USA markings. As I said, my site is a quick reference site for those who dont wish to know every single detail about every plane out there(thats whats wikipedia is for), so I did just put up the most common German markings. As for the MTO, I didnt go into any great detail regarding markings of the Luftwaffe there either, as it is a quick reference guide. I am not trying to cop out, but I have put links to books for people to download or buy if they would like further reading. So far, nobody has bought any books other than how to fly in combat flight sims.

Anyway, I thank you for your input and if there are any other problems, feel free to tell me so I can fix them up.

Basil

 

[Wurger]

Thanks, you are correct, it was the Spanish Nationalists that called it 'Rata'. I would like to use your provided information to correct my website,if thats ok with you?

Basil

No problemo. Also please check the thread because there is something incorrect with the Red Stars methinks.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ai...ussian-aircraft-markings-camouflage-9319.html

and here..

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/colors/mark-colors/mark-colors.html

 

[BasilBarfly]

No problemo. Also please check the thread because there is something incorrect with the Red Stars methinks.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ai...ussian-aircraft-markings-camouflage-9319.html

and here..

table of colors

Thanks again Wurger. If its ok, I would like to incorporate that image of Russian Aircraft markings onto my Soviet Home page. I also wanted to say that my site is a quick reference site, not an in depth full on information site that you may be accustomed to. While there are many enthusiasts like yourself out there who are avid readers of historical aircraft, many are hobbyists, sim pilots and dabble into history and just want some basic info on aircraft, not with all the whistles and bells. This is what I provide. The links on every page that I have are to both books and Kindle books that readers of my website can easily buy or download. After all, I also need funds to keep my website up as iPage dont give me a free domain or ip address.

Thanks
BasilBarfly.

 

[Wurger]

O.K.

 

[nuuumannn]

Hi Basil, interesting information and great idea; I wish you the best with this. Just a few minor points worth mentioning.

The Lancaster: the idea of a four engined Merlin powered Manchester was actually thought of by Chadwick before the Manchester went into production. One of the problems with the Vulture - before the issues it suffered arose was that in 1937 it was thought that there wouldn't be enough of them to go round and this is one reason why Handley Page went with fitting four Merlins to its HP.56 proposal, which was offered to P.13/36 and awarded a production order alongside the Avro 679. The result was the renamed HP.57 Halifax. What is often overlooked with regards to the Manchester and Lancaster was that the Lanc had exactly the same fuselage, just strengthened to take the bigger wing. Also, the last Lancasters serving in a military role were not Canadian ones, but French; the Aeronavale operated maritime patrol Lancaster VIIs out of Tahiti and Noumea in the Pacific into the late 1960s. On retirement, a few of these went to museums in New Zealand, Australia and the UK - Just Jane, the Panton Brothers' Lanc at East Kirkby, Lincs is a former Aeronavale Lanc.

The Wellington's methond of construction was geodetic, not geodesic. Blenheims were not fitted with a power operated turret; it was manually operated. Blenheims were also used by Coastal Command. It is also interesting to note that the only surviving Bristol built Blenheims are extant in Finland.

I've only skimmed through a few pages and I hope you see these as constructive suggestions. Nevertheless, like I said earlier, great work and great idea.

 

[BasilBarfly]

Hi Basil, interesting information and great idea; I wish you the best with this. Just a few minor points worth mentioning.

The Lancaster: the idea of a four engined Merlin powered Manchester was actually thought of by Chadwick before the Manchester went into production. One of the problems with the Vulture - before the issues it suffered arose was that in 1937 it was thought that there wouldn't be enough of them to go round and this is one reason why Handley Page went with fitting four Merlins to its HP.56 proposal, which was offered to P.13/36 and awarded a production order alongside the Avro 679. The result was the renamed HP.57 Halifax. What is often overlooked with regards to the Manchester and Lancaster was that the Lanc had exactly the same fuselage, just strengthened to take the bigger wing. Also, the last Lancasters serving in a military role were not Canadian ones, but French; the Aeronavale operated maritime patrol Lancaster VIIs out of Tahiti and Noumea in the Pacific into the late 1960s. On retirement, a few of these went to museums in New Zealand, Australia and the UK - Just Jane, the Panton Brothers' Lanc at East Kirkby, Lincs is a former Aeronavale Lanc.

The Wellington's methond of construction was geodetic, not geodesic. Blenheims were not fitted with a power operated turret; it was manually operated. Blenheims were also used by Coastal Command. It is also interesting to note that the only surviving Bristol built Blenheims are extant in Finland.

I've only skimmed through a few pages and I hope you see these as constructive suggestions. Nevertheless, like I said earlier, great work and great idea.

Thanks. I have looked for further information regarding the Blenheim turret. According to Aircraft of the Aces, Osprey Aviation, Blenheim Squadrons of WW2, the Blenheim I were delivered to No114 sqn, in March 1936 where they were fitted with type B1 Mk1 turrets ( a .303 in (7.7 mm) Lewis Gun in a semi-retracting Bristol Type B Mk I dorsal turret firing to the rear). Again, it doesnt specify whether or not it was powered.
Wellingtons airframe according to Wikipedia:- A geodesic (or geodetic) airframe is a type of construction for the airframes of aircraft developed by British aeronautical engineer Barnes Wallis in the 1930s. Either or...
Again, in regards to the Lancaster, I refer to wikipedia:- Avro's chief designer, Roy Chadwick, was already working on an improved Manchester design using four of the more reliable, but less powerful Rolls-Royce Merlin engines on a larger wing. The aircraft was initially designated Avro Type 683 Manchester III, and later renamed the "Lancaster". I have found further reference to the last operational Lancaster and will add that to the Lancaster page on my next update.

Thanks again for your input, its good to know someone is reading my information. As I have stated earlier, my website is not the definitive be all of the information on aircraft that I have put up, but as a 'synopsis' of aircraft, with reference to books that people may buy if they wish to learn more about the aircraft in question.

Basil

 

[nuuumannn]

Hi Basil, good to see. The Bristol turret fitted to the Blenheim was not powered; an organisation I used to work for restored one (a Bolingbroke) I have pics of the turret dismantled somewhere, if only I could find them. Many books on the Lanc and Halifax should confirm the fact that Chadwick was working on the four engined Manchester at around the same time as Volkert decided the HP.56 should be four engined; around 1937. Leo Mickinstry wrote a very good book on the Lancaster (and Hurricane and Spitfire) and it is worth reading if you can find it.

Regarding the Wellington's geodetic construction - from wiki: "Wallis used the term "geodetic" to apply to the airframe and distinguish it from "geodesic" [my italics] which is the proper term for a line on a curved surface, arising from geodesy." Almost every reference to the Wellington uses the term "geodetic", so introducing "geodesic" might introduce uncertainty among your readers. The choice is yours, but since "geodetic" was Wallis' choice of word, best to stick with it.

A few notes on the Mosquito write up. To me the introduction seems a little vague on its development. There is no mention of Freeman, to whom GdeH sent the letter describing his unarmed bomber concept to begin with. The other fact is that the Mosquito was initially proposed as a high speed unarmed bomber, the armed night fighter was at the insistence of Liptrott, who did not believe de Havilland's proposed figures and as a result was generally sceptical about the project. He suggested the DH.98 be forwarded for a night fighter proposal he was going to issue. Also, Sholto Douglas did not like the unarmed bomber concept either and ordered that it should have a tail turret, despite GdeH's protestations about affecting its performance. Again, it was Freeman who discredited this suggestion and De Havilland was allowed to build the unarmed prototype as a demonstrator, whilst the turret armed DH.98 was to go into production. You can find this info in a number of sources. Mosquito by Sharp and Bowyer is a good starting point, also British Secret Projects fighters and bombers 1935 - 1946 by Tony Buttler is also great for establishing early thoughts on designers and their aircraft designs.

Just a bit about the Spit page also, the bubble canopy fitted to the Spit was on the cards before the P-51D came along. Jeffrey Quill had approached Joe Smith and discussed his experiences flying Spits in combat during the Battle of Britain and the XIV was the first production variant to be fitted with it. The Miles M.20 preceded the Mustang's bubble canopy by four years in 1940. Also, a wee editing issue, you use the word "propellor" and "propeller" in the same paragraph; best to standardise a term and use it throughout (sorry, I've got my editor's cap on - I used to do professional proof reading in an aviation museum). Consistency is the key to good writing. Both words can be used, but "propeller" is better. Also, the name 'Victor' was proposed for the Spit 21, not the XIV, the latter was intended as an interim only until the 'Super Spitfire' the XVIII and Mk.21 was introduced. the XIV was essentially a Mark VIII airframe with a two-speed, two-stage Griffon.

Another thing - again, an editing issue thoughout your pages and something that so many people get wrong; an apostrophe indicates ownership of an object. it is not used here: "He added twelve feet to the wingspan and replaced the two troublesome Vulture engines with four of the proven Rolls Royce Merlins V-12's and the result was the Lancaster which made its maiden flight in January, 1941." or here: "They were on par with the Bf109's in the Battle of Britain."

Here are two sentences, both saying the the same thing: The Spitfire's armament in the Battle of Britain was eight .303 machine guns". "The armament of Spitfires during the Battle of Britain was eight .303 machine guns". The apostrophe applies in only the first one because of the placing of the word "armament" directly after the word "Spitfire's" in the first sentence indicating that the "armament" belongs to the "Spitfire".

One more suggestion, I should think that the Swordfish warrants a page on its own; one of the great British types to be used in WW2. Might I also suggest the Ki-21 in the Japanese section; a vitally important aircraft in the JAAF inventory. Nonetheless. I look forward to reading the rest, when I get time! My apologies for the critique.

 

[BasilBarfly]

Hi, thanks for your editing tips. I shall make the appropriate changes in the next update. The next plane I update after the release of the G.55 I am putting up in a few days. A good idea of doing the Ki-21 Sally. I will do that next. Followed by a Swordfish. That will give me something to do next.

Basil

 

[nuuumannn]

Cool Basil, look forward to it. Doing a website is quite time consuming, so I applaud your efforts. The thing I like about your site is that it is easy to navigate and quick to download. Definitely a plus. I also really like the book feature in the side bar.