Be 2-really Bad?

[PFFF]

I beleive in a history by Arch Whitehouse who claimed the Be.2 was the worst
aircraft of the WAR???
Comments anyone????

[MikeW]

The BE2 series was not the worst by a long shot, the RFC and Royal Aircraft Factory were simply guilty of using it for far too long. It wasn't a bad aeroplane, it just couldn't defend itself.

I would have thought that amongst the string of aerial disasters something like the SPAD A2 with the propeller in front of the pilot but behind the unfortunate gunner/observer was far worse.

Mike

[EricGoedkoop]

Those pulpit fighters were just awful. The good ol' Royal Aircraft Factory built one, too. Sometimes I just can't figure out how a good, modern design like the SE5 ever snuck out of that place. . . .

It pains me, but I'd have to put the MoS N pretty high on a list of the worst. It was pretty, and had circumstances been different it probably would have been fairly successful in racing, for which it was designed. But I would've hated having to go to war in it: dangerously high landing speed, poor manueverability, and those deflector plates bouncing your OWN bullets back at you - if you were lucky enough for your prop to not shatter from the impact, that is. Cripes.

I'm sure you'll find many archived discussions on the BE2 and of Whitehouse's credibility.

It should be remembered that the BE family dates to 1911- far before wartime needs were fully envisioned and during the infancy of the British aeroplane industry. The BE family was based on the inspiration of the legendary Geoffrey DeHavilland and later the great E.T. Busk. The BE2 outperformed every plane submitted to the 1912 Military Trials and the series set many records during this period.

Historian Paul Hare wrote, "At one time it was certainly the most efficient and the most numerous plane in the British armed forces. That it was allowed to outlive its usefulness was a tragedy that should be blamed upon those who were responsible for its procurement, not upon the machine or its designers."

["Junior"]

The poor old Harry Tate was nigh on bloody awful as well. I pity the poor buggers who went up in those

[Darryl]

Originally Posted by Junior

The poor old Harry Tate was nigh on bloody awful as well. I pity the poor buggers who went up in those

Actually Junior,

The myth of the RE8 being "awful" is just that. The aircraft was much maligned due to it initially being issued to an inexperienced squadron who "bent" several in quick succession and didn't know how to use them in combat. They were 'relieved' of the aircraft and when those very same aircraft were given to another squadron, they not only liked them but enjoyed success with them. The aeroplane was a real handful for German pilots when well handled.

Darryl

[Colin A Owers]

Agree that the R.E.8 is maligned.

Thosse who flew it that I interviewed said it could hold its own and the work of No.3 Squaddron Australian Flying Corps backs this up. No.3 did have a good time to work up on the type and the early bugs had been worked out of the design by then.

Colin A Owers

[Vin]

How did the BE 2 morph into the RE 8 ? both good at what they were designed to do, observation and bombing. How would an observer have liked it if another cockpit had been carved into a Camel and it was then sent out on Art Ob ?

[Familyman]

Don't have my books handy, so a couple of things out of my memory (which is not so good): I think I read somewhere that BE 2 was actually the best aircraft of the ww1 for aerial photography. I recall also reading from somewhere that M.v R. used to warn his colleagues and younger pilots especially: Do not underestimate RE 8!

Yours

Mikko

[EricGoedkoop]

This all depends on your criteria - the BE2 and the RE8 were both very, very stable aircraft (remember the Ghost RE8?), which made them excellent observation platforms. They were good at what they were designed for. The BE was developed at a time when stability and control were still the primary concerns of the aeroplane designer and pilot, and as PJFisher said above, in that context it was a resounding success. Think about the Etrich Taube or Tony Fokker's Spinne - for the time period, great accomplishments in design that overcame the major "problem" of instability in the air.

These birds were NOT designed for dogfighting, so it isn't appropriate to deride them for not being able to out-turn or out-fight the crates that were. As the need to stay on the bad guy's tail or just get the heck out of his way became greater, stability became a hindrance. The BE's were still in service as the air war heated up, so they started to LOOK like a failure because they were caught in a situation they were never intended to handle.

It's easy to put all this into perspective - imagine your mission is artillery spotting or photo recon and you're flying a Camel. Bloody awful machine, isn't it?