Be2's

[Pips]

Did the RFC ever have the seating arrangement on the Be.2 models reversed so that the observer sat in the back seat, and armed with a Lewis?

I know the Belgians did modify some of their Be.2c's and d's.

[MikeMeech]

Originally Posted by Pips

Did the RFC ever have the seating arrangement on the Be.2 models reversed so that the observer sat in the back seat, and armed with a Lewis?

I know the Belgians did modify some of their Be.2c's and d's.

Hi

I think it was about 9 BE.2c that the Belgians modified, but this was associated with replacing the original engine with a 150 hp Hispano-Suiza. The rear gun position originally had the French Eteve mountings, but later it appears at least some were fitted with a Scarff ring. It was also fitted with a forward firing Vickers from what can be seen in some photos. It appears to have been in service during early 1917, one, No. 17, was lost in an aerial combat on 8 April 1917. By that time the RE.8 had started to enter service, No. 52 Sqn. was first arriving in France 21 November 1916. The first flight of the prototype being undertaken on 17 June 1916. I suspect as the RE.8 was due to enter service then the resources to change the cockpit arrangements on the BE.2 series may have been considered a poor use of resources. Certainly the RFC did not have enough Hispano-Suiza engines to equipment any modified BE.2, what they had would be used elsewhere. Also the AW FK.8 was also on order, No. 35 Sqn. arriving in France with it on 24 January 1917. Resources had been put into these two designs during 1916 to replace the BE.2s and had been designed from scratch to have the better cockpit layout, It would have been pointless putting the resources into the BE.2 conversion which would have been inferior to the new designs.

Mike

[Pips]

Thanks Mike, appreciate the detailed answer.

[Pips]

Just thinking some more on this subject.

While the RE.8 and the AW FK.8 were starting to arrive in France early 1917, the Be.2 was still the most prevalent two-seater in RFC frontline service at the start of 1917.

Even as late as April 1917 there were 15 frontline Squadrons equipped with the Be.2. The venerable Fe.2 was the next most common, with 7 front line squadrons. Then it dropped down to 3 squadrons each of the 1½ Strutter and Re.8. And the Be.2's were crucified in April 1917.

Much was made of the Be.2 in British Parliament at the time being 'Fokker fodder' during that aeroplanes reign in 1915-16. And yet to have still been in operation in 1917 with the observer stuck in the front cockpit and unable to defend itself against the vastly superior Albatross D.III smacks of criminal incompetence on the part of RFC leadership.

I can accept the reasoning that of itself the Be.2 was eminently suitable for observation being a stable aeroplane. And that it had to remain in action awaiting replacement by new observation aircraft coming online as quickly as possible. But not to have taken steps way back in '16 (when the need was identified) to have reversed the pilot/observer, arm the aircraft properly with a rear gun and at least give it a fighting chance was unforgivable, and illustrates Trenchard's total lack of care for the men under his control.

[Brom]

My understanding was that the BE2a - c series all had the front observer/rear pilot arrangement, but that the BE2d had them reversed, so the gunner had a chance to defend the aircraft. Then, for some reason unexplained, (criminal negligence?), the Royal Aircraft Factory reverted to the original layout for the final BE2e series.

[MikeMeech]

Originally Posted by Brom

My understanding was that the BE2a - c series all had the front observer/rear pilot arrangement, but that the BE2d had them reversed, so the gunner had a chance to defend the aircraft. Then, for some reason unexplained, (criminal negligence?), the Royal Aircraft Factory reverted to the original layout for the final BE2e series.

Hi

The BE.2d was a dual control version not a change in pilot/observer position. It had other 'improvements' including moving the main fuel tank and increasing its capacity, although its performance deteriorated because of the increase in weight. It appears few BE.2ds saw active service as the BE.2e was used instead.
It should be remembered that the BE.2 series had a limited capability and flying bombing missions actually meant the pilot flew alone so a 'decent' bomb load could be carried, on those operations it would not matter where the pilot sat he would not have an observer anyway.

Mike

[YavorD]

The reversal of the pilot / observer position on a B.E.2c/d/e was not an easy task. The Belgian examples represent a bold attempt but despite the effort the result was not all good news.
True, the B.E.2c/d/e were outdated in the second half of 1916 and 1917 but there was not a suitable replacement in sight until R.E.8 and a few F.K.8 became available. The license built Nieuport two-seater and the Sopwith 1-1/2, for example, were not up to the task.
The Royal Aircraft Factory was working on the R.E.8 but the new V12 engine was to be developed and put in mass production, aircraft handling improved and aircrew trained to use the new machine.
The following Corps Squadron mount was to be the Bristol Fighter but engine shortage again prevented delivery of substantial numbers before the war end.

[MikeMeech]

Originally Posted by Pips

Just thinking some more on this subject.

While the RE.8 and the AW FK.8 were starting to arrive in France early 1917, the Be.2 was still the most prevalent two-seater in RFC frontline service at the start of 1917.

Even as late as April 1917 there were 15 frontline Squadrons equipped with the Be.2. The venerable Fe.2 was the next most common, with 7 front line squadrons. Then it dropped down to 3 squadrons each of the 1½ Strutter and Re.8. And the Be.2's were crucified in April 1917.

Much was made of the Be.2 in British Parliament at the time being 'Fokker fodder' during that aeroplanes reign in 1915-16. And yet to have still been in operation in 1917 with the observer stuck in the front cockpit and unable to defend itself against the vastly superior Albatross D.III smacks of criminal incompetence on the part of RFC leadership.

I can accept the reasoning that of itself the Be.2 was eminently suitable for observation being a stable aeroplane. And that it had to remain in action awaiting replacement by new observation aircraft coming online as quickly as possible. But not to have taken steps way back in '16 (when the need was identified) to have reversed the pilot/observer, arm the aircraft properly with a rear gun and at least give it a fighting chance was unforgivable, and illustrates Trenchard's total lack of care for the men under his control.

Hi

The Fokker's 'superiority' had ended before the start of the Somme (indeed it ended over Verdun slightly earlier) with the introduction of DH.2s, FE.2bs, Nieuports etc. and the British had started to lose 'air superiority' in the autumn of 1916 with the introduction of Albatros fighters. Trenchard had written to Haig reference the problem by the end of September and Haig later complained to the War Office reference the need for new types. There were new types but various delays, shortages of material etc. had delayed introduction of these types. The types being developed during 1916 were DH.4, Bristol Fighter, Sopwith1 1/2 Strutter, Pup, Triplane, Camel, plus S.5a as well as RE.8 and FK.8.
However, the ground war was continuing and aviation had to play its part despite the delays in the delivery of better aircraft. The Battle of Arras was in April 1917 and the RFC, despite losses, on the whole successfully completed it tasks for the troops on the ground, not to have done so would have resulted in even more casualties on the ground. The Air War was not separate from the ground war.

Mike