R.E.8

[Vigilant]

I was wondering if anyone could shed light on the decision to produce the RE8 in quantity as the standard Corps squadron mount. By all accounts it was a barely adequate aeroplane and there were other British 2 seat designs available (the Ack W or a little later the Bristol F2A). Production of the BE2 wasn't such a bad decision, since by pre-war standards it seemed perfect for the RFC's needs. But by 1916 the BE's shortcomings in air combat were obvious, so why replace it with a machine based on that same BE design?

Anyone?

[Darryl]

Hi Vig,

Three words....Royal Aircraft Factory...

regards

Darryl

[mike_baram]

Does "$700 toilet seat" ring a bell?
Military bureaucracy, bribes, you name it....I wouldn't be surprised if the Babylonian army purchased defective spears from incompetent suppliers.

[Darryl]

Mike,

Sure.... accuse people of corruption who aren't around to defend themselves. Are there no depths???*G*

[Vigilant]

Darryl, I suspect you're right, but since the Factory could turn out some fine designs like the SE5, it seems strange to patronise their poor ones.

Vig.

[Vigilant]

Hey! Who needs the old chatroom?

Vig

[Darryl]

Vig,

Frank Goodden test flew 7996 and so did a range of experienced pilots. ALL reported favourably with the exception of a few MINOR faults (which were changed on production models). 52 Sqn didn't see it that way.... and exchanged them for 34 Sqn's BE2e's. 34's more experienced pilots fared better.

Also remember that a couple of well handled RE8's chased of MvR and his cronies on the day he was killed. (Aussies, of course)

I think the difference between brilliance and failure at that stage of a/c design had a lot more to do with luck than anything. This accounts for the wild variation in the usefulness of RAF designs

just my opinion

regards

Darryl

PS, as to chat, it is now 0040 here and I am at work at 0600, time for some 'down time'

Could it have been a cost- or manufacturing-influenced decision? Being based on a previous design obvious indicates similarity in production techniques. By 1916 England was certainly feeling the cost of such wartime production.

VBR,
Mark Daymont

[stephen]

Gotta back up Darryl on this one. I've posted it before so I won't repeat, but at least 3 of my WWI pen pals were pilots of RE 8's and every single one of them spoke of the aircraft in glowing terms. It was, by their testimony, "much maligned" and undeservedly so. The RE could not dogfight or set speed records, but it provided a stable platform for aerial operations over long flights and was utterly reliable. It did its job... and its job was not fighting.

My own feeling (mostly gut reaction, and not backed up by anything so difficult and time-consuming as actual research) is that the R.E. 8 went into production because it was a safe, easy choice. The Factory had a very powerful, well-connected bureaucrat running it (Mervyn O'Gorman, if I remember correctly). It also had a production system set up; the Factory didn't actually build aircraft, but its license system was well established. Armstrong Whitworths were a quality firm, but they were relatively new to aviation and their designer, Frederick Koolhoven, was (to slip into contemporary parlance) a bit of a nutter. No doubt a number of people were aware that the Big Ack was a much better design (for one thing, it could be flown safely with the rear cockpit empty), but the disruption caused by putting it into mass production instead of the RE-8 would have meant the BE-2 had to stay in service even longer. (And this doesn't even begin to address the question of engine supply, which was a real problem for the RFC/RAF -- and probably the main reason why the Brisfit never served in Corps squadrons. They couldn't be built fast enough.)