Parachutes and our boys

As we all know pilots in the R.F.C were not issued with parachutes as it was feared the pilots would use them when not actually needed (the exact qoute eludes me @ the moment)my question for debate is if the pilots had have been issued with parachutes would we have perhaps seen more aces, as pilots would know they were able to take greater risks in the hunt as if it were to go "tits up" there would be greater chance of survival, therefore in theory perhaps creating better and moer secure pilots????

As to whether on not there would have been more RFC aces, who knows? Hesitant even to venture a guess myself.

Concerning the British policy itself, I have wondered whether or not the pilots, once aware of the use of parachutes by both friendly balloon personnel and enemy pilots, threatened to stay on the ground. The military being what it is, such a stance might itself have resulted in death by execution. It is hard to believe that RFC pilots did not strive to be issued a lifeline that could save them from a terrible death, the type of which many of them saw their mates experience.

Gentlemen:
Parachutes were not a sure thing in WW1, they were much improved in WW2. Some pilots would not have taken them, prefering the weight savings over a dicey parachute. In the board game Dawn Patrol when ever I play a German pilot I always refuse the 'chute, I figure why mess around with something that may not work.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Barton

About mid-June the parachute was explored in another thread. It seems to have lapsed from the main Forum and has not yet been added to the Forum Archives. It included a fair amount of history on German parachutes - but as I recall, it also made the point that making a parachute for a balloon observer (and effecting a successful escape) was vastly more simple than making a practical parachute for an airplane and then climbing out of same without losing control or getting entangled in struts, wires, tail, etc. The PRACTICAL aircraft parachute appeared in 1918; its delay into British service had less to do with philosophical queries about morale, crew attitudes, etc, and more to do with a fetish for over-testing and conducting comparative trials.

[Ginger.]

Seem to recall several of the RFC aces mentioning parachutes.Mannock was venomous that they did'nt have them, Ira Jones recordered this,Mick was his hero.Would he have written it if chutes were thought "sissy" by British pilots? What does stand out is that most of them are at the point where they had seen an awful lot of death.Maybe even Mannock felt the hand on his shoulder.

I think Mannock probably had a few premonitions about his death..so it would make sense for him to be wanting a parachute which would have at least given him a chance.

[stevedrew]

I am currently reading "Solo", the biography of the Australian Aviator Bert Hinkler. As early as March 1916, Hinkler was trying to get the Admiralty to look at a scheme of his for night fighting. Most fighters taking off at night to search for a zeppelin were reluctant to stray far from their home fields for fear of being lost, and having to land on unfamiliar ground. Hinkler tried to suggest that the observer leave the aircraft by parachute, and fire off a few "very" lights to illuminate the ground for miles around, thus enabling the pilot to select the most suitable landing ground.

Steve Drew

[Vin]

The RFC/RAF would not provide parachutes to its pilots because it was testing them/thought they would be bad for morale. The German Air Service did supply its pilots with parachutes, towards the end of the war.
What about the French ?
Why did the USAS not supply its pilots with parachutes ?


Vin

Probably one (callous) consideration of the RFC/RNAS, and later, the RAF commands was that why bother with the expence of issuing parachutes, as with their offensive tactics, most aircrew who successfully bailed out would have ended up as prisoners, and would have still been lost.

Why does Tony conjure up an admitedly callous reason and then describe it as a "probable" reason ? Does he really believe that RFC/RAF staff officers (many of whom by 1918 were themselves veterans of the air war) would be so cold-blooded as he describes ? Skepticism is a healthy thing when studying history, but blind cynicism is an impediment. More can be explained by mistaken decisions (whether foolish or not is another matter) than by malice or conspiracy. Decades later the Challenger disaster (with no escape mechanism available) would be comparable in that the absence of such an escape device reflected existing technologies and not a determination to sacrifice crew members.