Why the RE8?

[leo]

The RE* was a reco and spotter aircraft and as such did an outstanding job for the Allies. It was one of those ships that worked best when propeely supported by fighter aircraft. It wa strong, well built, able to sustain battle damage and get its crew home and perform the tasks assigned to it. What ese is there?

The RE* was a reco and spotter aircraft and as such did an outstanding job for the Allies. *It was one of those ships that worked best when propeely supported by fighter aircraft. *It wa strong, well built, able to sustain battle damage and get its crew home and perform the tasks assigned to it. *What ese is there?

The ability to do its job without requiring an escort?

The RE-8 was certainly adequate to requirements if the requirements bar was set low enough. But it can't have escaped everybody's notice that the German C-types were extremely capable of looking out for themselves, apparently much more so than equivalent British types. I have to wonder why the RAF/RAE didn't pay more attention to overall performance, given the aggressive stance the RFC/RAF took.

I sometimes find myself wondering how Stephen's pilot friends might have felt about the RE-8 had they spent time flying Rumplers.

Leo,

>It was one of those ships that worked best when
>propeely supported by fighter aircraft.

I went through the history of 3 Squadron AFC who had RE8's throughout their operational life, there was only one instance where they received an escort. In comparison the Dh9's from 80 Wing which did the bombing missions, seemed to have escort quote often.


cam

[PeterL]

Michael: "...the thing had to have at least 150 pounds in the rear cockpit whenever it was in the air, for some reason."


Even in my young days I recall light aircraft and gliders having large lumps of lead attached to a strategic part of the airframe when flown at less than full occupancy. For all I know the practice continues. It was certainly not perculiar to the RE8 during WWI and cannot be counted a disadvantage. Rather a matter of practical necessity. On the other hand, one reason for the BE2's seemingly perverse seating arrangement was that it allowed single seat operations without such penalty.

Michael would"the ability to do the job without a escort"
apply to the B-17 ?

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen:
* * *All two seaters had a warning notice stenciled on the left side of the fuselage below the upper longeron, stating that 150 pounds ballast would have to be placed in the observer's
cockpit if flown with the observer's cockpit empty. *I might add, even the much vaunted Bristol F.2B "Brisfit."
* * *If the R.E.8 was so "bad" why did it serve in the RFC/RAF from *November 1916, equipping No.52 Squadron, R.E.8 and equipping 15 Corps squadrons on the Western Front on 11 November 1918 out of a total of 20 Corps squadrons.
* * In the RAF, no Corps Squadron was equipped with the Bristol F.2B. They were used only in 3 flights, "N,O and P"
Flights. *The Bristol F.2B were used by Army Wings and served in 2 "flights, "I" and "L" and 6 Squadrons.
* * *To put the R.E.8 and the Brisfit in the same brasket is not correct, they served different purposes, the R.E.8 was used for battle field reconnaissance and artillery spotting. *The Brisfit was for tactical and strategic reconnaissance, the same role as the Rumpler C.IV-C.VII series. The German comparison to the R.E.8 would be the DFW C.V and both had simular service lives.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Blue skies,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan-San

Dan,

>In the RAF, no Corps Squadron was equipped with the
>Bristol F.2B.

3 Sqn AFC began re-equipped with Sunbeam Arabed Bristol F2b's in January of 1919.

>They were used only in 3 flights, "N,O and P"

O Flight is interesting, Wrigley (former 3 Sqn AFC OC) writes;

"It was during this period that the organisation of a flight of Bristol Fighter aircraft, to be attached to No.3 Squadron for the purpose of carrying out long distance work, was taken in hand. This was to a be a self-contained unit composed of RAF personnel, with the exception of the pilots and observers, who were to be provided from No.3 Squadron. Captain E.J. Jones was transferred from the command of A Flight to the command of the new Flight, the official designation of which was "O" Flight, RAF"


>To put the R.E.8 and the Brisfit in the same brasket is
>not correct, they served different purposes, the R.E.8
>was used for battle field reconnaissance and artillery spotting.

Given 3 Squadron was re-equipped with Sunbeam Arab Biffs in ealry 1919 it implies that had the Sunbeam Arab been a viable alternative earlier, or the Rolls Royce engined F3b's been more readily available, the F2b would have replaced the RE8's.


cam

I have 3 or 4 digital pictures of the RE8 at Duxford. If someone could tell me how to display them on this web site I will put them on. Please type slowly when you give me directions as I am not the most computer literate. Think of me me in trainee Judge terms, in other words explain everything!

Old Bill

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Old Bill:
I know exactly what you mean, I have been there!
Bluer skies ahead,
Dan-San

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Cam:
I can find no evidence that the Brisfit was ever intended to replace the R.E.8. The Brisfit was in short supply for one and the engine problem for the brisfit had not been resolved.
What the RAF was looking at for a replacement for the R.E.8 was the Siddely R.T.1 with the 200 h.p. Hispano-Suiza engine.
The deployment of the Siddely R.T.1 was schedule for 1919.
Blue skies,
Dan-San