Why the RE8?

Romani · 20 February 2002, 10:50 PM

Why the RE8 endured so much time in service?

By all accounts this was a really awful airplane. Why the Birtish bothered with it in the first place and didn't replace it with another type? I don't think it was because there was nothing else avilable. Something puzzling is that the French used in such great numbers the Sopwith Strutter, a much better plane by all accounts.

Perhaps the RE8 was good enough to get the job of a two seater done, but I cannot understand why this kite was kept in service having the Armstrong FK8 and the Bristol F2B.

Had the RE8 any redeeming graces I'm unaware of?

Volker_Nemsch · 21 February 2002, 06:15 AM

Hello Romani!

The only advantage I know was that the R.E.8 was produced in large numbers. It would have taken a lot of time to "switch over" to another type of aircraft.

Unfortunately a lot of allied crews paid with their lives for this "advantage".

???

21 February 2002, 07:28 AM

Some will argue that the RE-8 wasn't as bad as its reputation implies. I'm not one of those.

I think that the RE-8 stayed in service as long as it did is a result of two things: the Royal Aircraft Factory had a fair amount of political pull; and the RFC didn't adequately explore the potential for a replacement until it was too late. The Harry stayed in production because there was little else available.

(I would love to hear from anyone with an explanation of why the Armstrong-Whitworth "Big Ack" wasn't produced in larger numbers. Was there a problem with engine supply?)

The Sopwith Strutter would not have been an adequate replacement, though. By mid-1917 it was clearly obsolete.

Volker_Nemsch · 21 February 2002, 07:45 AM

Maybe I´m wrong but there were two replacements developed for the obsolete B.E.2 series:

a) the R.E.8
B) the Bristol Fighter

The differences between these two aircraft were pretty big. Why was there no decision only to produce the "Fighter"? It was the far better plane. Or have there been motor problems too?

Any ideas?

21 February 2002, 01:34 PM

The RE-8 was not built to be a fighter,the mistake was sending them out without a fighter escort

21 February 2002, 03:59 PM

Volker,

>Why was there no decision only to produce the "Fighter"?

I think the Rolls Royce Falcon Engines were in short supply or couldnt be built quick enough. Be interesting to know why, maybe their were difficult, complicated or expensive to manufacture.

The Corps squadrons like 3 Sqn AFC who used RE8's through 1917 and 1918 were supposed to be supplied with Biffs. 3 Sqn got two Biffs late in the war as part of 'O' Flight. After they received them, the pilots remarked that they can understand why the Bristol squadrons were scoring so well.

In February of 1919, their RE8's were replaced with Sunbeam Arab Bristol Fighters. The Sunbeam Arab was 200hp, apparently the performance of the Sunbeam engined Biffs wasnt as good as the Rolls Royce Falcon engined Biffs.

The Big Ack had a 160 hp Beardmore, which made it under-engined in comparison to the Bristol Fighter but most aircraft were under-engined in comparison to the Bristol Fighter.

cam

Droops · 22 February 2002, 04:00 AM

The RE8, like the BE2, was a STABLE aircraft. Great for photography and artillery spotting. That stability made it more vulnerable to attack, but the aircraft could hold its own with competent pilots.

For example, its interesting to read about MvR's last day in action. He and another pilot, in Dr1s, came across a pair of RE8s earlier in the day. These AFC aircraft drove both Dr1s off, one of which had enough damage that it had to leave the area. The RE8s then continued their recon work without further mishap.

Some swore by the planes and liked them a great deal. They incurred tremendous losses, but that is to be expected for short-range recon aircraft flying above or just over the lines on photographic missions and without much, if any, cover.

I was under the impression that the 'Big Ack' was a bit more of a long-range recon machine. Anyone else with thoughts on the missions for which these planes were designed?

VBR,

John

PeterL · 23 February 2002, 07:44 AM

Michael:

* "Some will argue that the RE-8 wasn't as bad as its
* * * * * * reputation implies."

That'll be me. If flown aggressively the RE was perfectly capable of giving a good account of itself. The Australians in particular gave many a Hun a bloody nose. Our own people, and perhaps the Canadians, don't seem to have taken this on board and flew the RE as if it were no more than an improved BE2. It was more than that. As noted on the current DrI thread, it's the man as well as the machine. In this case we can add that it was also the man who trained the man.

25 February 2002, 07:29 AM

Quote:

If flown aggressively the RE was perfectly capable of giving a good account of itself. The Australians in particular gave many a Hun a bloody nose. Our own people, and perhaps the Canadians, don't seem to have taken this on board and flew the RE as if it were no more than an improved BE2. It was more than that. As noted on the current DrI thread, it's the man as well as the machine. In this case we can add that it was also the man who trained the man.

A very good point. A reputation's a dangerous thing in the military, methinks; undoubtedly a number of men died because they'd allowed themselves to be convinced that the Harry was automatically dead meat in an encounter with an enemy scout.

Having said that, though, I still think the RE-8 was a bad design. For a stable machine it actually had pretty poor lateral stability (at least until they fixed the vertical fin) and its low-speed performance was dangerous enough that observers were forbidden to stand up during landing approaches. Oh, and the thing had to have at least 150 pounds in the rear cockpit whenever it was in the air, for some reason.

Cam: yes, the problem with the Biff was that the Rolls-Royce engines were extremely hard to manufacture. Rolls carried that hand-tooling thing a bit too far, given that it was wartime and all. The company doesn't seem to have accepted the concept of mass production at all. I seem to recall that the Americans wanted to mass-produce one of the RR engines under license, but could never get suitable engineering diagrams from Rolls.

stephen · 26 February 2002, 04:51 AM

I have to agree with Michael that the balance and ground handling aspects of the RE 8 left much to be desired.

That said, I definately fall into the category of an RE 8 defender. It was utterly stable in flight, had a ridiculously long flight duration and offered ample space in which the the pilot and observer could work. Remember, the RE was a flying office. It made no pretense of being a combat aircraft of any sort, so the fact that it gave good account of itself in combat is just icing on the cake. It was already an airplane which was perfectly capable of completing its duties.

I knew several RE 8 pilots personally, and not a single one of them ever had a negative word to say about their aircraft. One, in fact, specifically said that he has always "wondered why the RE 8 was much maligned." I place a great deal of emphasis on the testimonies of those who flew them, and most pilots like the RE 8 quite well.