Veterans, pt 2 - GraveBritishpilot.jpg (1/1)

[Mitchell Holman[_2_]]

[Avsec]

Many thanks Mitchell for your postings.

According to a WW1 flying machine expert, he states that the wreckage looks
like a RE.8. He also wondered what happen to the observer?

Avsec

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...

[Mitchell Holman[_2_]]

"Avsec" > wrote in
u:

> Many thanks Mitchell for your postings.
>
> According to a WW1 flying machine expert, he states that the wreckage
> looks like a RE.8. He also wondered what happen to the observer?
>
> Avsec
>


In all likelihood he jumped out of the "flamer"
while the pilot rode it down.

It was nothing short of criminal how the British
high command withheld parachutes from aircrews even
as they freely gave them to balloon observers.

[arjay]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> "Avsec" > wrote in
> u:
>
>> Many thanks Mitchell for your postings.
>>
>> According to a WW1 flying machine expert, he states that the wreckage
>> looks like a RE.8. He also wondered what happen to the observer?
>>
>> Avsec
>
> In all likelihood he jumped out of the "flamer"
> while the pilot rode it down.
>
> It was nothing short of criminal how the British
> high command withheld parachutes from aircrews even
> as they freely gave them to balloon observers.

AIUI the thinking was that if air crew had parachutes they would place too
much reliance on the things and fail to exercise due diligence in evading
enemy fire -- perhaps bailing at the first sign of trouble and wasting an
aircraft.
More likely, the thinking behind that was the relative cost of kites and
observation balloons.
Not only were balloon observers unable to take any kind of evasive action,
the things they rode were cheap -- let them burn, they are far more easily
replaced than the arty officers they carry. Let's keep those trained
officers alive.
Kites, now -- they cost. So let's encourage the young men who fly them
(always plenty of them lined up to serve) to do their utmost to preserve the
expensive machinery.

[Mitchell Holman[_2_]]

"arjay" > wrote in
m:

> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Avsec" > wrote in
>> u:
>>
>>> Many thanks Mitchell for your postings.
>>>
>>> According to a WW1 flying machine expert, he states that the wreckage
>>> looks like a RE.8. He also wondered what happen to the observer?
>>>
>>> Avsec
>>
>> In all likelihood he jumped out of the "flamer"
>> while the pilot rode it down.
>>
>> It was nothing short of criminal how the British
>> high command withheld parachutes from aircrews even
>> as they freely gave them to balloon observers.
>
> AIUI the thinking was that if air crew had parachutes they would place
> too much reliance on the things and fail to exercise due diligence in
> evading enemy fire -- perhaps bailing at the first sign of trouble and
> wasting an aircraft.


A notion that was never backed up by reality.........



> More likely, the thinking behind that was the relative cost of kites and
> observation balloons.
> Not only were balloon observers unable to take any kind of evasive
> action, the things they rode were cheap -- let them burn, they are far
> more easily replaced than the arty officers they carry. Let's keep
> those trained officers alive.



Recon planes and recon balloons were equally
incapable of evasive action. Sad how their aircrews
were treated differently.



> Kites, now -- they cost. So let's encourage the young men who fly them
> (always plenty of them lined up to serve) to do their utmost to preserve
> the expensive machinery.


There is a story in Arthur Lee's "No Parachute" about
how a crack squadron leader was taking his patrol back from
a mission when his left upper wingtip buckled, then broke,
then the whole wing came off, and he fell to his death,
and died because he was not issued a parachute for fear he
would "prematurely abandon his plane".

What a waste.