Dual controls on the De Havilland DH4

['Warspite']

Are other players aware that the Airco De Havilland DH4 was equipped with dual controls and that the rear gunner could take over the aeroplane in the event of the death of the pilot?

I was aware, from my previous aerial wargaming with Airfix models back in the 1970s, that one British type had dual controls and I could not remember which one it was. Having finally started unpacking my huge book collection I finally located the 'magnus opus' on British WW1 types, 'British Aeroplanes 1914-1918' by J.M. Bruce, first published by Putnam's in 1957. My copy is second impression of 1969 and was bought new around 1973. A DIY store checkout ticket used as a book mark inside the book suggests I last read it in 1985.

Turning to page 171 (about the DH 4) I read: "The observer had full dual control, with duplicated altimeter and air-speed indicator; his control column was detachable".

Higher up on the same page (171) was this note from the Central Flying School… "Control. - stick, dual for elevator and rudder. Machine is exceptionally comfortable to fly and easy to land. Exceptionally light on controls…"

So what we have is an aircraft which could survive the death of the pilot, provided his rear gunner/observer kept his nerve and attached the dual control stick in time.

Proposed house rule for DH4s, RE8s and Armstrong Whitworth FK8s**
In the event of the death of the pilot, the rear gunner has a 50/50 chance of finding the dual control stick and attaching it to take over control. Flip a coin or roll a dice to establish control. Once under control the aircraft cannot perform loops, stalls, etc, and can make only straight and large diameter turns. It may dive but may not overdive. If the rear gunner receives a wound while under control of the aircraft he has to take the 50/50 test again. If he succeeds the aircraft remains airborne. He may not fire the rear gun or operate a camera in the recon mode while flying the aeroplane. He cannot fire the forward gun.

What do we think?
This makes the DH4 a very interesting option and may be one explanation for its low loss rate. Other books including the Osprey on Jasta 18 suggest that the Germans treated the DH4 with respect. Fokker Triplanes could not keep up with it while interceptions over Germany of raiding DH 4s and DH 9s seem to suggest that even Fokker DVIIs kept their distance from the DH4. In one account home bound DH4s turned fighters and actually dived to attack DVIIs which were harassing a formations of DH9s. The DH9 at this time was seen as a bit of lame duck, its later DH9A version was much superior.

**Now edited to include the RE8 and FK8 which also had rudimentary dual controls

[FarEast]

From the information you posted I would argue that the 'observer' can perform maneuvers identical to the pilot - but can not shoot.

I would also say that if you are playing with altitude, then at altitude 1 you don't have time to detach the stick from the mount and install it in the bracket. Also if playing with altitude you take 1 random maneuver card each movement phase plus descend one peg on a steep or illegal move you can not flip to get the stick in and take damage for illegal move.


For non-altitude, three movement phases same rules as above.

['Warspite']

From the information you posted I would argue that the 'observer' can perform maneuvers identical to the pilot - but can not shoot.

I would also say that if you are playing with altitude, then at altitude 1 you don't have time to detach the stick from the mount and install it in the bracket. Also if playing with altitude you take 1 random maneuver card each movement phase plus descend one peg on a steep or illegal move you can not flip to get the stick in and take damage for illegal move.


For non-altitude, three movement phases same rules as above.

I think you are assuming that the observer/rear gunner has some pilot training. Observers were not given expensive pilot training so I am assuming a green horn is having the white knuckle ride of his life!
Remember also that the rear gunner/observer on a DH4 is located well to the rear as the fuel tank was between the two crewmen. The rear gunner's view would be poor and that would further affect his chances of full pilot-type control.
Hence he cannot perform any fancy manoeuvres or throw the aircraft around like a real pilot in the front seat. If using height counters I would also add '1' counter to his normal climb rate. He would climb slower than normal.

The first 50/50 test is to find out if he can master the controls in time. It is like an airline flight attendant grabbing the controls of a 707 or a 747 in a disaster movie

Not listed above, to further replicate lack of pilot training I would also suggest a further 50/50 test on landing, to determine if the aircraft landed intact or not. Failure of this landing test means that the machine is destroyed but the rear gunner can at least walk away.

[Doug]

Very interesting, may be the observer could have done some flying training before being posted to the Squadron or even at the Squadron if they had time. Or there is the possibility that they did not bother with the dual controls is there any evidence for this event actually happening? But the surgested rules seam prity good. I will certainly be giving them a try.

['Warspite']

Very interesting, may be the observer could have done some flying training before being posted to the Squadron or even at the Squadron if they had time. Or there is the possibility that they did not bother with the dual controls is there any evidence for this event actually happening? But the surgested rules seam prity good. I will certainly be giving them a try.

I see it as an emergency measure, I have heard no reports of it having been used which suggests it may not have been effective, hence my suggestion of 50/50 tests - either it works or it doesn't!

[Nicola Zee]

From the information you posted I would argue that the 'observer' can perform maneuvers identical to the pilot - but can not shoot.

I would also say that if you are playing with altitude, then at altitude 1 you don't have time to detach the stick from the mount and install it in the bracket. Also if playing with altitude you take 1 random maneuver card each movement phase plus descend one peg on a steep or illegal move you can not flip to get the stick in and take damage for illegal move.


For non-altitude, three movement phases same rules as above.

I've been playing the house rule that with dual control planes, the observer takes over but Warspite has a point. It's not certain how well trained the observer would be in flying the plane. With the Bristol Fighters, the observers were also pilots and so should be able to fly the plane. I'm not sure how well trained the observers were on the DH4's.

[Rabbit 3]

This wasn`t unique to the DH-4 either. The Armstrong Whitworth FK8 also had dual controls and there is at least one documented case of an observer managing to land one after the pilot was incapacitated in combat.
Some versions of the BE2 were also duel control though they were mainly used as trainers, the re-engined Belgian examples with the rear guns were based on this duel control version so they may also have had this feature.

[flash]

Proposed house rule for DH4s
...Once under control the aircraft cannot perform loops, stalls, etc, and can make only straight and large diameter turns. It may dive but may not overdive....

What do we think?

The DH4 is an H deck. It has no Immelmann, only large diameter turns and in the hands of a novice may be more likely to stall than not at all ! (And you cannot land without a stall card !)
If the observer gets the stick in then treat him as a rookie pilot using whichever rules you subscribe to for that, or, to keep it really simple, maybe just take out one of every card with in the deck leaving it with 2 straight, 2 right turn, 2 left turn, 1 stall, 1 right sideslip, 1 left sideslip, 1 climb, 1 dive.

['Warspite']

The DH4 is an H deck. It has no Immelmann, only large diameter turns and in the hands of a novice may be more likely to stall than not at all ! (And you cannot land without a stall card !)
If the observer gets the stick in then treat him as a rookie pilot using whichever rules you subscribe to for that, or, to keep it really simple, maybe just take out one of every card with in the deck leaving it with 2 straight, 2 right turn, 2 left turn, 1 stall, 1 right sideslip, 1 left sideslip, 1 climb, 1 dive.

I did not have a manoeuvre deck to hand so I generalised. Deleting one card of each type is interesting.

['Warspite']

This wasn`t unique to the DH-4 either. The Armstrong Whitworth FK8 also had dual controls and there is at least one documented case of an observer managing to land one after the pilot was incapacitated in combat.
Some versions of the BE2 were also duel control though they were mainly used as trainers, the re-engined Belgian examples with the rear guns were based on this duel control version so they may also have had this feature.

I was not aware of the FK8, I will have to look up Bruce and see what he says on the type.

['Warspite']

I've been playing the house rule that with dual control planes, the observer takes over but Warspite has a point. It's not certain how well trained the observer would be in flying the plane. With the Bristol Fighters, the observers were also pilots and so should be able to fly the plane. I'm not sure how well trained the observers were on the DH4's.

Having just been reading 'The First of the Few' about the radical physical effects of flying on trained and healthy WW1 pilots who used no oxygen at altitudes where WW2 oxygen was mandatory it is amazing that any pilots survived the exertions of the flight let alone combat. The rear gunner/observer is even more disadvantaged than any of us could imagine.

I should mention that the 50/50 test also covers whether the detachable control stick is even on board the aircraft! It could have been left at home.

[csadn]

It is like an airline flight attendant grabbing the controls of a 707 or a 747 in a disaster movie :)

>;)

[FarEast]

You know what ... I think ALL RFC pilots should roll a dice for landings, most pilots arriving on the front (especially after Bloody April) had only between 15-20 hours flying time with maybe 10 or 12 of those solo! The majority had never even flown some of the aircraft they were assigned to and crash landings resulting in injury and death was very common.

In one case 6 pilots were sent out to there new squadrons from #1 Aircraft Depot in St. Omer Ferrying B.E.2es, 2 crashed on landing writing off both machines, one crashed badly on route in a forced landing (written off) and the last got lost and had to crash land in what turned out to be where the Battle of Agincourt was fought and the 6th just disappeared.

so out of 6 aircraft only one made it to the front lines and this was a regular occurrence, So I think maybe we need to toughen up the rules on the poor old observer!

The above information is from the book "No Parachute" by Arthur Gould Lee - will write a review but its bloody good

['Warspite']

>

And that was EXACTLY what I had in mind when I wrote this.

['Warspite']

You know what ... I think ALL RFC pilots should roll a dice for landings, most pilots arriving on the front (especially after Bloody April) had only between 15-20 hours flying time with maybe 10 or 12 of those solo! The majority had never even flown some of the aircraft they were assigned to and crash landings resulting in injury and death was very common.

In the rules which I wrote and re-wrote 30/35 years ago there was a landing roll after combat.

The base chance of a crash (on percentage dice) was something like 2%.
+5% first flight in character (if you started a new character, this always applied)
+5% each light wound (we allowed 4 LW before death)
+20% each serious wound (we allowed 2 SW before death - two lights + one serious also = death)
+5% engine knocked out, gliding in
+20% currently on fire
+20% undercarriage damage (this was possible in our rules)
+10% more than half aircraft points have been lost
+20% currently being flown by the observer (DH4 etc)

+10% landing anywhere other than an airfield
+20% landing in No Man's Land

-5% ace with 5 kills
-10% 10 kills or more
-20% 20 kills or more

In the event of a crash on landing, all air crew had to take a percentage die roll as if hit by machine gun fire which was something like 1-20% 'scratched, no wound, 21 to 40% light wound, 41 to 70% serous wound, 71% or higher - dead.

[csadn]

And that was EXACTLY what I had in mind when I wrote this.

Oddly, _Mythbusters_ tested the "can a random passenger land a plane", and it turned out it *was* possible, provided two factors were in play:

1) The passenger had to be able to follow instructions, and;
2) Just like the move says, the guy on the ground is "gonna have to talk him onto the approach; so help me, you'll have to talk him right down to the ground!" [drops watermelon onto table for emphasis]

[Naharaht]

The R.E.8 also had some dual controls for the observer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_A..._Factory_R.E.8

There is a discussion about whether the Bristol F2B Fighter had some dual controls here http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/fo...howtopic=96789 It also mentions that the F.E.2b may have had some dual controls.

If I was a pilot, I would try to give my observer some practice flying the plane.

[FarEast]

I'm wondering how many of these dual control aircraft were on the actual front, I think these may have been trainers.

['Warspite']

The R.E.8 also had some dual controls for the observer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_A..._Factory_R.E.8

There is a discussion about whether the Bristol F2B Fighter had some dual controls here http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/fo...howtopic=96789 It also mentions that the F.E.2b may have had some dual controls.

If I was a pilot, I would try to give my observer some practice flying the plane.

Just followed your link and found it:

"Very basic flight controls were installed in the observer's cockpit – these folded out of the way when not in use. They were connected to the elevators, rudder, and throttle, but not to the ailerons,[8] and were plainly intended to give observers a chance to make a forced landing if the pilot was killed or incapacitated rather than to offer true dual control."

This would appear similar to the Armstrong Whitworth FK8 (mentioned by Rabbit 3 above) as my copy of J. M. Bruce's huge and worthy book explains that the 'Big Ack's' dual controls were also not a complete set. I think this tends to confirm my earlier caution about restricting the observer/rear gunner's manoeuvres.

Well spotted and thank you.

[fast.git]

Are there any accounts of observers returning damaged aircraft safely to earth after the loss/wounding of their pilot? Although the proposed rules work for me (especially the card removal mechanic mentioned by Flash), I wonder if the situation occurred often enough to apply in game terms?

Just a thought.

[Bruce]

My House Rule is simple, but I think it reflects the gist of comments so far on this thread.
"If a 2-seater’s pilot (any 2-seater) is killed, the AC is shot-down, but the gunner/observer has a 33% chance of survival ... miraculous as this may be in most cases".

Good discussion ... but my LGG doesn't want any more complexity (we already have quite a few House Rules) so we kept this House Rule simple. I just carried it over to my PBeM games and have had no complaints.
Bruce

['Warspite']

Are there any accounts of observers returning damaged aircraft safely to earth after the loss/wounding of their pilot? Although the proposed rules work for me (especially the card removal mechanic mentioned by Flash), I wonder if the situation occurred often enough to apply in game terms?

Just a thought.

I must admit that I have never heard of a single instance.

[BlackSpy]

I must admit that I have never heard of a single instance.

It would seem incredible that so many planes would be fitted out with duel control if there was no intent to train in their use? As an alternative to an account of a landing, are there many instances of just observers being taken prisoner as the pilot was dead? That might be indication of a forced landing behind enemy lines.

['Warspite']

It would seem incredible that so many planes would be fitted out with duel control if there was no intent to train in their use? As an alternative to an account of a landing, are there many instances of just observers being taken prisoner as the pilot was dead? That might be indication of a forced landing behind enemy lines.

I like your thinking on this. I must admit, I still have very little information on that subject either. Running an eye down a list of MvR's kills it mostly appears to be 'all or nothing' - both crew survived or both were killed. In a couple of cases one or other later died of wounds. As observers were not routinely trained as pilots I strongly suspect the equipment was either fitted as a morale booster or 'more in hope than expectation'.

[FarEast]

To be honest I really think these were only outfitted with duel controls for pilot training.