Why did backseater (two-man) fighter planes fall out of favor?

[Kobal2]

@toadspittle

On the contrary? Isn’t that exactly what El_Kabong said?

Errr… yeah. Yes, it is. hangs head

[toadspittle]

@Kobal2

Errr… yeah. Yes, it is. hangs head

It’s Okay. It’s been a long year, all around. Have some bubbly, and sleep in tomorrow.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Kobal2

On the contrary. WWII warbirds were mostly single seat machines, with a few exceptions who had rear gunners. Twin seaters came in vogue when someone was needed to read the radar, assign missile targets etc… while the “real” pilot was doing pilot stuff, like making sure the ground stays below the plane rather than in front of it.

There was a time, though - way back pre-WW2 when the Army wanted to keep the Air Corps small and unimportant - when the main role of airpower was ground support. The planes that did this were O- (observation) and A- (attack) series planes, and they were all two-seaters - single-engine ships with a light bomb load and a gunner’s position, a lot like dive bombers except not designed to dive. These were no longer part of the battle plan by the time of Pearl Harbor, although a couple of twin-engine attack planes (A-20 and A-26) served admirably as fast, light bombers in WW2.

There was even a fighter gunship, the Bell Airacuda, around 1938. It carried aerial cannon and a crew of 5, and was meant to intercept bombers, but (like many US warplanes of the day) was simply too slow.