During 1916, the DH.9 was designed as a successor to the DH.4, reusing both its wings and tail unit while adopting a modified fuselage that moved the pilot closer to the gunner/observer and away from the engine and fuel tank, which facilitated communication and was viewed as being a more optimal fighting configuration.Bruce 1965, p. 4. However, While the DH.9 was deemed to be suitable for daytime bombing operations, it was found to be incapable of effective nighttime bombing due to the pilot's view being obstructed and visibility via the bombsight being unsuitable.Bruce 1965, p. 5. The DH.9's performance in action over the Western Front was typically deemed to have been a disaster; heavy losses of the type were quickly incurred, attributed to both its poor performance and to engine failures, despite the prior derating of its engine to reduce the failure rate.Bruce 1965, p. 6.
during 1916 the dh9 was designed as a successor to the dh4 reusing both its wings and tail unit while adopting a modified fuselage that moved the pilot closer to the gunner/observer and away from the engine and fuel tank which facilitated communication and was viewed as being a more optimal fighting configurationbruce 1965 p 4 however while the dh9 was deemed to be suitable for daytime bombing operations it was found to be incapable of effective nighttime bombing due to the pilot's view being obstructed and visibility via the bombsight being unsuitablebruce 1965 p 5 the dh9's performance in action over the western front was typically deemed to have been a disaster; heavy losses of the type were quickly incurred attributed to both its poor performance and to engine failures despite the prior derating of its engine to reduce the failure ratebruce 1965 p 6