Airco or nothing

The Airco DH.9 (from de Havilland 9) – also known after 1920 as the de Havilland DH.9 – was a British single-engined biplane bomber developed and deployed during the First World War.
The DH.9 was a development of Airco's earlier successful DH.4, with which it shared many components. Very good DH. 4 with fantastic Rolls Royce engine 375 hp (280 kW) could not be delivered in the expected quantities because Rolls Royce had to supply the engines for heavy bombers and flying boats. BHP engines were available in large numbers, so it was decided to develop a new aircraft for this engine, the parameters of which would be similar to the DH 4. So a lighter and streamlined aircraft was designed - DH 9.
Unfortunately, the BHP engine proved unable to reliably deliver its expected power; the engine having been de-rated to 230 hp (170 kW) in order to improve its reliability. This deficit had a drastic effect on the aircraft's performance, especially at high altitude, with it being inferior to that of the DH.4 it was supposed to replace.
The poor performance of the aircraft meant that the DH.9 would have to fight its way through enemy fighters, which could easily catch the DH.9 where the DH.4 could avoid many of these attacks. As early as November 1917, some officials, such as General Hugh Trenchard, raised repeated objections to the aircraft based upon its disappointing performance; however, in his response, President of the Air Council Sir William Weir started that "it was the choice of having the DH.9 with the B.H.P. engine, or of having nothing at all."

About 3,000 aircraft in the DH 9 version were produced until the end of the war. 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.[12] Between May and November 1918, a pair of squadrons stationed at the Western Front (Nos. 99 and 104) lost 54 of its DH.9s shot down and another 94 aircraft written off due to accidents.[13] On multiple occasions, less than half of a flight of bombers would reach their intended targets; according to Bruce, the successful missions performed by the DH.9 were frequently a product of "the courage and determination of the pilots and observers that flew them". Squadrons would often implement their own home-built enhancements to their aircraft, such as enlarged carburetor air intakes and modified fuel mixture controls. Models and textures by me.