About Spads

[Hauksbee 103]

I'm finding a full loop against a closely following D.VII is the best way to shake AI D.VII aircraft.

 

Nice entry, SirMike. Particularly the 'full-loop-to-clear-your-six" maneuver. I remember back when I first started with flying games on Apple II's. There were many times when I had my plane up on one wingtip, banking as tight as she would go, and I could never shake [or even see] my attacker. Then I twigged to the loop. When you come over the top, you'll almost always see your guy

[Hasse Wind 46]

Good thread to bump, IMHO.

 

So, has anyone had any success tweaking the stall speed on the SPAD VII or SPAD XIII? Perhaps Polovski or Winding Man might chime in with their thoughts on the SPAD fm?

 

 

Cheers!

 

WvB

 

Pol mentioned in the long thread about P4 that they are looking into the Spad flight model.

[WilliVonBill 0]

Pol mentioned in the long thread about P4 that they are looking into the Spad flight model.

 

 

Excellent! Nice to know that the SPAD fm is getting a look see. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

 

 

 

Cheers!

 

WvB

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

I tried to look at the Spad FM using airwrench, but the button you have to push to make the plane editable seems to be disabled. When I make any changes to the .cfg file by hand, the plane gets rejected by OFF as an "unofficial plane unsupported by OFF," and the mission aborts.

[Mr. Lucky 0]

General perceptions:

VII and XIII: visibility sucks. The top wing blocks so much sky it's hard to spot and track targets.

The view out the wings of that well braced bay structure gives one confidence and a feeling of flying in a tough bird.

Unfortunately, the AI still manage sever all my control cables, empty my fuel tank, perforate my cylinders and puncture my tires with the first bullet and that's on the hard DM.

 

It does have nice speed though.

[SirMike1983 3]

If all else fails, peg the throttle and go in LOW-- just avoiding the tree tops. It will give you some space and AI D.VIIs are unable or unwilling to follow you that low. They'll flutter up and down and fall behind you. You then have the option of running or coming back up for a head-on hit and run pass.

[Olham 164]

Did a few QCs. My best combat method so far: dive out of danger steep (developing incredible speed),

and then pull back the stick hard, for a half or a full loop (TrackIR helps to check, where opponent is).

Forget all turning!

[zoomzoom 2]

Exactly right Olham. I HATED the Spad until I was given some guidelines on flying it properly. It is a fast heavy little brick who's saving grace is its big engine that gives it enough speed, (and an airframe that can handle this speed) to dive as far and as fast as you wish.....and also withdraw from a turning fight. You try to turn fight the little devil against anything else though, and after more than a couple turns, once your speed bleeds off, you are toast. And this is historically accurate. So are the dramatic stalls, because when you have a craft that heavy, once you push it beyond its envelope, the results can be dramatic. I guess you guys can debate HOW dramatic they should be, but if you start tinkering with this bird to make it turn fight on a par with other lighter AC, you will destroy the accuracy already there. Learn the plane....don't force it into the box of your previous experience. I've found that with practice, even the Spads turning ability isn't bad.......its just not a Fokker DVII.....nor should it be. I'll see if I can find the thread that outlined fighting techniques for this bird. You'll find that once you employ them it opens up a whole new understanding of this craft. I know it did for me.

 

ZZ.

[Hasse Wind 46]

I don't think there are any plans to make the Spad more nimble, just to reduce its stall speed which is now unrealistically high.

 

I've now gathered quite a few flying hours with the Spad (mostly the VII) in campaign, and given enough altitude, I won't have to fear anything in that crate. It's very easy to fly away if the odds don't seem favourable, much easier than in the Pfalz (another clumsy brick with which I have plenty of experience). But getting kills takes a lot more effort than in the turn fighters, because going after nimbler enemies in a wild chase will only result in certain death.

[Olham 164]

Hasse Wind - do you fly American? (see my thread "Where are the Americans" for explanation).

[Hasse Wind 46]

Olham, yes I do. One of my first careers in OFF was with an American pilot. I couldn't fly the Spad properly back then, so it was a very short career. Now I have two Spad pilots, both of them French in early and mid 1917.

 

I've never had any pilots in that killboard. I'm not very familiar with how the system works there even though I fly with all the DiD settings, except warp, which I must use if I want to have enough time to play the longer campaign missions.

[Olham 164]

You find all rules and conditions here: http://www.hetzer.talktalk.net/

 

You may use Warp, TAC and Labels. Then you name it DiD/WTL in your report.

List up all data as Siggi requires in the website.

Then mail that to:

 

langnasen@fmail.co.uk

 

Hope to see you there soon!

[Hasse Wind 46]

Interesting. If it's that easy (no screenshots or anything required to prove my pilot really has the stats I claim he has), I may well send something there. Unfortunately my longest-living pilot ever from Jasta 10 (the Pfalz guy) passed away last week after trying and failing to run away from some Camels. But maybe something will come of my three active fighter pilots, the two French and one Marine pilot in MFJ I.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Hasse Wind

[SirMike1983 3]

Using the methods I've described I have an American Spad 13 ace on 120 realism in the DiD style.

 

He has 7 confirmed kills and 11 claims total. I ditched behind enemy lines one mission but escaped a couple weeks later.

 

I've had better luck with my traditional Nieuports on DiD 120. I've got a guy with 19 kills on 25 claims in 16 missions.

 

I'm much more familiar with the N.11/N.17 aircraft, and it shows. I'll use sparse hit and run tactics with the Spad against the D.VIIs. I'll leave if things get even remotely hot. With the Nieuport I feel more confident. Eindeckers, Halbs, and Alb. D.IIs are all quick prey. The Albs can be a problem if you don't spot them right away. They're reasonably quick and have high firepower. If he starts to turn with you, he should stand no chance though.

 

In the British service, the Sopwith Pup is a joy to fly and also quite deadly. I would take an N.17 or a Pup over an Alb D.II any day of the week. I'm willing to give away the second gun in order to turn right in and get close. The Spad doesn't afford that because it's a high speed hit and run attack. I'm not a champion marksman with the machine guns-- my method is to get fearfully close and open up a few strategic bursts-- which is probably why I'm doing better in the Nieuports and Pups than the Spads.

 

On the other hand nothing is better for balloon busting and ground attack than a Spad.

Edited June 24, 2009 by SirMike1983

[Olham 164]

Yes, the Nupe 17 and the Pup are very good turnfighters, not to mention the "terrible Tripe".

 

I chose to fly the Albatros from the overall impression she made on me - don't know, it's like when you fall

in love with a girl with jug ears. Others mention them, you know she isn't "perfect" - but each time you see

her, you must hug her, cuddle with her, and have that crazy wonderful feeling about her.

 

SirMike - if those mentioned pilots are still alive, you could and should post their data to Siggi's killboard.

 

I flew the Pup in an early attempt to fly a British campaign (I got shot up by Jasta 12 aces), and you are absolutely

right. A joy to fly her, climb and turn ability wonderful - beautiful crate. Pups from RNAS-3 (Earl Hayne and William

'Nick' Carter among them) where my worst opponents in my Jasta 28w campaign (Wasquehal, May 1917).

 

What makes me dangerous in the Albatros is my good long distance and deflection shooting. So I sometimes fire at

enemy craft (and hit them effectively) at 450 - 500 feet distance. I do even deflection shots with good results on a

range of 400 feet; it's just that I have the feeling for where to shoot the rounds, so the craft flies right into them.

Without that ability, it would be very tough flying Albatros campaigns.

[Hasse Wind 46]

SirMike, my experience is exactly like yours. I love both the Nieuports and the Pup - they are just superb fighters in their time, the Pup in particular because it's made of stronger stuff than the Nupe.

 

Olham, I was a bit unsure about the Alb at first, but I've learned to love it almost as much as the Entente turn fighters. Especially the D.III is a wonderful fighter in early 1917, fast, easy to fly and very nimble for an Albatros. D.II is not bad either. I've had the most kills in D.V though, but that crate doesn't feel as great to fly against improved Entente fighters of late 1917 and early 1918. Still it's a much more enjoyable fighter to fly than the Pfalz D.IIIa! I hope we get the Pfalz D.XII in some expansion, it was a much better scout...

 

I actually like the Spad VII more than the XIII, because the latter is not as manoeuvrable. I can't understand why they chose to put only one MG in the VII, because that crate doesn't lack power like the lighter turn fighters of the same period.

[Olham 164]

Yes, DII and early DIII where very good at their time. And if you want to fly the DVa, go to Jasta 9

in the summer of 1918. You will almost only have SPAD XIII as opponents. And against those, the

Albatros is doing fine.

It takes some time, but your feeling for Albatros will constantly grow. After some time, you won't really

fear any other craft (except when they hugely outnumber you, of course).

All my recent pilots died through mid air accidents or ground fire - I haven't been shot down since long.

There where "engine-outs", caused by those terrible Brisfits, but I sailplaned down then.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Olham

[HomeBoy 1]

Great thread here! Thank you Bullethead for such detail on the Spad 13. You have inspired me to begin flying it seriously.

 

Since studying Bullethead's research, I have been flying (over and over) QC USA-94th dogfight mission. This gives you the Spad 13 as one of your choices. I've been choosing one wingman against five enemy. At first I was selecting the Alb 2 and have recently been going up against the Fok DR1. The challenge is great even with the Alb and after I began to get used to the Spad, I started to enjoy it. In fact, in Aces High, I fly the P51D mostly because I have always tended to be more of a BnZ type flyer rather than TnB. I have discovered that flying the Spad is very similar to flying the pony. The few times that I've flown the Spad 7, I find it very similar to the P51B (similar to the P51D but less power). I had been flying the Se5 (definitely a BnZ aircraft) but am finding the Spad to be formidable. I guess if it worked for Eddie it must be alright huh?

 

So far flying this mission, I am able to clear the skies of enemy and safely land something like one out of ten attempts. [Don't laugh at me now!] Most of the time I get two or three and either run out of ammo or spin and hit the ground. I haven't gotten shot down very often, usually kill myself due to a stall or a head-on. I have yet to be able to keep my dopey wingman alive as he tries to TnB that Spad and gets himself killed in short order. Sheesh! I try to give him commands to join me in the extend but he ignores me. Maybe that command doesn't work in QC? Whatever. The DR1 is definitely a harder kill as they are faster and can catch you when you try to extend whereas the Alb has a harder time there. One thing that seems funny to me is when I'm able to knock one or two of them off, the others seem to get spooked and back off. I can't tell if that's my imagination or not but it does make me laugh how the climb up and tend to move away.

 

Really enjoying this thread! Thanks all.

[SirMike1983 3]

SirMike, my experience is exactly like yours. I love both the Nieuports and the Pup - they are just superb fighters in their time, the Pup in particular because it's made of stronger stuff than the Nupe.

 

Olham, I was a bit unsure about the Alb at first, but I've learned to love it almost as much as the Entente turn fighters. Especially the D.III is a wonderful fighter in early 1917, fast, easy to fly and very nimble for an Albatros. D.II is not bad either. I've had the most kills in D.V though, but that crate doesn't feel as great to fly against improved Entente fighters of late 1917 and early 1918. Still it's a much more enjoyable fighter to fly than the Pfalz D.IIIa! I hope we get the Pfalz D.XII in some expansion, it was a much better scout...

 

I actually like the Spad VII more than the XIII, because the latter is not as manoeuvrable. I can't understand why they chose to put only one MG in the VII, because that crate doesn't lack power like the lighter turn fighters of the same period.

 

The Pup's roll rate is better than the Nieuports'. But I like the cockpit layout and instrumentation of the Nieuport 17 better than the pup. I just find it easier to look around in the cockpit. I guess if I had to choose I still like the N.17 better than the Pup. But they both use the same sorts of tactics.

 

The Pup is the single most efficient use of horse power in the game. It's hard to believe that such a dangerous little plane was powered by a mere 80hp rotary engine. The Spads are on the other end of the spectrum: they use sheer power as their greatest advantage. The high wingloading of the Spads also makes them mediocre to poor gliders, in case you have an engine failure or run out of gas. You can deadstick them, but I wouldn't advise it. Deadstick in a Nieuport or Pup is almost as easy as landing with power on in OFF. Think of every tactic that one would define as being "unsporting" or a "jackass" and that's what you want to do in the Spad. Shoot them up and runaway is the norm there. It's a lot of work, but it can certainly be done.

 

I can't wait for the Nieuport 24-- I've been wanting to take a Nieuport up against some later fighting aircraft. I don't particularly like battling Dr.1s because they are very dangerous in a turn. I'd be willing to take my odds in an N.24 against D.VIIs though (maybe even in an N.17 too, given equal numbers).

Edited June 24, 2009 by SirMike1983

[Hasse Wind 46]

Yeah, the N.17 is wonderful - on one day I think of it as my favourite turn fighter, on another I prefer the Pup. I can very well understand why many French pilots were disappointed when they received the Spad to replace the Nupes. It takes a lot of time to get to grips with the totally different tactics that clumsy but incredibly fast crate requires to be succesful.

 

Does anybody know why there's only one Vickers in the Spad VII? I know the reason for the N.17 and Pup not having two guns (too much weight makes them slower and less manoeuvrable and they lose their advantage), but would the additional gun have weakened the Spad's performance so much?

[Olham 164]

Good question, Hasse Wind - with two guns, she would sure have been terrible!

[Rickitycrate 10]

Maybe there was a shortage of machine guns. The Yanks took delivery of their N28's without guns and I think this was about the same time. I know I'm wrong but I can live with that , haha.

[Pips 5]

Does anybody know why there's only one Vickers in the Spad VII?

 

Weight saving was the main criteria.

 

The SPAD VII was a heavy aircraft (1632lb) compared to the Pup (1225lb) and the Nieuport 17 (1246lb). Aerodynamically it wasn't a particularly effective design so to perform well it had to have a powerful engine (150 or 175hp) to both provide speed (considered by the French to be of paramount importance in combat) and assist in lift of the taper thin wings. And fast it was for it's time - faster than any German aircraft.

 

With the advent of the SPAD XIII the engine was uprated to 230hp, it was fitted with two mg's and weight increased to 1801lb. Only marginally larger than the VII, almost the whole of that weight increase went in the larger engine and the fittings associated with installing two mg's. And at 138mph it was the fastest scout on the Front. Which was why both the French and the American's loved it. It didn't turn as well as the VII, but it was faster on the level and in climb, as rugged and strong in the dive and had two mg's. Rickenbacker considered it to be the best of the Allied fighters in 1918 (but then he may have been biased).

 

Weight was also the factor as to why the Se.5 and 5a had only one Vickers and one Lewis. At 1988lb it was grossly overweight, so a second Vickers was dropped in favor of the much lighter Lewis. Performance wise the SPAD VII and the SE.5a were similar in speed and turn rates, the SPAD superior in dive and the Se.5a better at height and gliding.

 

As to fighting the SPAD's the following article should be of some interest. It's based on an interview given by Rene Fonck to the NY Times.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/...9629C946996D6CF

Edited June 25, 2009 by Pips

[Hasse Wind 46]

Thanks for enlightening us, Pips. I was wondering also about the Se.5a having only one Vickers, but it turns out the reason was the same as with the Spad. Every day I learn something new here.

[catch 81]

Weight was also the factor as to why the Se.5 and 5a had only one Vickers and one Lewis. At 1988lb it was grossly overweight, so a second Vickers was dropped in favor of the much lighter Lewis. Performance wise the SPAD VII and the SE.5a were similar in speed and turn rates, the SPAD superior in dive and the Se.5a better at height and gliding.

 

Interesting. I always thought Albert Ball was responsible for influencing the top wing lewis configuration during development of the prototype Se5 similar to the N17 top wing lewis version in which I believe he had some success shooting at EA from underneath with the lewis aimed upward. Didn't know it had anything to do with weight but always wondered what a real beauty the Se5a would have been with twin vickers if it had also been able to retain its flight performance ! Well ... she's still a beauty regardless but I am excruciatingly biased.