Flying The Old Planes - Part 2: SPAD VII

[Pips 5]

The tongue-twisting mouthful of Societe pour Aviation et Ses Derives were the manufacturers of the SPAD, and it was Louis Becherau, the designer of the pre-war Gordon Bennet winning Deperdussin monoplane, who carried his ideas for speed and ruggedness into this new concept of fighter.

 

The choice of the superb Hispano Suiza powerplant was an innovation for its day. Becherau had decided that the days of rotaries were numbered. Gyroscopic force and the unreliability of rotaries had combined to make the choice of a Hisso an imaginative but eminently proper one. Starting with the 140 hp Hispano-Suiza, Becherau gradually increased the horsepower with different engine models of 150, 180 and finally 200 hp.

 

The ruggedness of the SPAD was refreshing to the French squadrons, and it could readily make a tiger out of an Escadrille pilot who in flying Nieuports in combat often waited for the weakly designed wing to take leave. Early models had a weakness with unreliable carburettor’s and cooling problems, but once that was overcome the SPAD came to epitomise the word reliable.

 

One other fault, later to be corrected with the SPAD XIII, was the single Vickers gun.

 

The SPAD construction was, of course, predominately wood, and it never ceases to surprise me that in this First World War period such large quantities of spruce, veneers and ply’s were available to both the Allies and the Germans. The radiator, being brass, lead, aluminium and some steel, weighs enough to require a forklift or nine graduates of a Charles Atlas weightlifting class; and, of course, behind it is a water-cooled V8 which, while light for it’s day, weighs more than most modern-day air-cooled engines of a similar size.

 

Like most of the aircraft of the time the SPAD VII ha d a square longeron fuselage covered in the engine area with aluminium, and the oval-shaped fuselage was formed with light veneer and stringers. The tail surfaces were wooden and used a comfort making strut for additional rigidity on the fixed portion of the elevators.

 

In the 180 hp and the 200 hp SPAD VII’s, they used a rudder with an additional midsection bulge like the belt line of a beer salesman, and this was supposed to take care of the additional torque of the larger engines. I have always flown our SPAD with the smaller straight-sided surface, and have had no rudder problems in the air or on the ground.

 

The wings of the SPAD were a thin French wingspan made with two routed spars and built-up ribs. Wings and tail section all had a typical wire-formed scalloped trailing edge.

 

The SPAD has an airfoil that gives a good climb (but awful glide characteristics), while the Se.5, according to the historians, was better acrobatically. Having flown the SPAD and the SPAD XIII as well as the Se.5 extensively, if I were in combat I would choose the SPAD VII. With no dihedral and quite light control forces, I found that the SPAD did not require the high perspiration count to throw it about that the heavier Se.5 required.

 

SPAD’s had push-pull rod-controlled ailerons; this was a real innovation, and it contributes greatly to the light feel and quick response of the aircraft.

 

Before flight, we had to set the plane in level-flight position and fill the header tank first, then the radiator, to eliminate (as much as possible) the steam-provoking air bubbles due to operating the SPAD in a much warmer, and dryer, climate than what it was designed for.

 

Once in position for take-off I turned the fuel-on switch off, and we went through the procedure that is necessary to start a Hisso. It includes checking if the fuel pump is operative. We also rock the propeller until fuel spills from the carburettor; then with contact, the pilot madly spins the booster coil and the mechanic flips the prop backward. It kicks forward and catches, and the Hisso rumbles nicely as the pressure and temperature rise. Because of the long exhaust stacks the engine is extremely quiet, and it’s easy to hold a conversation by the cockpit without shouting.

 

Pointing the SPAD into the wind I pour the coal on. Instantly the tail is up, and I have complete rudder control. I am off the ground and climbing in about 150 feet. Best climb speed is around the 60 to 65 mph. The push-pull ailerons are delightful, and the response is equal to or exceeds that of any of the WWI aircraft I have flown, including the Fokker D.VII; which is the best of the rest.

 

The Hisso idles beautifully, and power-off stalls occur at 47 mph, with a positive and quick nose drop. Like all WWI aircraft the control throw of the joystick is long, and adds to the challenge of maintaining a smooth coordinated flight until one gets used to it.

 

Rarely do I spin the World War One airplanes. If they are out of rig and you can’t recover, having to leave them would be much like the skipper of the Lusitania saying goodbye to his pride and joy. But spinning the SPAD VII is pure delight. Of all the aircraft in our collection, the SPAD VII promotes the most confidence. It’s sheer ruggedness, it’s light positive controls, all contribute to make taking liberties with this aircraft absolute pleasure.

 

With fly-through manoeuvres like the loop, I start at 135 mph, and halfway up I can either quit or got through with ball-bearing facility. It goes over nicely, but you see the flying wires slightly bowing all the way around. Generally I take a ‘G’ meter along and try to stay within 2 to 2 ½ G’s in manoeuvres with the old girls. Slow rolls are a combination of slow roll and aileron roll and come through nicely at 110 mph without enough altitude loss to upset the most stringent FAA flight examiner.

 

Cuban 8’s are a combination of the above, Immelmann’s are effortless, as is quick changes of direction in the roll plane. It doesn’t turn as well as any of the Sopwith’s or Dr.1, but with lots of rudder and practice it can get round quite quickly.

 

With the water temperature again rising in the warm air I got back into the pattern. A speed of 55 to 65 mph was adequate for the approach, and I touched wheels first on the concrete at about 48 mph. Holding the tail up with just enough power, I rolled onto the grass, immediately sucking the stick back and digging in the tail skid, and stopping in about 250 feet.

 

Just flying these World War I airplanes straight and level isn’t enough, so when the opportunity arose to do a special film documentary, I got most of the WWI birds out for flight and evaluation. In limited combat I found the SPAD noticeably more manoeuvrable than the Se.5, better than the Pfalz D.XII and better in some respects than the Camel or Nieuport. With a height advantage the Dr.1 could even get close. The only serious contender was the Fokker D.VII. The SPAD is more limber than anything except the Camel, Triplane or Dr.1 and the engine is pure reliability. And with its high speed it will run away from anything except perhaps the Se.5, and loops and rolls are positive and comfortable.

 

STATS: From “French Aircraft of the First World War” by Dr. James J/ Davilla and Arthur M. Soltan

 

Empty Weight: 500kg (1102 lb)

Loaded Weight: 705kg (1554 lb)

Engine: 180 hp Hispano Suiza 8Ab

Max Speed: 212 km/h (132mph) @ 2000m (6,561 feet); 204 km/h (127 mph) @ 3000m (9,842 feet); 200km/h (124 mph) @ 4000m (13,123 feet); 187 km/h (116 mph) @ 5000m (16,404 feet).

Climb Rates: 4 minutes 40 seconds to 2000m (6,561 feet); 8 minutes 10 seconds to 3000m (9,842 feet); 12 minutes 49 seconds to 4000m (13,123 feet).

Ceiling: 6,553m (21,499 feet)

Endurance: 1 hour 30 minutes

Armament: one 7.7mm Vickers mg

No’s Built: Approx 3,500 SPAD VII’s of all versions

[DukeIronHand 8]

Thanks #2

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Devs,

Looking at this report, would you be willing to consider some changes to the FM of the Spads? This report appears to indicate that the Spad VII, as currently modeled in the game, may be insufficient in two or three areas: 1) Aileron response/roll rate. According to the article, "SPAD’s had push-pull rod-controlled ailerons; this was a real innovation, and it contributes greatly to the light feel and quick response of the aircraft." Also, "Immelmann’s are effortless, as is quick changes of direction in the roll plane. It doesn’t turn as well as any of the Sopwith’s or Dr.1, but with lots of rudder and practice it can get round quite quickly." In OFF, the roll rate of the Spad VII is quite poor, making even wing-overs and half-rolls difficult to execute.

 

2) Stall speed and stability in the spin. From the article: "The Hisso idles beautifully, and power-off stalls occur at 47 mph, with a positive and quick nose drop... A speed of 55 to 65 mph was adequate for the approach, and I touched wheels first on the concrete at about 48 mph." These speeds are much too low in OFF for safe flight and in a landing approach. Typically, I have to maintain a speed of 70-80 mph while on approach in order to avoid losing aircraft control and possibly stalling. Later in the article, the author talks about the Spad's characteristics in a spin: "pinning the SPAD VII is pure delight. Of all the aircraft in our collection, the SPAD VII promotes the most confidence [when taking flight liberties]." In my experience In OFF, recovery from a spin is more difficult in a Spad than in almost any other aircraft. Can this be adjusted?

 

3) Turning ability. Here, I am a little more suspect of the writer's report. He states that the Spad VII turns better than many other planes in WWI, including the Se5: "In limited combat I found the SPAD noticeably more manoeuvrable than the Se.5, better than the Pfalz D.XII and better in some respects than the Camel or Nieuport...The SPAD is more limber than anything except the Camel, Triplane or Dr.1 and the engine is pure reliability." Even if one takes the writer's statements with a grain of salt, it seems that the turning ability of the Spad in OFF is highly underrated. I'm certainly not advocating that the Spad should be changed to become as good a turn fighter as the Sopwith Camel or Tripe or the Dr.1, but IMHO, it should at least be made to be closer in turning ability to the Se5.

 

OFF and the above report appear to be in agreement re climb rate. In OFF, the .air file indicates that the Spad VII has a maximum climb of 1200 fpm. In the above report, the writer states the Spad VII climbs from take off to 9842 ft. in 8 min 10 sec., a climb rate of approx. 1205 fpm.

 

I realize that the writer is most likely flying a reproduction with modern engine parts and materials and not under real-life combat conditions. Still, the Spad series in WWI was recognized as a very successful scout. Even the French, who were used to the quick turning Nieuport series, quickly adopted the Spad and foisted the Neiuport 24's onto the Americans. If the Spad was so poor, why not give that plane to the Americans?

 

In summary, I think the Spad VII and XIII in OFF could be improved in three areas: better roll rate, significantly lower stall speeds and improved stall stability, and improved turning ability. I'm not trying to bash the OBD developers. They have access to historical materials that I could only dream of and are probably aware of information that may directly contradict what is in the above writer's report. However, everyone agrees that much of the available info about almost all WWI airplanes can be highly suspect and contradictory. So, unless we have clear evidence from tests or direct observation (not just opinion) that directly contradicts the above report, then I think we should err on the side of caution and consider tweaking the FM of the Spads a little bit. This will also have the added benefit of making the French and American campaigns a little more enjoyable.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Herr Prop-Wasche

[Pips 5]

3) Turning ability. Here, I am a little more suspect of the writer's report. He states that the Spad VII turns better than many other planes in WWI, including the Se5: "In limited combat I found the SPAD noticeably more manoeuvrable than the Se.5, better than the Pfalz D.XII and better in some respects than the Camel or Nieuport...The SPAD is more limber than anything except the Camel, Triplane or Dr.1 and the engine is pure reliability." Even if one takes the writer's statements with a grain of salt, it seems that the turning ability of the Spad in OFF is highly underrated. I'm certainly not advocating that the Spad should be changed to become as good a turn fighter as the Sopwith Camel or Tripe or the Dr.1, but IMHO, it should at least be made to be closer in turning ability to the Se5.

 

I think it's safe to assume that Frank Tallman isn't comparing the turn circle or turn rate of the SPAD to be the equal of the Camel, Tripe or Dr.1. What he is talking about is maneuverability in general - of which turn is only one factor. Maneuverability also includes roll rate, climb rate, dive speed, loops, spins (and recovery) and every other variation of aerobatics.

 

I gained the impression from the article that what impressed Frank the most with the SPAD in regards to maneuverability is the lightness of control and responsiveness.

 

 

I realize that the writer is most likely flying a reproduction with modern engine parts and materials and not under real-life combat conditions. Still, the Spad series in WWI was recognized as a very successful scout. Even the French, who were used to the quick turning Nieuport series, quickly adopted the Spad and foisted the Neiuport 24's onto the Americans. If the Spad was so poor, why not give that plane to the Americans?

 

The aircraft in the Tallman collection were originals - no modern parts or materials. Which is the reason why is so careful in loading up the aircraft with 'G'.

 

The SPAD he flew had a standard 180 hp Hispano Suiza engine, no modern engines for him. Which makes his comments all the more impressive.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

I think it's safe to assume that Frank Tallman isn't comparing the turn circle or turn rate of the SPAD to be the equal of the Camel, Tripe or Dr.1. What he is talking about is maneuverability in general - of which turn is only one factor. Maneuverability also includes roll rate, climb rate, dive speed, loops, spins (and recovery) and every other variation of aerobatics.

 

I gained the impression from the article that what impressed Frank the most with the SPAD in regards to maneuverability is the lightness of control and responsiveness.

I agree with you. The Spad is certainly NOT equal in turn rate to the Camel or the Tripes. On the other hand, I also don't believe that it had one of the worst turn rates of any scout in the war. Instead, I believe it should be roughly equal to the Se5 in rate of turn. BTW, in the game, the Se5 is probably a little too good in the turn, so maybe both should be adjusted!

 

Mr. Tallman states that the Spad VII is "more limber" than any other Allied plane, with the exception of the three above mentioned. I don't currently get that feeling in OFF. It seems very sluggish to me. With its poor roll and accelerated stall characteristics (the latter NOT mentioned by Mr. Tallman in his report!), the Spad currently feels more like the proverbial "bull in the china shop" to me. Can't we at least consider making it less "bullish" and more "racehorse" like?

[Pips 5]

Yeah, I really do think that the SPAD is one of the very few aircraft in OFF that is sadly undermodelled. It's heavy and sluggish, and doesn't react well in any plane of manoeuver. Yet Frank sings it's praise in lightness of control forces, it's responsiveness to control input and the ease and surety with which manoeuvers are conducted.

 

The SPAD VII is still very much a fighter that performs best in the vertical, given it's wonderful speed, roll rate, ruggedness in the dive and sterling climb rate. And while turn is not in the league of such nimble aircraft as the Nieuport 17, Camel, Dr.1 and Fokker D.VII, it should (I believe) be similar to that of the Se.5/a and Pfalz D.III; although not quite as good as the Albatross D.III/V.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Well, Pol mentioned in the thread about what we would like to see in Phase 4 that they are aware of the issues with the Spad FM, so I think we can trust the devs to change things for the better in the future. :yes:

[Dej 17]

I wouldn't want to criticise Mr. Tallman but I wonder if his comparison suffers a little from the perceived lightness of the SPAD vs. what he described as the muscle-power required to throw the SE about.

 

I admit I haven't flown SPADs all that much apart from a lot of QC when creating the webcomic, but I do agree it seems more sluggish than it's popularity implies. Whether it's a better turn fighter than the SE, I don't know, but SE pilots used both BZ and turn fighting tactics whereas the SPAD aces would seem predominently BZ? Need a SPAD ace expert.

 

OTOH the famous Guynemer vs. Udet incident must have been a turnfight, methinks

 

Hmm, so.... no useful or informative conclusion reached, why did I bother? But I've typed it now so I'll leave it.

[Pips 5]

I've just added some first hand accounts regarding the SE manoeuverability in the thread on "Flying The Old Planes" on that aircraft. Have a read and see what you think.

[Dej 17]

I've just added some first hand accounts regarding the SE manoeuverability in the thread on "Flying The Old Planes" on that aircraft. Have a read and see what you think.

 

I retract the statement. Questioning Tallman's praise of the SPAD vs. the SE was out on a limb enough for me... I'm not going to argue with Lewis and McCudden to boot!

 

One does begin to see where all these sometimes heated exchanges over FMs arise.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

One does begin to see where all these sometimes heated exchanges over FMs arise.

Oh, definitely. After people discovered that the FM and DM's in RB3d could be modded, the Delphi forum seemed like it was always ablaze with flame-wars over the FM of someone's beloved Spad, DrI, etc. I definitely do NOT want that to happen here. I also trust that OBD will take a look into this issue and come up with a reasonable solution. They seem very open to constructive comments and seem keen to implement most changes that appear reality-based and that improve upon the sim. In fact, they appear to be more open to 3rd party input than any other develepors I have ever run across!

 

OFF is in good hands.