SPAD Speed and Endurance

According to the data on the SPAD VIII on this site, it had a top speed of 139 (knots or MPH?) But could only stay in the air for one and a half (SPAD VI) to two hours (SPAD VIII).

The Camel and SE5a were slower, but could stay up for two and a half hours, and the Snipe for 3 hours...

Fokkers and Albatrosses also had low endurance comparable to the SPADs.

Was the endurance of an Aircraft a serious impediment to combat effectivness or did it matter much at all?

[Ginger.]

"Was the endurance of an Aircraft a serious impediment to combat effectivness or did it matter much at all?"

Well if you believe the rhubarb that Werner Voss would have wiped out 56 Squadron single handed in his last fight it does. Seems the only thing that saved the English from mass slaughter was him running out of petrol. <_<

So you believe endurance was not much of a factor?

I would have presumed that the ability of a pilot to stay in the air longer would have given that pilot more of an opportunity to range far and wide... but perhaps this might also have contributed overmuch to fatigue...

[Lufbery]

Originally posted by KBOC@Mar 25 2004, 11:20 AM
[b] So you believe endurance was not much of a factor?

I would have presumed that the ability of a pilot to stay in the air longer would have given that pilot more of an opportunity to range far and wide... but perhaps this might also have contributed overmuch to fatigue...

If nobody else has said it, welcome to the forum!

Issues with range and endurance are more operation than tactical. By that I mean that a particular plane's range has a limiting effect on the types and duration of missions flown than on an idividual pilot's performance of a mission.

That's not to say that people didn't run out of gas. They did with at least some frequency. Many times a pilot would land at the nearest friendly aerodrome to get topped off before heading home.

But, as a squadron commander, you don't order your guys out on three hour missions if they can only fly for one and a half.

You'd think that extra fuel would be an advantage in a dogfight, but the actualy fights seldom lasted more than a few minutes. Much of the work in a dogfight actually took place before the fight -- one or both sides attempting to maneuver to a position of advantage.

Regards,

[Craig]

Originally posted by Ginger.@Mar 25 2004, 09:49 AM
[b] Well if you believe the rhubarb that Werner Voss would have wiped out 56 Squadron single handed in his last fight it does. Seems the only thing that saved the English from mass slaughter was him running out of petrol. <_<

I've never heard anyone suggest that! Though there is creedence to the notoion that he ran out before he was bagged. Or hit, or something.

Seriously - do you do that on purpose, or can'tcha hepp it, pardner?

Originally posted by Lufbery
[b] If nobody else has said it, welcome to the forum!

Thanks

Issues with range and endurance are more operation than tactical. By that I mean that a particular plane's range has a limiting effect on the types and duration of missions flown than on an idividual pilot's performance of a mission.

My problem with this is that lower endurance aircraft would be at a significant tactical disadvantage, especially if one like the Fokker Dr1, 1 and 1/2 hour endurance, came into contact with the enemy 45 minutes into their patrol. What then? Turn back and avoid combat? What did they historically do in this kind of situation?

You'd think that extra fuel would be an advantage in a dogfight, but the actualy fights seldom lasted more than a few minutes. Much of the work in a dogfight actually took place before the fight -- one or both sides attempting to maneuver to a position of advantage.

Now you make it sound like the Prelude to Trafalgar or other old Age of Sail battle!

[ww1 ace]

I think that endurance was a BIG THING!How do you think a dogfight erupts when someone runs out of gas?They then can't fight.Then land in enemy lines,and be taken prisoner.That's why.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

KBOC;
The airspeed was measured in Kilometers/hour or mile per hour.
The SPAD VII with the 180 hp Hispano-Suiza 8Ab engine, maximum airspeed was 212 km/hr (132 mph) @2000 meters (6560 ft.), 204 Km/hr (127 mph) @ 3000 meters (9840 ft). endurance was 1.5 hrs.
The SPAD XIII with the 220hp Hispano-Suiza 8Bc engine, maximum airspeed @2000 meters, 218 km/hr (135.5 mph), @ 4000 meters(13120 ft.)
209 km/hr, (130 mph.)
The S.E.5a with the 200hp Wolseley"Viper" 137.5 mph @ ground level, 126 mph @ 10,000 ft., 123 mph @ 15000 ft., endurance 2.5 hrs.
To make a meaningful statement about airspeed, the engine, horse power, and altitude should be given.
Both SPAD machines were lighter than the S.E.5a which is a factor in rate of climb and service ceiling.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Dan San,

Of course, the engineering and aerodynamic aspects of the aircraft merrit analysis, however, my question has more to do with what this meant to pilots in the field, and how they conducted themselves in the air to compensate for either the inability to stay up longer, or the fatigue resulting from staying up too long.

[Lufbery]

My problem with this is that lower endurance aircraft would be at a significant tactical disadvantage, especially if one like the Fokker Dr1, 1 and 1/2 hour endurance, came into contact with the enemy 45 minutes into their patrol. What then? Turn back and avoid combat? What did they historically do in this kind of situation?

Well, yes, sometimes they did. For starters, the "other side" didn't have all that much fuel either, at least for the scout planes. Winds aloft, time of day, the nature of the encounter with the enemy, his position, one's own position, the nature of one's own mission, and, yes, how much fuel one had all played into making a decision to fight or not.

Quite a number of fights never happened because the pilots couldn't or wouldn't fight due to the circumstances listed above. Typically, only the very rash (and soon to be dead) willingly engaged in a fight without some percieved advantage.

Now you make it sound like the Prelude to Trafalgar or other old Age of Sail battle!

Well, it kind of was like that. Pilots would spend half an hour maneuvering for advantage and then engage in a dogfight that lasted for fewer than five minutes. A lot of the preperatory time was spent climbing and circling to get the sun behind one's flight -- all this while hopefully staying unobserved by the enemy planes.

Rickenbacker's Fighting the Flying Circus and A.S.G. Lee's No Parachute both have examples of careful maneuvering to get into attack position.

Anyway, yes, having low fuel could put a pilot at a disadvantage, but not as much of one as it would seem to us today simply because the dogfights didn't last that long.

Regards,