Different flying characteristics Spad XIII vs SE5a

[Butch]

Did I miss a reference to Cecil Lewis' Farewell to Wings? He compares and describes many of the early aircraft he flew, including both in question here.

Where is it written that the SPAD had a vicious stall? A friend relates that Cole Palen loved his -13 and flew it as if it were a Cessna 172, his traveling aircraft. I delivered the Swanson built replica SPAD from Virginia to Rhinebeck. It had a small Lycoming engine and a different internal structure, and was tail heavy. But it was dimensionally correct with a very close airfoil. I did power on and off stalls and oscillation stalls. I added enough rudder to let it fall off on a wing in a stall. It had full aileron authority and rudder control well into the stall. Nothing vicious in that aircraft. It had a steep glide path, but that only made the impact point all the more obvious. No need for power to land (true of any aircraft). I felt any short par four golf hole was a potential landing strip if necessary. If the original flew like the Rhinebeck stand-in, with a realistic CG, I cannot wait to fly one. Of course mine will take some time.
Pete Hays

[dobravery]

I haven't heard of the SPAD having a vicious stall, but I have heard of it having a higher stall speed than many other Allied aircraft.

Maybe it was one persons single observation that got circulated over and over. . .

However. . .
If you consider that most Allied scouts were much lighter than the SPAD, and the fact that the SPAD has a relatively small wingspan, I wouldn't be surprised if someone told me WWI pilots were caught off guard by SPAD's stall characteristics after switching from another craft.

[Romani]

Originally Posted by Butch

Where is it written that the SPAD had a vicious stall? A friend relates that Cole Palen loved his -13 and flew it as if it were a Cessna 172, his traveling aircraft. I delivered the Swanson built replica SPAD from Virginia to Rhinebeck. It had a small Lycoming engine and a different internal structure, and was tail heavy. But it was dimensionally correct with a very close airfoil.
(snip)
If the original flew like the Rhinebeck stand-in, with a realistic CG
(snip)

I cannot comment on the airfoil, but two things are obvious

1) the replica you flew had a lighter engine that the original
2) it didn't have machine guns and ammunition in the nose

So the wing loading of the original would surely have resulted in a higher stall speed and alter the CG

It is also worth mentioning that two aces, Francesco Baracca and Martenot de Courdoux, preferred the SPAD VII to the XIII, the later keeping an SVII for lone patrols even when his squadron had upgraded to the XIII

I have seen it mentioned in several sources that Italian pilots, used to handy rotaries, preferred the SVII to the XIII.

[Pips]

Captain Rumpelstoss: But... how will I learn to fly, Herr Colonel?

Colonel Manfred von Holstein: The way we do everything in the German army: from the book of instructions!

-Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines

The greatest aviation movie ever made!!

[Romani]

Ok, I just bought today a handy reference book and can add some data


SPAD VII / SPAD XIII / SE5a

Take off weight 705 / 845 / 887 kilos

Wing Surface 17.85 / 20 / 22.67 square meters

Wing Loading 39.49 / 42.25 / 39.12 kilos / sq m


For comparison purposes, the wing loading of a Sopwith Camel at take off weight is 28.38 kilos / sq m

However, wing loading is only part of the equation, interference of the wings in biplanes must be taken into account (the phenomenon where the upper wing "robs" lift to the lower wing)

Also, airfoil must be taken into account. The SPAD airfoil was thin, to have less drag and optimize speed but provided less lift, so though neither of the airplanes in question was outstanding for a "bank and turn" dogfight, I would guess that the SE5a had a slight superiority in turning and a lower stall speed than the SVII and that difference would be very marked confronted with the heavier SXIII.

Though the SXIII was optimized for "zoom and boom" tactics doesn't preclude it from being manoeuverable, the French (or it was from the USAS?) training poster of maneuvers for the airplane showed that all that speed and horsepower could be put to good use for acrobatics.

Hope this helps.

[izstew]

The words "Vicious stall" were mine and I may well have overstated the case. Looking back over the information from various sources - a lot of which kind of contradicts itself, which I guess is not suprising since it is all human opinion/ impressions, but there are consistent themes that the Spad XIII had
-Poor gliding characteristics and a "very sharp" stall, which made it a difficult aircraft for novice pilots to land safely.
-Piloting the aircraft required care, particularly at low speeds, and the use of moderate amounts of power was recommended in landing.

Whereas the SE5a pilot notes talk about an "innocuous" stall with easy recovery.
All in all I suspect Dobravery has it right - novices or those with time on other aircraft probably found the Spad relatively unforgiving compared to their experiences on some other aircraft. But "vicious" was probably too harsh by me.

[dobravery]

I don't think vicious is a harsh word. A vicious stall to me sounds like a stall that also throws the aircraft into an awkward bank or maneuver. The SPAD sounds more like it would stall sooner than most pilots would expect it to.

What I meant about sources repeating one another is that many sources have such similiar wording that one sometimes wonders if each is just repeating a single persons observation.

I think in this case, the engineering specs seem to reinforce human observation.

[JG1Schorner]

I would be careful when you read something that talks about a "SPAD". My understanding is that the VII and XIII, despite similar appearance, had somewhat different handling characteristics. The VII was much lighter to the touch. The XIII was much less responsive but had the advantage of 2 MGs and more speed.

For the XIII here's what I have cobbled together:
The bad:
Very poor roll rate.
Not at all good at low speeds.
Not so hot at horizontal turns.

The good:
Very fast.
Excellent at vertical manuevers (half loops, etc.).
Unsurpassed in dive.
Good climb, but not at a a sustained steep angle. Comparing a SPAD to a DRI for example, if both were climbing at the same rate, the DRI would be climbing at a lower speed and steeper angle, where the SPAD would be be moving at a greater speed but a more shallow angle ... hope that makes sense.

A good SPAD pilot would start the battle fast and never get slow. Sharp horizontal manuevers would be kept to a minimum (like never). Changes in direction would involve more vertical than horizontal manuevering. Speed would be traded for altitude which in turn would be converted back into speed. You would NEVER want to be co-alt with your opponent and slow. If you found yourself in this situation you would open the throttle and dive away. Try again when the situation is more advantageous. The beauty of the SPAD is that when things go bad you can always point the nose down, open the throttle, and let that well put together frame take you away to safety.

[Pips]

Originally Posted by JG1Schorner

Comparing a SPAD to a DRI for example, if both were climbing at the same rate, the DRI would be climbing at a lower speed and steeper angle, where the SPAD would be be moving at a greater speed but a more shallow angle ... hope that makes sense.

That was exactly the situation between P-38's and A6M's in the Pacific. The Zero had excellent steep climb charateristics at slow speed, whereas the P-38 would, after making an initial attack, extend at high speed in a shallow climb, gain height and return to the fight.

In Fonck's Ace Of Aces book he makes the point that he never turned during a fight. He would stalk until he had a height advantage, make a slashing attack, extend and return again at height. Or if he failed to obtain a height advantage he would depart and find another not so aware victim. A safe, sensible tactic - but one that is only useful if you are a very good shot. Which Fonck was.

Eddie Rickenbacker also avoided turn fighting in the SPAD XIII, and was a proponent of slash attacks (as known then - now BnZ). His reasoning, as he mentions in his book, was that there were always enemy aircraft that could outturn him, but none that could outspeed or outdive him.

The point being that a capable SPAD pilot could dictate the fight and retain the initiative, even against D.VII's. Of course all this rested on the ability of the SPAD pilot or flight leader being able to spot the enemy and manoeuvre into position before the enemy did the same to him. If caught unawares then SPAD pilots would suffer badly, really having only the option to dive out of a fight. And it would take time and distance to gain separation against against a foe would started the attack with a height advantage.

The British in Se.5's also used to stalk and gain a height advantage before attacking - although according to the Lewis and Jones books they weren't adverse to simply mixing it up straight away if the situation called for it. Which probably means that the Se.5 was reasonably able to hold it's own in a turn fight for short periods. McCudden seems the exception here, being quite happy to avoid a fight unless he held the advantage.

[Tom M]

I have read that because of the SPAD having no dihedral it had a tendency to fall off to the left or right and because of this had to be flown all the time and could be tiring on long flights.

Tom