Different flying characteristics Spad XIII vs SE5a

[izstew]

I wonder if anyone can help me. I am writing a book and at a stage where I need to describe the differences that a pilot would notice when he flew these 2 aircraft around April 1918. I believe I know that the Spad would be trickier to fly with a nasty stall and a glide like a brick needing power to land. There appear to be differences of opinion re relative speed but most sources have the Spad around 135mph vs SE5a in the high 120s. At least one person claims that the Spad could only be outclimbed the the Fokkers DVII and DR1 but I cant find any verification . The small gap in combination with the center cutout of the upper wing gave the pilot excellent visibility over the top of the wing. The cockpit was close behind the engine with the pilot's feet and part of his legs located in aluminum tunnels beneath the engine. The exhaust pipes being so far behind the cockpit apparently made the Spad unusually quiet for the pilot. Of course the machine gun configuration was different.

But unlike most other major aircraft I cant find any literature constrasting these 2 aircraft by someone who has actually flown both. The best i can find is Cecil Lewis in Sagittarius Rising who writes about a fly off with Guynemer. There he says that that Guynemer had 3 aircraft, 1 standard Spad, 1 high compression and his famous cannon spad. Lewis says standard Spad and SE5a were same speed, and same climb with the high compression Spad climbing slightly faster than the SE. But if McCudden's high compression SE were there, it sounds like it may have outclimed the Spad since McC often talked about how other SE5s climbed a lot less well than his. Lewis says that the Spad was a lot more maneouverable but admits that Guynemers flying ability would have had a lot to do with this & I cant find anyone else who sings the maneouverability of the Spad XIII, indeed many do so for the VII and there seems to be a feeling that the XIII traded off some of that maneouverability for ruggedness and speed.
Does anyone out there know more than this or have experience of flying the two aircraft? If so I would love to hear.

[Capt.Albert-Ball]

SpadXIII

ceiling: 6,650 m (21,815 ft)

rate of climb: 2 m/s (384 ft/min)

maximum speed:218 km/h (135 mph)

Powerplant: 1x Hispano-Suzio 8be 8 cylinder vee-type, 220 hp (164 kw)

Crew: 1

height: 2.60 m (8 ft 6.5 in)

Empty weight: 566 kg (1,245 lb)

Loaded weight: 856 kg (1,888 lb)

[Capt.Albert-Ball]

S.E5a

maximum speed:138 miles (222 km/h)

ceiling: 17,000 ft (5,185 m)

range:300 miles (483 km)

Empty weight: 1,410 lb (639 kg)

Loaded weight: 1,935 lb (880 kg)

Height: 9 ft 6 in (2.89 m)

Crew: One

Wing area: 244 ft² (22.67 m²)

[Catfish]

Hello,
this no comparison of a Spad versus a SE5a, because Jentsch flew an Albatros at that time, but Jentsch describes several planes he flew, including some captured ones like a Sopwith and a SPAD. Here's what he writes about a flight with a captured SPAD (i try to remain close to what he says, even if a more fluent translation could be possible, own thoughts in [brackets]):

"The SPAD is being pulled out of the tent, and made ready for start. A mechanic shortly explains the interior. The instruments are not mounted as well-arranged as in german army planes. The looping harness lets the pilot more freedom of movement than those being used by us. The engine, being a Hispano-Suiza, has to be actuated manually, it appears the frankmen [or "frenchmen", kind of slang, but not as bad as "boche", "Franzmaenner" in german] do not seem to have heard of starters. After some misfiring i am able to start. The engines's revolutions, around 2400 per minute [really so much ?], are higher than those of our planes.
The SPAD lies wonderfully in the air, and responds well to the slightest control moves. Additionally the engine runs without jolting due to its favourable V-shape. The machine lies calmly in the air, there are no vibrations like in our planes, which are being triggered by the construction type of german in-line engines [how were the HS engines bolted to the SPAD fuselage?].
Material is no object for the enemy states. The whole world is open for them for provisioning of raw and working materials. With such a background top performance in the construction of planes can be achieved. The performance of the SPAD towers high above our machines. The loopings and barrel rolls finally validate my assumption. And now i suddenly realize why the first attack by a SPAD is so dangerous, they almost cannot miss while shooting with the calm behaviour and brilliant field of vision. Our fighter pilots at the controls of their SPADs, would almost put an end to enemy aviation.
Against my expectations i manage to make a good landing. Because of the vertical tail skid [huh?] i have to land on the wheels. The SPAD needs a long runway to come to full stop, but the aerodrome of Chambry holds no perils in that respect."
Some days later, at August 13th, 1918, Jentsch was transferred to the Jasta Boelcke.

Greetings,
Catfish

[gregorydquist]

I stumbled across this in the WW1 Aeroplanes N0 68 Mar 1978, pp 8-12.

Attached is a portion of a flight report of a restored SE5A by R J Spiers in early 1977. It provides insights into handling characterstics beyond the normal stats.

If this file is too hard to read, let me know and we can try a direct email. There is also mor to the report, but time and memory sonstratin me to just the most relevant page.

examples of the text:

Climb and Level flight: The first and almost only disconcerting feature of the early stages of flight is provided by the aircraft's small but random directional wanderings, and a tendency for minor lateral disturbances disassociated from these small changes of heading....the mahcine at all speeds above 50mph is remarkably responsive to control inputs, and can be best describbed as agile...

Approach and Landing: The aircraft reveals the SE5A's most outstanind feature, - it's shallow gliding angle....

Flight Journal has published pilot reports on various other WW1 AC. I don't know if they have done the SE5A or a SPAD.

Greg Rydquist

[Kirk R. Lowry]

Salut izstew!

Do you have a copy of Aeroplanes of the Royal Aircraft Factory by Hare? Within is a report entitled Report on S.E.5 Compared with SPAD in the Air by 2nd Lt F.H.B. Selous. Note that the report is brief, but, Selous was serving with 19 Squadron then equipped with the SPAD VII when the opportunity arose to pilot one of the prototype S.E.5s so was able to make a comparison.

If you do not have access to the book and are interested pass the word and I will provide the information.

Salut!
Kirk

[izstew]

What an amazing forum this is - great replies from all over the world. Thanks to all those who have helped. I must also admit to being surprised by what I have found that from the sources referred to. Before I posted the question here I had in my mind that the Spad Xiii was a bit like the Republic Thunderbolt in the Second World War- a super stable rugged gun platform that could always dive its way out of trouble. I knew the Spad VII was manoeuvrable and had read things about the XIII where pilots were disappointed that some of the manoeuvrability had been traded away for more speed and ruggedness. However there does seem a critical mass of opinion that the Spad XIII climbed better and was more manoeuvrable than the SE5 -- which given the latter's reputation is quite some compliment. The only consistent downside reported on the Spad was the difficulty of flying at low speed where it had a vicious stall.

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

Quote from izstew

SPAD versus SE5a
What an amazing forum this is - great replies from all over the world. Thanks to all those who have helped. I must also admit to being surprised by what I have found that from the sources referred to. Before I posted the question here I had in my mind that the SPAD X III was a bit like the Republic Thunderbolt in the Second World War- a super stable rugged gun platform that could always dive its way out of trouble. I knew the SPAD VII was maneuverable and had read things about the XIII where pilots were disappointed that some of the maneuverability had been traded away for more speed and ruggedness. However there does seem a critical mass of opinion that the SPAD XIII climbed better and was more maneuverable than the SE5a -- which given the latter's reputation is quite some compliment. The only consistent downside reported on the SPAD was the difficulty of flying at low speed where it had a vicious stall


I am always hearing about the SPAD XIII and the flying characteristics and reminded about the airfoil sections of Gottingen Germany listed on page #113 of I.H. Abbott & A.E. von Doenhoff book, “THEORY OF WING SECTIONS” PAGE #113 CHAPTER 6 Paragraph 6.4. This paragraph states that the Gottingen 398 and the Clark Y were nearly the same when there camber was removed (mean line straightened) and they were reduced to the same maximum thickness.
Statements like that make me wonder if Gottingen had better wind tunnels and a head start on designing airfoils?

M.L. Anderson

[dobravery]

Maybe it's me, but I never really heard of the SPAD being maneuverable. If you consider all of the light rotary engined scouts that the Allies fielded, then the SPAD is probably near the bottom of the list in terms of maneuverability.

I've always heard the SE5a to have great high alt performance, and considering the stalling of the SPAD, I'd venture to say the SE5a was more maneuverable at slower speeds.

Considering that the Germans fielded mainly heavy inline engined scouts as well, I'd don't think the SE5a and SPAD's turning ability was much of a negative except when they'd attempt a turning battle with a Fokk DrI.

[Epee]

Maneuverable can mean a lot of things when speaking of an aircraft. We denizens of two dimensions naturally think turning ability but it can also mean pitch response, climbing ability and acceleration. Even turning ability can mean many things; turn radius, turn speed retention, and roll ability which equates to the ability to change the direction of turn quickly. I suspect the SPAD might have excelled at the latter.