Spad Xiii

Willy O · 19 December 2005, 05:51 PM

I'm curious why I haven't seen anything relative to SPADVII or XIII construction. Has anyone in the group considered this machine? Considering the shortcomings in obtaining a radial engine, a machine that has the potential for an auto conversion would seem rather interesting. I don't know if I would keep the same wing foil but it would seem an interesting/ potential design. Just curious.

greatwarpilot · 19 December 2005, 06:24 PM

The topic came up around the museum I work at, and the general consensus is that to build them as per the original is particularly labour intensive (as compared to other WWI types). Large numbers of ribs, large quantities of highly detailed metal panels around the nose, and a generally convoluted (French) design are discouraging factors from what I can tell.

Obtaining certain radial engines really isn't all that difficult these days. Clearly some of the most desirable engines (the Warner Scarab comes to mind) are difficult to find, and pricy if you do. However there are a number of more available options including the Continental 670 (the 9a tank version is particularly common), the M14 is not too hard to come by or outrageously expensive, or the new Rotec radials (although I have no experience with them personally).

baldeagle · 19 December 2005, 07:04 PM

Actually, apart from building a lot of ribs, if you were to "Swansonise" a SPAD, build it as Carl Swanson built the one at Old Rhinebeck ( http://airpower.callihan.cc/images/E...ck-SPADVII.JPG ), it wouldn't be too bad to build, and it will take a modern 180 Lycoming with almost no external differences because the front end is so wide. Swanson used a steel tube fuselage, and simplified the wing fittings and other parts, but from the outside you can hardly tell the difference.

Great War Flying Museum definately needs a SPAD. And why don't you do MacLaren's Camel and then do Barker's Snipe???.............

All it takes is time and money-

By the way, I flew the ORA SPAD on a cross country flight of several hundred miles, and it is a lousy flying airplane, but I think that's because it's so tail heavy, the Lycoming is too light, and no compensation was made with weight in the nose. A friend flies the Swanson SPAD XIII (also with a 180 Lycoming) at Owl's Head ( http://www.ohtm.org/spad.jpeg ) and he says it flies fine, so it must be balanced better, maybe a longer nose.

greatwarpilot · 19 December 2005, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baldeagle

Great War Flying Museum definately needs a SPAD. And why don't you do MacLaren's Camel and then do Barker's Snipe???.............

All it takes is time and money-

Perhaps a snipe will come our way down the road, but in the mean time we can't turn down the opportunity to do the highest scoring plane of the war. If we ever do build a Snipe and do it in Barker's colours then MacLaren would be a great option for the Camel.

I don't think a SPAD is in the cards... at least not for a while. We're getting a little lob sided with all these allied aircraft so I think a Pfalz or an Albatros is probably a good bet for the next project.

Quote:

Originally Posted by baldeagle

By the way, I flew the ORA SPAD on a cross country flight of several hundred miles, and it is a lousy flying airplane, but I think that's because it's so tail heavy, the Lycoming is too light, and no compensation was made with weight in the nose. A friend flies the Swanson SPAD XIII (also with a 180 Lycoming) at Owl's Head ( http://www.ohtm.org/spad.jpeg ) and he says it flies fine, so it must be balanced better, maybe a longer nose.

Interesting to hear your thoughts on flying the old bird. I didn't know ORA aircraft ever went on away missions like that. May I ask what the trip was for and if any other ORA aicraft came along?

baldeagle · 20 December 2005, 07:46 AM

Now that you put it that way, I vote for the Pfalz D.III. I figure you could build one with a steel tube fuselage and fiberglass shell, and nobody could tell the difference from the outside. It would be a lot simpler, quicker to build, and stronger than the original type construction, and if done right shouldn't weigh any more.
The SPAD trip was part of the ferry flight from Florida, where the 'plane was finished, up to ORA. Another pilot had flown it from Lakeland to Columbia, South Carolina, and I flew it from there to Virginia. I have a friend who is building a SPAD VII with Hisso, and I arranged for him to fly it the rest of the way to Rhinebeck. It was very unstable in pitch, with constant varying degrees of forward pressure required, although again I think this was because of the poor weight and balance situation. Cole used to love flying his Hisso powered SPAD XIII back in the old days. The ORA SPAD VII was unstable in yaw also, but not in such an uncomfortable way.

greatwarpilot · 20 December 2005, 08:21 AM

The Pfalz DIII is the aircraft we're leaning towards also, although discussions so far have centered on doing it out of ply as per the original. No real decisions will be made until we get this Camel finished anyways. The nice thing about doing a Pfalz/Albatros is that we've got half a dozen rangers lying around and that seems to be a pretty suitable engine for those birds.

Willy O · 20 December 2005, 08:27 AM

I guess my question would be more directly related to those members of the group not attempting to produce an exact museum piece. I am well framiliar with the wood crafting skills needed to reproduce the original as viewed from various restoration sites. What I would be aiming at, is a step above the "Dawn Patrol" / Grahm Lee type machines. Something utilizing 4130 for the fuselage and emmpenages but still employing a wood wing and fabric. The beautiful work that the FTS etal do comes at an extreme price of time and money and is excellent for museum quality. Not being such a purist I would aim slightly lower with an 80-90% acurate reproduction. The net effect is still the same, witness the Dayton flyin. Something that flys reasonably well and is well within the realm of the average Joe to build. I.E. the DVII would be a good machine except having 2 wings of varing rib dimensions and the associated time and patterns to build them. The overall size of the machine is also an issue. The SPAD would in my opinion be easier to reproduce. Wings would much easier to construct since they have significantly less rib variations and an inline engine vs a radial would be more cost effective. (assuming you don't utilize a certified engine)

Lufbery · 20 December 2005, 09:09 AM

Willy,

That would be a dream. There are some Spad 13 kits available, but the general consensus is that they really don't look much like Spads:

http://www.ultralightnews.com/ssulbg...daircraft.html

Regards,

Maxim08 · 20 December 2005, 11:52 AM

Willy O,
The challenge with a D VII wing is not necessarily the manufacturing of the ribs.
The major challenges are the spars which taper from the centre to the ends and taper fore and aft and narrow in section from the centre out to the tips. Additionally, the spars sit upright and replace part of the rib web where as the Dr1 spars lie down, are evenly dimensioned, and fit within the rib web.

Regards,
Maxim08

jumpinjan · 20 December 2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baldeagle

... I figure you could build one with a steel tube fuselage and fiberglass shell, and nobody could tell the difference from the outside. It would be a lot simpler, quicker to build, and stronger than the original type construction, and if done right shouldn't weigh any more

I would like to explore this when I can find some time,...its on my list. The problem of using just fiberglass (without a wood or foam core in the middle) is that it needs a few layers just to get some rigidity from oil canning as an example and then the weight starts building up fast. I have quit a bit of experience building boat hulls using cedar strips as the core, and that works great for rigidity & light weight. Only one layer of cloth is really needed on inside & outside surfaces.