SPAD Dive Capability

[US103_Baer]

This is interesting research for sure though @J5_Gamecock  makes a good point. I'd prefer the Devs worked on putting an actual 220hp engine into the SPAD in the first place!

Just after fixing invisible planes of course.

 

[No.23_Starling]

11 hours ago, J5_Gamecock said:

Right now, I rather time and effort was spent on more critical issues, like current DM, invisible planes, etc.  SPAD can dive better that anything else in game, by far.  I'm not yet convinced that it's broken, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

 

Everyone will agree on the DM and invisibility priority. We should still offer up good data to refine FM, even if it’s for a later date. If it’s good data and not just ‘my plane should be the best’ then it’s worth considering.

 

From my experiences flying the Spad in FC I’m finding that Dviifs can keep up with me just fine for more than long enough to ruin my day. This would seem contrary to reports from both sides of the conflict. When a plane’s main advantage is stripped away then it’s a reason for concern. I’m sure if the Spit IX or Dr1 turned poorly that would be addressed. Larner here is going about stating the case logically and with what evidence we have available.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, Waggaz said:

From my experiences flying the Spad in FC I’m finding that Dviifs can keep up with me just fine for more than long enough to ruin my day. 

 

That's how it is in all aircraft though.  It's the gunnery.

[Chill31]

On 5/9/2020 at 6:05 PM, J5_Hellbender said:

 

Yes, I'm just wondering why the entire structure didn't fail from losing the lower wing. I mean, this wasn't an internally braced cantilever design, right?

 

It's funny because it reminds me of the Nieuport 11 in RoF, where you can creatively remove the lower wings for a small performance boost.

The Albatross has a continuous spar from tip to tip, like the SPAD.  A N11/N17/Sopwith Camel has two separate wings joined in the middle by struts and brackets.  

[No.23_Starling]

52 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

That's how it is in all aircraft though.  It's the gunnery.

That is a factor, however the anecdotes from both German and Entente pilots suggest that the Dvii could not follow the Spad in a dive. I don’t think we have data to suggest that the Dvii dive is wrong but it looks like the Spad dive speed might have been faster IRL. If we have data to prove it from a reliable source then it is worth highlighting.

 

I wonder whether there are surviving airworthy Dvii examples where we can get dive data?

 

If the Camel could climb with the DviiF here and the data suggests otherwise I’m sure we’d all agree that would be worth amending.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Waggaz

[J5_Gamecock]

3 hours ago, Waggaz said:

From my experiences flying the Spad in FC I’m finding that Dviifs can keep up with me just fine for more than long enough to ruin my day. This would seem contrary to reports from both sides of the conflict

 Gunnery may be part of it, as Broccoli said. It could also be how and when you try to dive away.

 

  It doesn't appear to be contrary to Biddles own  thoughts, taken from a source provided by Larner...This doesn't even say that Biddles opponents were in DVIIF's,(at least not in this particular selection).

 

 

3 hours ago, Waggaz said:

When a plane’s main advantage is stripped away then it’s a reason for concern. I’m sure if the Spit IX or Dr1 turned poorly that would be addressed. Larner here is going about stating the case logically and with what evidence we have available.

 

  If/when it is determined that the SPAD advantage has been stripped away, then it should be addressed.  My point is I don't think it's  been proven as yet. The SPAD does NOT dive poorly. It is in fact better, faster in a dive than anything else in game, including the VIIF. It's also in the area of most sources, notwithstanding some outliers.

 

  Larner knows,(I hope) that I'm all for his looking into it, but as I said before jumping to conclusions is just wrong.

7 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

I'd prefer the Devs worked on putting an actual 220hp engine into the SPAD in the first place!

 

 YES! Complete with all the malfunctions that went along with it! 

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, J5_Gamecock said:

 Larner knows,(I hope) that I'm all for his looking into it, but as I said before jumping to conclusions is just wrong.

 

Spot on about picking the right time to dive away, and about giving a clean 6 shot. Mannock and a few others say the same thing in their sources.

 

If the Spad did have more room to pick up further speed that improves the chance of a getaway which can mean life or death (no parachutes for the Spaddict!). This is my opinion and should not be given as much credence as data. The devs are right to prioritise data where we have it over opinions (mine included).

 

The point I attempted to make about Spits etc was around the validity of not ignoring data for the less popular planes; Broccoli suggested this was a waste of time (the DM should take priority though, I’m sure we all agree there).

Edited May 11, 2020 by Waggaz

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, J5_Gamecock said:

It doesn't appear to be contrary to Biddles own  thoughts, taken from a source provided by Larner...This doesn't even say that Biddles opponents were in DVIIF's,(at least not in this particular selection).

 

 

Biddle's book actually offers some really terrific insights into the SPAD as a fighting machine. I've only 'skimmed' it so far (only having an eBook copy on hand...I find it hard to sit down and read a screen for hours!) but from the snippets I've read it comes very highly recommended by myself. Biddle also mentioned at one point in the memoir that one of his wingmen had fallen into a 'bait trap', and ended up with two Huns close on his tail. He then wrote in some detail about how hard it is to get away in this situation. I found it fascinating, as it lines up really closely to some of my FC experiences - namely, if the Fokker catches you, you're in for a hell of a fight, and you're forced to beat them away before you can dive out. 

 

 

1 hour ago, J5_Gamecock said:

If/when it is determined that the SPAD advantage has been stripped away, then it should be addressed.  My point is I don't think it's  been proven as yet. The SPAD does NOT dive poorly. It is in fact better, faster in a dive than anything else in game, including the VIIF. It's also in the area of most sources, notwithstanding some outliers.

"If/when" being the main important thing here - I agree 100% that we (I?) shouldn't push for any changes until there is some good evidence that the SPAD is underperforming in a dive. At the moment we have some pretty promising anecdotal evidence, and a couple figures that seem to have a decent theoretical basis - but nothing that would make me go "THAT'S It! Now, let's change the FM!" 

However - I will slightly disagree about the SPAD being better in a dive. It is certainly faster, in the sense that it reaches a higher top speed, but it will be out-accelerated by the D.VII F* in a dive all the way up until the D.VII F's crucial speed. This wasn't the case in RoF, where the D.VII F accelerated slower in a dive compared to its FC counterpart (not sure what prompted the change?). To me, that seems implausible,  especially considering that there were two pilots of Jasta 6 who were quoted as mentioning they couldn't catch SPADs in a dive (I can find the quotes if you'd like - I find them quite valuable as one pilot specifically compares the 200hp SPAD XIII to the BMW-Powered Fokker D.VII F!) . 

That is definitely more of an issue in my mind than the SPAD's current top dive speed. However, I've not yet started that thread, as, being an Entente pilot, I tend to walk on eggshells when mentioning the D.VII F. Doing so usually comes with quite a lot of backlash...

*And the vanilla D.VII IIRC, but I'd want to check that again before stating it as fact 

 

1 hour ago, J5_Gamecock said:

YES! Complete with all the malfunctions that went along with it! 

Yes! Let's get those malfunctions in there! And let's also put in the D.VII F's historical tendency to spontaneously burst into flames by cooking off its own ammo due to overheating issues! ?
 

Edited May 11, 2020 by US93_Larner

[76SQN-FatherTed]

1 hour ago, J5_Gamecock said:

 It could also be how and when you try to dive away.

I think this is the key when we're comparing game-performance with reported RL-performance.  From what I've read, where both parties saw each other at distance, there was a fair amount of tactical positioning that took place before the bullets started being traded.   This I don't tend to see in game.  I think there are two main reasons for this.  Firstly the old chestnut about no peril being involved, so people "have a go" even when they know they "shouldn't".  Secondly, in general, we have poorer vision, so bogies are not spotted when there is still a reasonable chance to get away.

 

IRL "diving away" would I think have meant extending before guns range was reached, rather than bugging out from a dogfight.  Also, the pursuing pilot would probably have been much more circumspect about throwing away their height to confirm a kill (after all an aircraft "driven down" could be claimed), whereas I'm sure we've all been chased back to our airfields by someone who knows you have to slow up to land.

 

Basically, I think judging aircraft performance by reported behaviour is problematic when our in-game behaviour is unlikely to match real-world behaviour.

[No.23_Gaylion]

^You should watch our streams and see if your analysis still fits.

[No.23_Triggers]

17 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

IRL "diving away" would I think have meant extending before guns range was reached, rather than bugging out from a dogfight.

In my last response to Gamecock I mentioned two Jasta 6 pilot quotes about the SPAD dive VS. the D.VII F - as it so happens, one of those quotes actually covers this as well! 

"The scene was always the same. A tight turn and then the SPAD pilots were overtaken, but they saved themselves by going into a vertical nosedive. Naturally, we couldn't follow them, so we forced an entire SPAD flight of seven aircraft down in turn".  -Ltn. Richard Wenzl, Jasta 6.

To me, that quote implies that the SPADs were 'mixing it up' with the Fokker's and then diving like hell once they got one on their tail! 

 

4 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said:

I'm so disappointed I can't take credit for these.

Lol....I wonder who's responsible... @Adam knows, perhaps? 

Edited May 11, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J5_Gamecock]

22 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Yes! Let's get those malfunctions in there! And let's also put in the D.VII F's historical tendency to spontaneously burst into flames by cooking off its own ammo due to overheating issues! ?

 This was true of all DVII's not just "F" .. sorted out rather quickly.

2 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

"The scene was always the same. A tight turn and then the SPAD pilots were overtaken, but they saved themselves by going into a vertical nosedive. Naturally, we couldn't follow them, so we forced an entire SPAD flight of seven aircraft down in turn".  -Ltn. Richard Wenzl, Jasta 6.

 

  You left out the relative part here.. " My rage at this bunch knew no bounds".

[No.23_Triggers]

3 minutes ago, J5_Gamecock said:

You left out the relative part here.. " My rage at this bunch knew no bounds".

Hahahah that bit gets me every time! 

[No.23_Gaylion]

Guys, lets just stay abreast of Klugerman and his sophomoric humor. 

 

Klugermann, we aren't going to go down on you to your level. We'll ride on top and not let you turn this thread reverse, cowgirl.

[No.23_Triggers]

Another interesting anecdote: 

"Shelby fired at close range and followed it down as the fighter dived, streaming white vapour, unril his guns jammed:

Although he crashed inside our lines, I didn't actually see it because I was so busy trying to apply immediate action to my guns. The first indication that I was in trouble came when my instrument panel exploded in my face. I didn't know where the shot had come from, so I twisted around to look over my shoulder, and my heart caught in my throat. There, a dozen yards behind me and square on my tail, was one of the Fokkers with the muzzles of both guns flickering. When you are in trouble in a SPAD, you dive, so I dived.  

In spite of shot-up controls, Shelby managed to pull out of his 200mph dive just above the Meuse River, his propeller kicking up spray as he did so. Barely clearing the riverbank, he flew past Verdun and sporred a small field. 'I fishtailed straight in and made a pretty good landing', he concluded. 'The aeroplane was shot up but otherwise in pretty good shape.'"

 

From John Guttman's "SPAD XIII vs Fokker D.VII".  200mph would roughly equate to 320 km/h - significantly lower than the other references and the in-game SPAD...the plot thickens...

Edited May 11, 2020 by US93_Larner

[76SQN-FatherTed]

43 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

In my last response to Gamecock I mentioned two Jasta 6 pilot quotes about the SPAD dive VS. the D.VII F - as it so happens, one of those quotes actually covers this as well! 

"The scene was always the same. A tight turn and then the SPAD pilots were overtaken, but they saved themselves by going into a vertical nosedive. Naturally, we couldn't follow them, so we forced an entire SPAD flight of seven aircraft down in turn".  -Ltn. Richard Wenzl, Jasta 6.

To me, that quote implies that the SPADs were 'mixing it up' with the Fokker's and then diving like hell once they got one on their tail! 

Well, I could also use that quote:  how often would we call it a "result" that some enemy aircraft dived away from us?  Aside from Bloody April-type events, an encounter is judged successful if a kill is made.  On another thread, Stumble asked if it was the done thing to run away - he seemed to think that you "owe" it to your opponent to give him a fight even if you're tactically disadvantaged.

 

Anyway, we could bat this back and forth all night, so I'll stop there (plus I'm feeling over-Klugermanned)

[No.23_Triggers]

17 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Well, I could also use that quote:  how often would we call it a "result" that some enemy aircraft dived away from us?  Aside from Bloody April-type events, an encounter is judged successful if a kill is made.  On another thread, Stumble asked if it was the done thing to run away - he seemed to think that you "owe" it to your opponent to give him a fight even if you're tactically disadvantaged.

 

Anyway, we could bat this back and forth all night, so I'll stop there (plus I'm feeling over-Klugermanned)

You'd be surprised! I can't speak for others, but in the 103rd in RoF we used to do our Thursday V-Life mini game (which we still do). At the time, JG1 was doing something very similar, with their guys participating in Hotlead's "One Life to Live" live streams - which also took place on Thursday. At one point they had a similar setup to ours - a V-Life scoreboard that tracked pilots sorties flown and victories on Thursday. Once you died, the scoreboard was wiped. 

What that led to was two v-Squadrons playing in a "Life First" play style - and we actually ended up having many , many engagements that are much more in line with some of the historical stuff you might have read! Typically our patrol would spot theirs and start to set up a bounce - or vice-versa - and what would then follow was a long period of manoeuvring against each other, followed by a lightning-flash engagement in which, more often than not, nobody actually got shot down! But, both we and JG1 (as I learned by watching Lead's streams) would count forcing the other flight to retreat as a "Success"! 

Honestly, those flights / fights were the most fun I've ever had in RoF or FC. 

Edited May 11, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J5_Adam]

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

In my last response to Gamecock I mentioned two Jasta 6 pilot quotes about the SPAD dive VS. the D.VII F - as it so happens, one of those quotes actually covers this as well! 

"The scene was always the same. A tight turn and then the SPAD pilots were overtaken, but they saved themselves by going into a vertical nosedive. Naturally, we couldn't follow them, so we forced an entire SPAD flight of seven aircraft down in turn".  -Ltn. Richard Wenzl, Jasta 6.

To me, that quote implies that the SPADs were 'mixing it up' with the Fokker's and then diving like hell once they got one on their tail! 

 

Lol....I wonder who's responsible... @Adam knows, perhaps? 

 

I didn't do this. I showed you the one I did with the cock and fatherland tattooed down it's length and a german helmut on top. I wish I could post it here so that you could see the sheer expertise in Photoshopping  that is lacking on my part.

[No.23_Triggers]

Just now, Adam said:

 

I didn't do this. I showed you the one I did with the cock and fatherland tattooed down it's length and a german helmut on top. I wish I could post it here so that you could see the sheer expertise in Photoshopping  that is lacking on my part.

The plot thickens.....and we're not supposed to talk about that image 

[J5_Gamecock]

29 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

From John Guttman's "SPAD XIII vs Fokker D.VII".  200mph would roughly equate to 320 km/h - significantly lower than the other references and the in-game SPAD...the plot thickens...

 

 I read that as well. I wouldn't take it as a "maximum" speed, but the way it was stated leads me to think it was extraordinary all the same.

[No.23_Triggers]

7 minutes ago, J5_Gamecock said:

 

 I read that as well. I wouldn't take it as a "maximum" speed, but the way it was stated leads me to think it was extraordinary all the same.

I think in this case, the extraordinary part is the getting out of the dive with shot-up controls! 


Here's something unrelated entirely, but I don't want to start another thread about the SPAD...I was flicking through Gorrell's history of the AEF the other day (which is essentially a huge archive of USAS reports, memoranda, A.A.Rs, etc, all from the war) and I found a reference in a postwar report on the development of a new Scout type that seems to suggest that the in-game SPAD should NOT be able to equip two Balloon Guns...instead, it should only be able to equip a right-side balloon gun, coupled with a left-side 7mm Vickers: 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by US93_Larner

[No.23_Gaylion]

More importantly- 70 rounds in a diving turn.

[Garven]

11 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

I think in this case, the extraordinary part is the getting out of the dive with shot-up controls! 


Here's something unrelated entirely, but I don't want to start another thread about the SPAD...I was flicking through Gorrell's history of the AEF the other day (which is essentially a huge archive of USAS reports, memoranda, A.A.Rs, etc, all from the war) and I found a reference in a postwar report on the development of a new Scout type that seems to suggest that the in-game SPAD should NOT be able to equip two Balloon Guns...instead, it should only be able to equip a right-side balloon gun, coupled with a left-side 7mm Vickers: 

 

 

That is a very cool find.

[No.23_Triggers]

Doing some more dive testing in FC today, I was able to achieve a new 'personal best' in recovering a SPAD with all its surfaces from a power-dive, with the eventual figure being 370 360 km/h* (or just over). However, the aircraft had long surpassed flutter speed and I needed to use a highly unorthodox method of pulling out of the dive in order to save myself. In other words, I'd consider that speed the absolute maximum of the SPAD's ability. 

*Watching the footage back again, I got it wrong. The actual max dive I achieved was 361 km/h. 

At the moment, 350 km/h is what I'd consider a "Dangerous"  speed for a SPAD XIII in FC, with between 355 - 370 km/h being the speeds where you will rapidly start to lose control surfaces. At this point, I don't believe the dive is conventionally recoverable. While "Suicide Diving" (I.E, diving with no intention of pulling out, in order to gauge the absolute top speed the aircraft can handle) I've discovered that the wings will collapse without any added G loading at around 390 km/h. 

As an interesting side-note, this was seemingly trumped by the S.E.5a, which I managed to recover at 370 km/h conventionally and with no additional control / engine damage. EDIT 2: Seems this was a one-off. Not since been able to recover  past 160 km/h. 

I want to do some more in-game testing to first determine a "conventionally recoverable" dive speed for the SPAD XIII, which can then be cross-referenced with any sources that emerge claiming a higher (or equal, or lower) historical top dive speed.

In regards to historical sources: The SPAD's airspeed indicator won't go past 300 km/h, meaning that pilot accounts citing speeds higher than this have to be approximations, and so must be taken with a pinch of salt. This ties in with testing, so the kind of sources that I would consider valuable would have to be either from highly experienced pilots (which would still be dubious at predicting accurate speeds, but may hint at a 'general' figure, depending on speeds cited, and by how many pilots cite a speed in the same ball park - a lot of 'ifs' involved here), sources with a reputable mathematical / theoretical basis, or evidence that provides reasonable proof to back up its accuracy. 

EDIT 3:

XIII dive speeds after thorough testing: 

350 km/h - Recoverable with no damage. 
360 km/h - Recoverable with probable control surface loss. Must use unconventional recovery. 
370 km/h - Unrecoverable completely. 

Interesting when compared with figures in 'Defeat by Design' and Memorial Flight figures (they haven't got back yet, btw). 370 km/h is drastically slower than both sources. 
 

Edited May 13, 2020 by US93_Larner