A deck variant?

[Honza]

Did you guys try to rework the A deck so Spads become more fun and less Immelmann loop dependent? There have been some threads on it, mainly trying to improve it in other ways, or arguing whether it is a fun or annoying mini to play.
I am not interested in that, i just want your opinion on any possible deck improvements.

[Honza]

" In flight the airplane is very steady, but requires a good deal of left rudder, as the engine torque is very pronounced. It is tail heavy flying level, and also climbing with wide-open throttle, but this tail heaviness is not so pronounced above 15,000 feet.

The cockpit is very roomy, although the rudder bar is too close to the pilot and tires the legs in a long flight. It is a very warm and comfortable airplane to fly at altitude or on cold days, but not on warm days or low flying with wide-open throttle, such as contact patrol.

The airplane maneuvers easily and shows no tendency to spin in very tight banks. The visibility is good to either side and above the top wing, but is blind straight ahead and below.

The constant noise of the geared engine is very annoying and at altitudes above 16,000 feet the engine operates badly. The engine is very susceptible to temperature changes in a glide and cools quickly, so the pilot must control his shutters constantly in changing altitude.

The engine is not very accessible for maintenance, and the installation could be improved.

This airplane lands easily, shows no tendency to turn on the ground, and stops short owing to the heavy tail. Even when landed tail high or on a rough field it does not show any tendency to nose over.

Louis G. Meister,

Test Pilot."

[flash]

Never done it but thought about it once having read a pilots account (forgive me, I don't recall the book just now) that suggested it turned sharper right than left which he put down to the torque of the very powerful engine. Never heard of it before or since though.
Adding a sharp right or two to the deck would help a little perhaps.

[OldGuy59]

The A deck is what it is, because it is so fast and we tend to play in a confined area.

If a plane wants to stay in that area, using such long arrows on each card, with such wide turns, there is pretty much only the Immelmann available.

The A deck may have suffered from printing/production issues, and a 'limit' of 22-ish cards per deck in the initial boxed set (just a guess on my part).

There may have been an option of slower tighter turns, had there been a larger number of cards allowable? Or, the SPAD may have been stuck at full throttle, so the deck reflects that?

More knowledgeable Forum members might know the answer...

[Honza]

Never done it but thought about it once having read a pilots account (forgive me, I don't recall the book just now) that suggested it turned sharper right than left which he put down to the torque of the very powerful engine. Never heard of it before or since though.
Adding a sharp right or two to the deck would help a little perhaps.

Dave that is what i have heard - the engine pulled right all the time. I have also heard the stall speed was quite high. I have to put my nose in it, i may find some more sources.

[Flying Helmut]

Runs the risk of turning WGF into WGS, where all the decks are pretty much identical.

I'll say no more, since the last time this subject came up I was subjected to a very aggressive attitude on here.
No going back.

[Honza]

I respect your opinion. Please ignore this thread.

[Honza]

Karl Friedrich Kurt 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 :

"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 do not seem to have heard of starters. After some misfiring i am able to start. The engines's revolutions, around 2400 per minute, 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.
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 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.

[Honza]

From what i have read so far, Spad XIII was way more of a vertical maneuver aircraft.

- That cannot be reflected in WoG
- This statement comes from posters, not from pilots

I would like to make it more enjoyable type to play with, without pushing it too much. I will read some more. Cecil Lewis has described it in his Sagittarius rising, which i have started reading. He was really a capable writer, good with both the stick and the language.

[Honza]

Wiky

"It was faster than its main contemporaries, the British Sopwith Camel and the German Fokker D.VII and its relatively higher power-to-weight ratio gave it a good rate of climb. The SPAD was renowned for its speed and strength in a dive, although the maneuverability of the type was relatively poor and the aircraft was difficult to control at low speeds: needing to be landed with power on, unlike contemporary fighters like the Royal Aircraft Factory SE.5 which could be landed with power off.[11]"

[Honza]

Eduard

"The first prototype of the SPAD XIII was flown by Second Lieutenant Rene Dorme on April 4th, 1917. Due to a heavier weight, the new type didn’t achieve the maneuverability of its predecessor, but it did display a better rate of climb, and a faster speed of 215 km/h."

[Honza]

Military Factory

"In combat, the S.XIII proved its worth (and pedigree for that matter). The aircraft was able to out-fly the German D.VII types well enough and compared favorably to even the fabled Sopwith Camel. Structurally, the S.XIII was sound enough to withstand a good deal of punishment before inevitably giving in. This structural integrity generally made diving a supreme tactic for S.XIII users. If the design sported any major flaw it was in its reduced maneuverability at slower speeds - this alone led to dangers in both combat and in bringing the aircraft in for a landing."

Air Force Museum

"The lightly built Nieuport 28 developed a reputation for shedding its upper wing fabric in a dive, and by the spring of 1918, many considered the Nieuport 28 obsolete. Even so, American pilots maintained a favorable ratio of victories to losses with it. Many American aces of WWI, including 26-victory ace Capt. Eddie Rickenbacker, flew the Nieuport at one time or another in their careers. The less maneuverable, but faster and sturdier, SPAD XIII began replacing the Nieuport 28 in March 1918."


Rise of Flight

"French pilots were eager to receive this plane. The second machine-gun increased firepower and the new engine made it fly and climb faster. Controls remained effective even at high altitudes. The only drawbacks were a lack of sensitivity in the controls at low speeds and the thin wing profile decreased maneuverability at low speeds, which often resulted in a stall. In a dive and level flight, the SPAD XIII was one of the fastest of the war. Pilots liked to say, "it dives faster than the wind!"

Wings of Linen

"All of the early models had rounded wing tips, but by spring of 1918 the wing tips were squared off for better maneuverability. "

Ares Games

"The weak point of the SPAD XIII was its maneuverability. It was improved compared to the SPAD VII thanks to the larger rudder, but the airplane was still difficult to fly for novice pilots, especially at low speeds."
Note: I think not. Other sources state it was less maneuverable than VII, although the game does not reflect it.


These all are someone's statements. The question is what is the source of those statements. Only Wiky points towards a 1965 book.

[flash]

..These all are someone's statements. The question is what is the source of those statements. Only Wiky points towards a 1965 book.

Ares lists its Information sources as: The Aerodrome, Wikipedia, Military Factory, WW1 Aviation, Fan d’Avions, Military History.
Military Factory claim it's exclusive text to them from hours of research, but no sources, which surprised me.

[Teaticket]

A minor rule tweak for the SPAD to give it better verticle ability would be to give it 2 climb counters (1 complete alt level) when playing the climb card. The climbing advantage would give it a better chance of getting the +1 damage for height advantage and +1 when shooting while diving.

[Honza]

This is a good one, it comes from someone's granddad who flew it. It was posted as an answer to my question on one of the FB groups i am in. It has an old-fashioned offensive content, which i strongly disagree with, and it is just partly covered to keep the authenticity. Apart from that, this is what i was waiting for.

"Good subject!
My maternal grandfather was a pilot in WWI, credited with 7 victories. He had a thing for balloon busting and being about a half a bubble off level; an ornery prankster and crowd pleaser. He flew Spads, and admired their speed, durability and pilot protection. He was unimpressed with their lack of maneuverability. "It did what it did very well, but anything else could be deadly. I still can't believe the XXXXXXX could build an airplane, let alone one that actually worked"
He flew the SE-5, and said it was along the same Spad concept, but far more agile, a better plane for dogfighting. He liked this one better than the Spad models.

One day, a wounded German pilot landed a D-VII at my grandfather's makeshift field, surrendered and was fixed up by the doctors. Though a POW, the German was treated like one of the boys. My grandfather liked him, and told me many stories about him. They even stayed in touch after the war.
Real men with honor
But my grandfather took a real interest in that Fokker. Other than being muddy, it was fine.
The German pilot was flying against the wind blowing him towards the Allied side, then shot by a soldier below.
Partially incapacitated, he ended up right over the field.
He'd also run out of gasoline.
Long story short, my dear old grandfather had to fly it. He got a short ground school from the German, then broke about every regulation regarding that D-VII.
He gave his group quite the impromptu air show as all poured out of their tents to see what was happening.
He didn't disappoint, except for those in charge. He landed to standing applause, crawled out of the plane and went to get his ass chewing. It smoothed over.
He loved flying the 'borrowed' Fokker, and even his German friend said his ability in it would make him a formidable foe.
Grandfather said we should cut a deal with the Germans to sell the Allies a whole mess of Fokker D-VII's...
"It sure would have ended the war a lot quicker"
He was a funny guy, a soldier and a gentleman. ❤️"

[Honza]

So SE.5 was better suited for dogfight, SPAD for boom and zoom attacks.

SPAD XIII
loaded weight: 856.5 kg
wing area: 20.2 m2 (cut-off wings)
wing loading: 42.25 kg/m2
power: 200hp
no dihedral (had tendency to fall left/right when stick unattended)
higher speed stall, hard recovery

SE.5
loaded weight: 930 kg (another source 887 kg)
wing area: 22.8 m2
wing loading: 39.12 kg/m2
power: 200 hp
dihedral (more stable platform)
"innocuous" stall with easy recovery

So SE.5 was about 30-80kg heavier, with the same engine power and about 2.5m2 more wing area.

The question is - does the difference between A and N deck (two long side slips, two 90s) reflect the above stats? Should S.XIII stay that much more lifeless?
At high speeds both decks represent, the difference gets even smaller.

This is what would be my first approach
S.XIII shoud get
- longer Stall to reflect it was heavy for its wing area
- at least right steep 90
- two 180 turns, so you can do 180 straight 180 in one turn to reflect its dominant combat tactics

[Honza]

Another good one this time on S.VII

These statements are about the 180 hp Spad VII instead of the XIII, but they may still be of interest: The famous RAF pilot/writer Oliver Stewart recorded: “…when the present writer was given a Spad with Hispano-Suiza engine so that he might fly it from France to England, he expected it to be so sensitive as to be almost unmanageable and to exhibit every known vice. He was surprised and pleased, when he discovered that it was not only easy to fly, but that it certainly did possess excellent powers of manoeuvre – powers of manoeuvre which seemed to be greater than the S.E.5…It flew in a mechanical manner, if one may so express it, instead of sailing through the airlike an S.E.5. It seemed to demand the attention of its pilot all the time, but by no means in the unhealthy manner that had been suggested by those who did not know it…It responded. And it responded quickly and sympathetically.” The 56 Squadron S.E.5 pilot Cecil Lewis famously wrote of meeting Guynemer: “…when Guynemer challenged me to a mock combat over the airfield I accepted with alacrity. I knew our machines were fairly evenly matched and that my own flying skill would give me the advantage over the Frenchman., But I soon found it was otherwise. Guynemer’s little Spad was smaller and more manoeuvrable than the S.E 5. He had a better climb and could turn in a smaller circle. The result was that as I sat in a vertical turn with the stick right back circling as tightly as the S.E. could go, Guynemer just sat right on my tail turning in a slightly smaller circle so that he always kept his sights on me…Do what I would, spin, half-roll, climb, there he sat – just as if I had been towing him behind me.” When Jon Guttman interviewed Louis Risacher of SPA 3, he recalled a different visit from British pilots to GC 12 in the summer of 1917: “There was a Canadian I remember, one of their aces – I cannot remember his name. He offered to have a mock dogfight with … Guynemer..It was decided by Guynemer and the Canadian ace that they would cross in the air and the ‘combat’ would begin at once. Immediately, Guynemer was on his tail and he could not get him off. He was a fine chap, that Canadian. He came to Guynemer and said, ‘That was sport!’ He was flying a Camel. Guynemer had outmanoeuvred a Camel on a Spad – absolutely!”

[Honza]

Ha. How about an ACE skill that can add 90 to certain aircraft types?

[camel crew]

Great discussion chaps

[flash]

...This is what would be my first approach
S.XIII should get
- longer Stall to reflect it was heavy for its wing area
- at least right steep 90
- two 180 turns, so you can do 180 straight 180 in one turn to reflect its dominant combat tactics

I read somewhere the SPAD XIII's stall speed was about 80knots - if correct that equates to a straight in the slow speed band in WoG i.e. that's as quick / quicker than many early types in our WoGverse.
That would be about half the length of the SPAD's straight ! Maybe too much in the game methinks.
If you did decide to try extending the stall, I'd suggest keeping it about twice the size of the average stall card and look at a straight from the XB/XC deck, that would appear more proportionate, perhaps.
It might make keeping on target quite a bit harder but might reflect that it's lower speed was quite high compared to others.
Not sure there's sufficient evidence for a 90 steep right but it might make it a little more interesting, shame we don't have a 45 steep turn to try out.
Two Immels aren't required, that's over gilding the lily, a decent player can already legally play 2 Immels in 3 cards within the rules as it is and be pretty dominant !

Ha. How about an ACE skill that can add 90 to certain aircraft types?

Er, no. That could lead to performance outside the envelope of an aircraft type.

[Honza]

Er, no. That could lead to performance outside the envelope of an aircraft type.

I am afraid that is exactly what was going on when Guynemer was piloting it.

[malachi]

Jan, you might find this book interesting: WW1 Aircraft Performance

According to the study, the SPAD X.III was far more maneuverable than previously believed and the Albatros D.Va less so.

[Honza]

Thank you Chris. Let me see if i can find it.

[Teaticket]

Ha. How about an ACE skill that can add 90 to certain aircraft types?

Stuntman? Ok, you don't get the actual 90* turn but it is a great skill for a SPAD.

[OldGuy59]

Stuntman? Ok, you don't get the actual 90* turn but it is a great skill for a SPAD.

That would change things for a SPAD pilot! Worth trying out.

Stuntman: (New in 2019)
This ability can be used on single seaters only. Before anybody reveals a manoeuvre card, if this ace planned a straight manoeuvre you can declare that he turns the nose to right or left and skids while shooting. In the next firing phase his firing arc on the chosen side is widened as indicated (on the card - normal arc plus to 3 or 9 o'clock ie 90 deg left or right)
When you use this ability take four recovery tokens
(s.4a - WGF123C - Pfalz D.III Voss)