SPAD Xlll vs Fokker DVll

[Gazzas]

The SPAD also suffered from poor visibility and less lift due to wing spacing.  With it's thicker aerofoil, the Fokker would have had greater lift and less wing loading, thereby having a tighter turn.

 

But with all things air combat, it's better to get the jump than to be jumped on.

[Gigant]

41 minutes ago, Gazzas said:

The SPAD also suffered from poor visibility and less lift due to wing spacing.  With it's thicker aerofoil, the Fokker would have had greater lift and less wing loading, thereby having a tighter turn.

 

But with all things air combat, it's better to get the jump than to be jumped on.

However, the American doctrine for flying the SPAD was when attacked by surprise, dive like hell!

With their wing having less drag then the D-7, they could ensure a usually certain escape.

They had learned this technique with the SPAD VII's.

[Fred Jack]

Most Americans never flew SPAD Vlls but went from Nie. 28s to SPAD Xllls.

[Gigant]

1 minute ago, Fred Jack said:

Most Americans never flew SPAD Vlls but went from Nie. 28s to SPAD Xllls.

 

That's partly correct.

 

Before they were absorbed into the later in the war formed USAS, American pilots flew in both the Lafayette Escadrille and the Lafayette Flying Corps where the pilots in both units flew SPAD VII's.

 

These more experienced pilots were obliged to join the USAS, and encouraged to "bone up" the green, raw trainees freshly brought over from the U.S. under Pershing.

 

As it turned out, their "dive like hell" doctrine turned out to be a bad idea with the early Nieuport 28's as they tended to shed wing fabric in a prolonged dive. This caused the fresh American recruits to accuse the French of "dumping" on them a machine the French considered unsatisfactory.

 

When they were finally given SPAD XIII's, they were very happy to give up the Nieuports for the more rugged machine.