Talk:SPAD S.VII

Guynemer
I am not sure that Guynemer was really at the origin of the evolution to the S.XIII. This was a rather natural evolution as most German fighters were fitted with two guns. I think there is a confusion with the S.XII, the cannon-equipped SPAD, which Guynemer enjoyed and tested in combat, reporting back to Béchereau. I'll try to find more on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaetanmarie (talk • contribs) 20:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Design & Development
I've written a more extensive d & d section to replace the original one, which was too short and faulty. I'll write a more extensive "operational history" section later on when I have some time. Any suggestions welcome. Gaetan Marie 18:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Recuperated on" isn't English. Do you mean "adapted from" or "salvaged from"?? Or even "as used on"??? The Nieuport 17 normally didn't have a spinner, although I've seen a photo of a 24 with one. When you do the "operational history" you may find yourself deleting things (like British SPAD manufacture) which are now duplicated. Like lots of wiki articles about WWI aircraft this one was very vague about the difference between "Design and development" and "Operational service" and mixed them up a lot. Include references (especially any books, articles etc. you draw information from) and footnote where desirable. Yes, I'd take Guynemer's actual input to SPAD development with a pinch of salt - this is likely to be a legend with its origins in manufacturer's hype. I may get in touch to help edit your work a bit when it is finished. The main trouble with British (and French) Spad SVIIs was the Hispano Suiza motor - which had all kinds of problems at this stage, and wasn't available in sufficient quantities either. This is likely to be the main reason why British SPADS were used so little - they never got engines!! Soundofmusicals 21:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the "recuperated on" part > literal translation from French I suppose. I'll correct that. I do believe some N17s had spinners, maybe salvaged from somewhere else as well. I'll also add the references: I was looking around trying to figure out how to do that properly. I'm also intending to write the article on the HS-8 engine, as it was a very important one and the current article is mostly a stub. I can be contacted via my website. Thanks for your feedback: it's very helpful. Gaetan Marie 08:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Many early N.17s had a fixed aerodynamic fairing ahead of the prop called a "cone de penetration" attached to the stationary crankshaft that resembled a spinner - later versions generally did not have this however a few experimental examples did have spinners.NiD.29 (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Total production figures?
I'm a bit at a loss about the total production figures, so I've indicated the two most common figures I've found: 3,825 or approx. 5,600 (6,000 with foreign production). This is a rather common problem in aviation history, but if someone has some solid data/reference cc. this, please correct the corresponding paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaetanmarie (talk • contribs) 16:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rate of Climb
The currently listed rate of climb is 4.5 minutes to 2000 meters. This is an extraordinarily unlikely number, particularly given that such a figure would beat both the SPAD S.XIII and the Fokker D.VIIF by nearly a minute. Since both these aircraft outperform the SPAD S.VII in every way, and since they were also the best climbers of the war, the 4.5-minute is certainly an error.

In 1916, 6.5 minutes to 2000 meters still would have made the SPAD S.VII by far the best climber in existence.

Recommending further research on this topic, as the performance data is apparently drawn from a single source.

Military aircraft, origins to 1918: an illustrated history of their impact, by Justin D. Murphy, for example, gives a time of 11:20 to 3000 meters, which still makes the SPAD S.VII the best climber of 1916, but puts it in the range of 6:30-6:45 for 2000 meters.

There is some discussion of this issue here: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/2001/11717-spad-7-performance-figures.html, which claims a time of 6:40 for the 150hp production version of the aircraft; even so, the experimental-version claim of 4:40 is highly suspicious, and possibly more the result of an improperly calibrated altimeter than of anything else. This is my own conjecture, of course, but it is drawn from the knowledge that aviation testing was not then what it is today.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkibiades231 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * J. M. Bruce in The Aeroplanes of the Royal Flying Corps (Military Wing). London:Putnam 1982. ISBN 0 370 30084 x - gives climb figures for a 150 hp SPAD 7 of 6 min 40 to 2000m and 11 min 20s to 3000 m. Subsitution of a high-compression 180 hp Hispano-Suiza 8Ab (as had started to happen by June 1917) gave climb figures of 4 min 40 sec to 2000 m, 8 min 10 s to 3000 m and 12 min 45 s to 4000 m. In the body of the text it does note that the 180 hp engine significantly increased performance. Equivalent figures for the SPAD 13 with a 220 hp engine are 4 min 40 s to 2000m, 7 min 50 s to 3000 m and 18 min 30 s to 5000 m - i.e. the introduction of the 180 hp engine appears to give very similar climb performance to the SPAD 13. The quoted speed and ceiling look more like those of a 150 hp SPAD (193 km/h at sea level and 5500 m) rather than a 180 hp one (212 km/h and 6553 m). The performance of 150 hp and 180 hp versions appears to have been mixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

First Picture
I just wanted to point out that the picture at the top of the SPAD S.VII page is not a SPAD S.VII, but a two-seat SPAD A2. This is obvious from the observer's "pulpit" in front of the propeller and the exhaust collecter under the pilot's cockpit.Sebradfield (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks well spotted, it was only changed two days ago, I have changed it back. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 05:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)