Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Nieuport 28.C1


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#1 Cess-Jmack

Cess-Jmack
  • Posts: 36

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:06

Nieuport 28.C1 unflyable

can someone help me on this…. i started the US campaign bu i really cant fly this plane … keeps dropping to the left , doing turns on this at low altitude is suicide , cant pass the first mission i keep crashing … any advices ? :xx:

Cess-Jmack
  • 0

#2 Shutter

Shutter
  • Posts: 254
  • LocationWashington, USA

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:24

Try adjusting your response curves for the N28, and make sure you save it. I really enjoy flying the Nieuport 28.C1. It's fast as heck, turns of a dime, and climbs like a chimp! Just don't dive too steeply or for too long at high speeds! Good luck!
  • 0

#3 neuro

neuro
  • Posts: 1523

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:27

Fly it in Quick Mission alone without enemies until you got the basics?
If you can do all these maneuvers well enough, the rest should come almost automatically:
- aileron roll
- wing over
- slow roll
- loop
- barrel roll
- snap roll
- split-s
- immelman

Some basic explanation of those maneuvers is available here

Also look for Requiem's videos on YouTube. Compare his video with my explanations if you are not sure that you got it right.
If our tips for a particular maneuver are different, try both: more often than not, we're both right, each in a different plane (but be aware that he's a much better pilot than I am. Keep that in mind in case of doubts)

After you got those maneuvers under your belt, it's time for tactics.
The N28 is fast and climbs like nothing else (especially the first 1000m), but it won't turn. Shoot and run is the name of the game. You can both outrun and outclimb most German planes at low altitudes, but all of them can outturn you… well, flying against AI you may have a chance in a turn fight against a single opponent, but two of them will probably get you, so hit and run.

The hard part:
The N28 doesn't have a great cockpit visibility, especially forward. You have to 'use the force' a lot.
Guns' positioning makes shooting …weird. Maybe it'd be a bit better if the guns were on the right side (or if I was a lefty), but those tracers coming from the left are kind of confusing until you get used to it.

Save your ammo! The N28 has about half the ammunition that most other 2-gun planes have. No spray-and-pray, no sniping, no long bursts. Go close, aim well, fire short bursts. You don't want to run out of ammo in the middle of a fight, and that's exactly what's going to happen in the N28 if you don't spend your rounds very carefully.

Same goes for gas, too. The N28 doesn't have any range. 50% fuel is good for about half an hour… provided that you don't get hit in the fuel tanks. So, fly with at least 60 or 70% gas, and retreat immediately if you start leaking fuel.

The engine overrevs easily. I don't know exactly how many RPMs can be allowed, but I learned that it changes sound a few seconds before it starts spraying oil. Listen to your engine (turn the volume a bit up if needed) and hit the blip switch or throttle back as soon as your hear your engine 'screaming'.
In a long dive, use both throttle back and blip switch.

That's all the advice I can give you, and that's pretty basic, too. I'm not the best N28 pilot around, so there's probably a lot more to be said… but even with that little that I posted, and with some practice, you should be able to go through the first few missions at least.

Good luck.
  • 0

#4 neuro

neuro
  • Posts: 1523

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:55

Also, the tendency to roll to the left is normal on that kind of plane. We could correct it with a trick but that would make the plane too different from what it's supposed to be. What can be done without interfering too much with the plane's characteristics, is to increase the joystick sensitivity just a little bit around the center, as shown here

The N28 will still try to roll to the left all the time, but it'll be much easier to keep it straight with just a light right aileron.

Also, while we're at it, many planes pull up a lot, and the N28 is one of them. Now the point is that those planes actually did pull up a lot, at least that's what I heard in a couple of documentaries, but one thing is controlling the real thing sitting in a relatively light plane thrown all over the place by the wind, and a completely different thing is to control a digital model using a short spring-loaded stick. Therefore, many of us consider acceptable to use joystick sensitivities to make them pull up a bit less, as shown here (the part about 'pitch', or plane pulling up/down, is about half way down the page)

Also, I made a small package for my squad mates, that would automatically install the joystick sensitivity curves that I was using back then. I changed my configuration since, and it doesn't matter because my sensitivity curves wouldn't work for anyone but myself. The idea is to have a starting point, from which you can keep tweaking and find your own settings. More info and download here
  • 0

#5 89

89
  • Posts: 593

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:40

Do the final training mission in SPAD13 first, then use the same tactics for N28. Albatroses and D7s are easy prey in N28 - just keep doing spiral climbs and they cant touch you. Then fall on them and kill them.
N28 rocks!
  • 0

#6 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:54

Do the final training mission in SPAD13 first, then use the same tactics for N28. Albatroses and D7s are easy prey in N28 - just keep doing spiral climbs and they cant touch you. Then fall on them and kill them.
N28 rocks!

Exactly. Fly the N28 just like a Spad XIII, and you'll have good results… even if in real i doubt it was same way as XIII.
  • 0

#7 89

89
  • Posts: 593

Posted 15 April 2012 - 11:39

Well N28 is not "the same" as SPAD13 in RoF either- it turns better, dives worse and is just is not as good overall. But justl like SPAD its a great climber, so that part of tactics works for both 100% :)
  • 0

#8 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 15 April 2012 - 11:51

I'm not quite on your point of view.
It rolls better than XIII, but the XIII turns equal as ROF N28, or so.
Full bank the XIII, reduce a bit of speed, and full pull the stick: it turns quite well while the N28 wants to keep it straight!
N28 is a good diver too (in ROF) but not as the XIII, i agree.
  • 0

#9 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 15 April 2012 - 12:31

Huh? Spad 13 easily out-turns the N28. The only scout the N28 can hang with in a turn is the Pfalz D.XII (or maybe the DH2?), and that's if the D.XII pilot doesn't use the altitude throttle.
  • 0

#10 Cess-Jmack

Cess-Jmack
  • Posts: 36

Posted 15 April 2012 - 12:42

thanks for the help and info i see there are diferent opinions … i found it real hard to fly, turns are hard and looses power pretty quick in a climb
  • 0

#11 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 15 April 2012 - 13:05

Wheter or not (I do believe it's not) the flight model is accurate is another topic but in Rof, the N28 is a bit of an up-down-don't-f*ck-around plane. She will work with the same tactics the SPAD series does, but survivability is much worse.

You may get great results depending on your gunnery when your trying to fly it on the edge or mix it up in furballs, but generally the key to lasting success in the N28 is discipline and preparation. A nice setup on a bounce will go along way, especially since you can use the blip switch to assail your opponent in complete silence. Make that first bounce count, disengage and take your time for a new setup.

In general, she's a bit of an underdog in historical matchups, but she's just as deadly as it's contemporaries in the hands of a capable pilot.
  • 0

#12 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 15 April 2012 - 13:21

Huetz,

I'm fairly certain that if you were in the N28 and had to fight yourself in almost any other scout in RoF, the N28's destruction would be decisive and quick. ;)
  • 0

#13 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 15 April 2012 - 13:25

Huetz,

I'm fairly certain that if you were in the N28 and had to fight yourself in almost any other scout in RoF, the N28's destruction would be decisive and quick. ;)

Hahaha, nice one Gav. Me, myself and I (the referee in that matchup) are glad this is never going to happen :D
  • 0

#14 Cess-Jmack

Cess-Jmack
  • Posts: 36

Posted 15 April 2012 - 14:56

i spend the time fighting my onw aircraft … instead of the enemy ones … anyway , passed the first mission and even shot an enemy bird …
  • 0

#15 89

89
  • Posts: 593

Posted 15 April 2012 - 18:34

i spend the time fighting my onw aircraft … instead of the enemy ones … anyway , passed the first mission and even shot an enemy bird …

You really should complete the final mission in the SPAD13 training campaign, once you "get it" there, you'll be ready for anything with N28. Do the final training mission! :)
  • 0

#16 Cess-Jmack

Cess-Jmack
  • Posts: 36

Posted 16 April 2012 - 02:06

im getting to know this one actually i kind of like it after i tamed it :) … the problem now its the engine, sometimes it behaves strangely

Cess-Jmack
  • 0

#17 SupaGringo

SupaGringo
  • Posts: 288

Posted 16 April 2012 - 14:18

i like it, the only trouble is, that it feels quite maneuverable, but giving in to that and start turnfighting will leave you depressive…
  • 0

#18 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 17 April 2012 - 14:05

If you add more than around 10 degrees of rudder or elevator deflection in the N28 you will begin to bleed energy way too fast. A low speed, low energy N28 pilot might just as well shoot themselves to save time.

N28 needs to be kept at high speed to maintain ANY effectiveness against other scouts. All it has are speed, a decent roll rate and a good stability for firing (at high speed).

Pairs of N28 can be very effective, but once you have more enemy than friendly planes around, the N28 should retire as it will come of second best when outnumbered.

Run the fuel mix a little leaner than that which gives max engine revs (unless you are extending) to avoid overcooling. Aim for engine revs of 1350 for general flight, but don't exceed 1450 for more than a few seconds or you will damage the engine.

Don't innitiate a combat at below 2000m with any other single-seat plane unless you heavily outnumber the enemy in that area. 3500m+ is even better, and you can even get away for a DVIIf with careful fuel mix/blip/15% dive from 3500m down to 2500m. If the DVIIf is still close he will most likely have over-revved his engine and you will be able to outclimb him and go on the offensive after that.
  • 0

#19 Cess-Jmack

Cess-Jmack
  • Posts: 36

Posted 18 April 2012 - 01:27

i noticed engine problems while trying to land , i reduced the throttle and nothing happened … also it jumping around

Cess-Jmack
  • 0

#20 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 18 April 2012 - 11:41

Because it doesn't have a traditional throttle. All you are doing is turning off cylinders.
  • 0

#21 Miggins

Miggins
  • Posts: 3115

Posted 18 April 2012 - 12:35

For landing the N28 set around 75% fuel mix and use the blip switch and side-slip to drop speed, keep blip depressed for 2 seconds and release for half a second to keep the engine turning but not providing significant thrust.

This way you can add power quickly should you need to counter a ground loop, bounce or make another turn around the field for your landing.

The power uptake using the blip rather than the cutting out cylinders is way more responsive.
  • 0

#22 Wykletypl

Wykletypl
  • Posts: 539

Posted 26 January 2015 - 19:18

Well, I know this one is getting old, But I kinda think I should mention it. I was doing some random research on the Internet, and I stumbled across this website: http://www.airminded.net/n28/n28.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.airminded.net/n28/n28.html

On it, there is a Data bank, based on reports and pilots' experiences, concerning the Nieuport 28. In short, this is that data bank, with other aircraft in comparison:

N.28 vs Speed Climb Dive Manuever
Spad 180 hp same (8) N.28 better(8)(9) Spad better(9) N.28 better(8)(9)
Albatros D.V DV faster (10) mixed (10)(11) DV better (12) N.28 better(11)
Camel N.28 faster(13) N.28 better (14) - -
Fokker D.VII - N.28 better (15) - N.28 better (15)
Rumpler (C Type) N.28 faster(16) - N.28 faster(16) N.28 better (16)
Albatros(C Type) N.28 faster(17) - - -
Pfaltz D.III - - D.III faster(18) -

I do not know how about You, but to me it once again makes a clear message- Nieuport 28 is not historically accurate in RoF. Every single reference material says it's supposed to be highly manouverable, but it's basically a lamer version of SPAD ingame. And there's no explanation for that - SPAD is heavy and big, so it has the right to not be good in turning fight, but 28 looks at least twice as small.

I did in fact asked the boss of 777 Studios about that, and all he said was 'The FMs ingame are all based on our data.' What data, Sir? That doesn't explain why this one particular aircraft is not what it should have been, according to the sources we can check out ourselves.

Well, You know what I am going to say right now - Once Again I ask 777 Studios to fix Nieuport 28's FM, as all my personal research clearly and loudly state out loud it's not what it should have been for Realism.
  • 0

#23 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 26 January 2015 - 20:41

If the N28 was so good why did the us change to the Spad?
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#24 Wykletypl

Wykletypl
  • Posts: 539

Posted 26 January 2015 - 21:03

If the N28 was so good why did the us change to the Spad?

Read the article on the website - it mentions it's problems. Besides, standarization - It's better to have one type in use than a dozen of different ones for the sake of logistics.

But I am not talking about that, I am talking about how does the plane fly ingame, and how it's nothing like in the descriptions of it provided.
  • 0

#25 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 26 January 2015 - 21:10

the Nieuport 28 as "a fast moving, fast acting gem" (7). What this means in absolute terms and how this and other early airplanes actually performed is a matter for debate.
Nothing in the article says more than this statement.
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#26 1PL-Husar

1PL-Husar
  • Posts: 559

Posted 26 January 2015 - 21:37

Crowood Aviation Series - Nieuport Aircraft of World War I

Attached Files

  • Attached File  n28.JPG   47.21KB   109 downloads
  • Attached File  N28c.JPG   86.26KB   107 downloads
  • Attached File  N28per.JPG   58.32KB   107 downloads

  • 0

34zg6jd.jpg


#27 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 26 January 2015 - 21:59

If the N28 was so good why did the us change to the Spad?

That's actually an interesting question and maybe not as obvious as it might seem.

In my opinion the Spad was chosen over and above the 28 for one reason. It dictated when and if the fight took place. Rotaries might have had the edge in a dogfight, but dogfights were a mugs game, assassination was the only game worth playing by 1918, if you wanted to live to see your laurels you chose the latter not the former. The Spad was the better plane.
  • 0

#28 1PL-Husar

1PL-Husar
  • Posts: 559

Posted 27 January 2015 - 07:58

If the N28 was so good why did the us change to the Spad?

That's actually an interesting question and maybe not as obvious as it might seem.

In my opinion the Spad was chosen over and above the 28 for one reason. It dictated when and if the fight took place. Rotaries might have had the edge in a dogfight, but dogfights were a mugs game, assassination was the only game worth playing by 1918, if you wanted to live to see your laurels you chose the latter not the former. The Spad was the better plane.

From beginning there was lots of problems with N28, the SPAD was/ look more reliable/save to pilots who know N28 and they didn't want add another risk to they jobs. This is my conclusion after reading about story of this plane and its pilots.
  • 0

34zg6jd.jpg


#29 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 27 January 2015 - 09:19

Read Eddie Rickenbackers book (online by now) and it becomes very clear why they chose the Spad. Even though the Nieuport was very maneuvrable (and could match easily what the Germans had at the time, it was slower and yould not dictate terms of the fight.

Most important, they way the put the "clothes" on the frame was moronic at best, resulting in sheding the canvas of the upper wing in violent maneuvers. You could catch the D.VII only in dives (or if they attacked you), but that meant you're close to losing your wings. Rickebacker even managed to land his crate without canvas on the upper wing, but most of his buddies couldn't do that. It was a narrow escape for him. He stated that the reluctance of fully exploiting the planes potential in combat probably got more pilots killed than any other factor. Basically it was a dogfighter plane in which the pilot didn't have faith. They were happy about getting the Spads and adjusted to the way a Spad is used in combat.

Z
  • 0

#30 FlyingShark

FlyingShark
  • Posts: 1941

Posted 27 January 2015 - 09:36

I think we best leave the N28 for what it is.
I'm all for realism but, the flaws of the plane in real life could never be modelled in a sim.
So, without the flaws of the real plane and with all it's pro's, we would have a UFO that's so fast and manouevrable at the same time that we would have a virtually unbeatable opponent in the sime, that it never was in real life. I think we will just have to cope with it.

:S!:
  • 0

You can vote my post up by clicking the green arrow on the right.


#31 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 27 January 2015 - 09:53

The nail in the coffin for the Nieuport 28 was August 1st, 1918, when the 27th Aero Squadron lost 6 pilots to a group of D.VIIs on one mission. By the next day most of the planes had been withdrawn in favor of the Spad 13.
  • 0

#32 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 27 January 2015 - 13:49

I love how people use the word "maneuverable" when describing aircraft. The Bismark was maneuverable, could it out turn a destroyer? NO.
Now the N28 it was "maneuverable"? Yes, but the question is how "maneuverable" was it? Was it as "maneuverable" as a DR1, a DVII? Is there any information on how "maneuverable" was it? Who knows 777 might have hit the nail on the head,until we have more information lets not complain to much, after all the French wanted on part of it.
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#33 actionjoe

actionjoe
  • Posts: 927
  • LocationNord, France.

Posted 27 January 2015 - 15:24

Was it as "maneuverable" as a DR1, a DVII? Is there any information on how "maneuverable" was it?

From memory, Nieuport pilots found they were on equal, with maybe a sligth advantage, in maneuverability against the DVII, the Fokker however was found faster and climb better.
  • 0

#34 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 27 January 2015 - 16:00

The nail in the coffin for the Nieuport 28 was August 1st, 1918, when the 27th Aero Squadron lost 6 pilots to a group of D.VIIs on one mission. By the next day most of the planes had been withdrawn in favor of the Spad 13.

You can try and rationalise this all you want, the Nieuport 28 was without a doubt the epitome of rotary turnfighters in WWI, bar none.



Gustave Delage (head engineer at Nieuport) certainly knew what he was doing when he designed the 28, but the plane came too late and at a time when the French Air Force had shifted both tactically and politically to the SPAD. They didn't need a good turnfighter, they needed the fastest possible diver. For the record, if Dr Who brought me back to 1918 and told me to fly a scout, any scout (who am I to say no to Dr Who?), it would certainly be the SPAD XIII. Dogfighting be damned, I want to live.

Anyhow, the USAAS pilots who got to fly the N28 were very successful against the outdated Albatros D.Va, which it could outturn, outrun, outclimb, out-frickin-everything. They were, however, no match for the D.VII, which performed better at the altitudes combat historically took place (3000m and above).

Obviously the plane was plagued by numerous problems related to its 160hp Gnome Monosoupape (mostly its fuel lines), an engine that was pushing the physical limits of what a block of spinning cylinders strapped to a wood and canvas kite can safely do. The airframe of the 28 also proved to be unable to deal with the induced stresses, and it would shed fabric in a dive.

After the war, the Nieuport-Delage NiD29, the direct successor to the N28 (equipped with an Hispano-Suiza inline engine rather than a Gnome rotary), would become France's mainstay fighter into the 1920s. So as you can see, the design was certainly not bad to begin with.



So far for history. Now let's take a look at RoF (multiplayer).

If the 28 would perform as historically expected, it would outfly God and all his angels below 1000m. Incidentally, the altitude at which 90% of combat takes place in RoF. The result would be virtual skies filled with N28s (unless they were severely limited in number by mission makers). A ludicrous sight, indeed. Not to mention it would lead to enormous frustration with Central pilots.

So in the end, in terms of gameplay balance (a dirty, dirty word… until a month ago), we can either expect to have a "nerfed" N28 (as we also have a "nerfed" Sopwith Triplane), or have a historically correct N28 and simply not be allowed to fly it at all.



Personally, in light of the recent changes to rotary planes, I was hoping for a speed reduction to the N28 and an increase in turnrate. Or more precisely: the ability to hold a sustained turn without bleeding airspeed to the point of stalling.

In essence, if the N28 should fly almost exactly as the Hanriot HD.1 does now (top speed 185km/h), and the Hanriot HD.1 in turn would have a top speed closer in line to that of the Camel (170km/h), then the late-war rotaries would certainly make more sense than they do now.

Of course, it's all part of "unforeseen technical issues and unintended consequences", the answer to any questions regarding FM discrepancies you might have.

I do think it's a shame that some new pilots' early flight experience in RoF will happen with the N28, leading to frustration (as with the topic starter). A frustrated customer is not one who will readily go and buy more planes in the store. It hurts 777 and it hurts me too, because I want targets for Capt.Darling when we fly our Halberstadt CL.II.



Bottom line: if you want to fly something close to the real Nieuport 28, try the Hanriot HD.1 (very good below 1000m, outclassed by the D.VII at altitude).

Fill the virtual skies with Belgian (and Italian) roundels!

:S!:
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#35 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 27 January 2015 - 16:20

You can try and rationalise this all you want, the Nieuport 28 was without a doubt the epitome of rotary turnfighters in WWI, bar none.


Sorry, that is really bullshit.. do you realize that choosing a rotary engine was based on power to weight ratio, not so much ever maneuverability, from an engineering point of view?

What you needed in late war was more power and speed and together with that goes, to a degree, a somewhat larger turning circle: you fly faster, you turn wider. Thats just phyics.

And the "more Power" thing: JUST that was the nemisis of the 28 because it couldn´t bring the "adding more power to the nieuport type" reliably to bear, engineeringwise. And tactically it was then also absolete. Sure, it may have outturned the old albies, but measuring against the obsolete planes that the enemy hasn´t been able to replace yet isn´t much for a new player on the field.

It had a lot of good design ideas, and with a lower wingloading then the N17 and lower weight to power rate it should be an interesting plane to fly, but "Epitome" no, not really. I´m all for a revision of its flight model, but I think the odd elevator behaviour is the first thing to look at, maybe it´ll allright after that without much further tuning, as I suspect that to cause the odd turning behaviour.


and while I totally love the hanriot, realismwise it has a bit of an UFO-FM with an overdominant engine



  • 0

#36 Wykletypl

Wykletypl
  • Posts: 539

Posted 27 January 2015 - 17:07

I love how people use the word "maneuverable" when describing aircraft. The Bismark was maneuverable, could it out turn a destroyer? NO.

Sorry to disappoint You, HillBilly, but You are talking to someone who is a fan of 'Bismarck', but not a fantard of it.

And I can tell You You made that statement out - There is no record saying 'Bismarck' was highly manouverable - Every source will tell You that 3 propellers, two steering wheel was a bad idea to choose for it. Not to mention, her hull shape would make fast turning impossible - Such was a price for making her a stable artillery platform at the limitation German Kiel Kanal had.

If anything, 'Bismarck's demise was caused by the fact she was rushed into her maiden voyage, without all trainings finished - For example, even though there were training with jammed rudder, none of them included a rudder jammed at an angle.

As for the Nieuport, look at Eddie Rickenbarker's book from a link available on the webiste I showed You. Here himself states out loud Nieuport 28 was moge agile than Albatross D.Va (And he was USA's Ace of Aces, so he certainly knew what he was saying). All he noticed that while climbing out to escape an Albatross diving on him.

If the Nieuport 28 was able to outturn D Va while climbing up - Read, when it was loosing speed - then it should be able to do so while in horizontal flight.

Sorry, my mind is very literal and logical - if the sources says one thing, I expect the game about 'Realistic Dogfights of the Era' to follow it.

And I don't know, maybe I would have been able to see Nieuport's full abilities if the enemy A.I. 'STOPPED FUCKING DIVING EVERY SINGLE TIME A DOGFIGHT STARTS'. - Sorry, I had to stress it out that way.
  • 0

#37 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 27 January 2015 - 17:18

Sorry, that is really bullshit.. do you realize that choosing a rotary engine was based on power to weight ratio, not so much ever maneuverability, from an engineering point of view?

What you needed in late war was more power and speed and together with that goes, to a degree, a somewhat larger turning circle: you fly faster, you turn wider. Thats just phyics.

I'm talking about turnrate, not turn radius (turning circle).

In fact, its turnrate is fine, it's the fact that it bleeds speed while turning that makes it so bad.


And the "more Power" thing: JUST that was the nemisis of the 28 because it couldn´t bring the "adding more power to the nieuport type" reliably to bear, engineeringwise. And tactically it was then also absolete. Sure, it may have outturned the old albies, but measuring against the obsolete planes that the enemy hasn´t been able to replace yet isn´t much for a new player on the field.

I agree, especially about the part that it "may have outturned the old albies".

The N28 was most certainly outclassed by the D.VII, especially at altitude. A good D.VII pilot should never be flying lower than 1000m anyway.


It had a lot of good design ideas, and with a lower wingloading then the N17 and lower weight to power rate it should be an interesting plane to fly, but "Epitome" no, not really. I´m all for a revision of its flight model, but I think the odd elevator behaviour is the first thing to look at, maybe it´ll allright after that without much further tuning, as I suspect that to cause the odd turning behaviour.

I agree as well.

"Epitome" is subjective. If we're talking about tightest turn radius, nothing will ever beat the Camel or Dr.I (and the fact that the Pup beats both is a little absurd – but it is after all slower, so it's not completely unthinkable). Turnfighting in my mind is turning without wasting energy (climbing), something the Hanriot excels at. If you try adding a turn element to your climb in the N28, results will be much more painful.


and while I totally love the hanriot, realismwise it has a bit of an UFO-FM with an overdominant engine

Absolutely agree.

I make the same point in my post. With its 110hp engine, it should be much closer in line to the Camel and N17 in terms of overall performance. I also believe that the speed and climb performance of the N28 is exaggerated (as I also pointed out in my post). In fact, it actually outclimbs the SPAD XIII in a straight cimb.

So you were quick to call my post bullshit, but I fail to see where we disagree, except perhaps the misunderstanding "turnrate" vs. "turn radius" or if you think I expect that it would outturn the Camel. All I want is for it to not fall out of the sky in a sustained turn.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#38 1PL-Husar

1PL-Husar
  • Posts: 559

Posted 27 January 2015 - 17:53

So in the end, in terms of gameplay balance (a dirty, dirty word… until a month ago), we can either expect to have a "nerfed" N28 (as we also have a "nerfed" Sopwith Triplane), or have a historically correct N28 and simply not be allowed to fly it at all.

In all respect sir seeing past devs answers about accusation that they put game balance before realism i don't believe in that statement. Furthermore last patch make albatros faster than pup and camel witch is in the direction of realism. Also they adminted about unforeseen technical issues and unintended consequences. Please have faith for developers and wait for them to fix these issues in final release.
  • 0

34zg6jd.jpg


#39 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 27 January 2015 - 18:25

Well, I simply doubt the N28 historically outflew everything below 1000m. It is unlikely. Also, it was a bad diver (also a bit price of the low wingloading and production methods) that did not accerlerate good and could not "dive away" as well as the roll rate with the small ailerons on the lower wings was more then likely worse then in any nieuport before.

And off course in a high bank turnfight, adding the tinyest bit of climb comes at exaggerated price. Even if we leave higher drag and centrifugal forces out, at some 60° bank only half of your lift goes into "up".
  • 0

#40 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 27 January 2015 - 20:10

Well, I simply doubt the N28 historically outflew everything below 1000m. It is unlikely.

Well, we disagree there. I'm really convinced that it would have been.

For three reasons:

  • Very few fights would still take place below 1000m, so its supremacy at low altitudes would not be readily apparent.
  • The USAAS were all relatively untested pilots, yet they did very well against outdated designs such as the Albatros D.Va and Fokker Dr.I.
  • As opposed to the Camel, it would still have sufficient speed to dictate (or avoid) low-level encounters.
  • But it got butchered at high altitude, the only thing that mattered, which prompted the type to be discarded.


If we translate this to RoF, I have no problem at all calling our current Hanriot HD.1 the epitome of rotary turnfighters. It's fast, and turns and climbs exceedingly well. Visibility is poor and firepower lacking (which is not the case for the Nieuport 28), but other than that, it outclasses everything below 1000m.

But we also know from the Belgians who flew the Hanriot HD.1, that it was in fact on-par with the Nieuport 23 (technically a more robust Nieuport 17 with the same slightly more powerful engine which is also in the Hanriot HD.1).

So if you copy-pasted the Hanriot's FM to the Nieuport 28, and copy-pasted the Nieuport 17's FM to the Hanriot and add something along the lines of 10km/h top level speed (175km/h instead of 165km/h), you'd end up with all Entente rotaries within 30km/h of each other, instead of 55km/h, and a much more believable late-war.

Nieuport 28: 200km/h > 185km/h
Hanriot HD.1: 185km/h > 175km/h
Sopwith Camel / Nieuport 17: 165km/h (no change)
  • 0

J5_Hellbender



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users