Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Nieuport 28.C1


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#41 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 27 January 2015 - 20:29

tldr: the N28 should fly like the Hanriot currently does, and the Hanriot shouldn't.
  • 0

#42 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4151
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 27 January 2015 - 20:36

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).

Rickenbacker's book is ghostwritten and so full of self-congratulating patriotism and propaganda I doubt the man made corrections or even bothered to read it before signing his name on it. He's not alone here, one of other examples is Udet's (dictated to an editor) "Cross versus Cockarde" book which describes Dr.Is as fast planes!
  • 0

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#43 Wykletypl

Wykletypl
  • Posts: 539

Posted 27 January 2015 - 21:22

Rickenbacker's book is ghostwritten and so full of self-congratulating patriotism and propaganda I doubt the man made corrections or even bothered to read it before signing his name on it. He's not alone here, one of other examples is Udet's (dictated to an editor) "Cross versus Cockarde" book which describes Dr.Is as fast planes!

I am not quite sure about this - Maybe because I didn't read the whole book. But still, if Eddie wrote in the previous chapter how he avoided a dogfight with the German, and then felt uncomfortable about being credited for a kill he was sure wasn't his, I doubt of him being an unreliable narrator.

As for Udet - he could have talked about how fast it reacted or turned, not necessarily about speed. And his 'acount' about dogfight with Guynemer - Guynemer might have not know who was that German pilot who could have killed him if not for the jammed guns (Udet didn't wrote 'Lo!' on his planes yet). And that's why he possibly never talked about him before being killed himself.
  • 0

#44 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 27 January 2015 - 21:29

I always thought the first mission in the N 28 campaign was hilarious, the one where you took off and intercepted a couple of Plafz DIII's over your airfield. The DIII flew like the N 28 should have and the N 28 flew like the DIII. The Light weight rotary engined N 28 sucked energy like stuck pig while the big heavy ( relatively speaking) in-line engined Plfaz waltzed on fairy dust.

Sure the N 28 had initial issues, but nothing that wasn't either resolved (like the upper wing fabric) or at least nothing out of the ordinary for contempory aircraft. It just wasn't right for good tactical air fighting late in the war. What did the Americans call their Scout squadrons, Pursuit Squadrons wasn't it ? That about sums their philosophy up, they took a leaf out of the Germans book, relying, preferably, on surprise and ambush. The Spad might have had the qualities of a flying brick but for aerial assassinations it was the best option of the two. If you wanted to hang around and play Ball on the other hand then the N 28 was a match for most, if not all, that the Germans could throw at it. You just had to hope that they would play fair and either let you catch them or allow you to go away if things got kind of out of hand. If you wanted a fight, no questions asked, the N 28 was a good option, if you wanted to return home and brag about it then the Spad was better.
  • 0

#45 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 28 January 2015 - 04:20

Hellbender, I'm not trying to rationalize anything. The fact is the USAS saw no future for the Nieuport 28 as a frontline fighter. It simply couldn't compete with the D.VII on equal terms.

That, and the fact that the plane was unanimously rejected by the French and only saw service because the Americans were desperate for aircraft says a lot.
  • 0

#46 Hellbender

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

Posted 28 January 2015 - 13:54

Hellbender, I'm not trying to rationalize anything. The fact is the USAS saw no future for the Nieuport 28 as a frontline fighter. It simply couldn't compete with the D.VII on equal terms.

That, and the fact that the plane was unanimously rejected by the French and only saw service because the Americans were desperate for aircraft says a lot.

Luke, regardless of its historical significance, are you okay with the fact that the N28 bleeds speed and loses elevator authority in a sustained turn to the point that it falls out of the sky?
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#47 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 28 January 2015 - 15:03

Hellbender, I'm not trying to rationalize anything. The fact is the USAS saw no future for the Nieuport 28 as a frontline fighter. It simply couldn't compete with the D.VII on equal terms.

That, and the fact that the plane was unanimously rejected by the French and only saw service because the Americans were desperate for aircraft says a lot.

Luke, regardless of its historical significance, are you okay with the fact that the N28 bleeds speed and loses elevator authority in a sustained turn to the point that it falls out of the sky?
Yes it should do exactly that if the turn radius is to small.
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#48 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 28 January 2015 - 15:55

Hellbender, I'm not trying to rationalize anything. The fact is the USAS saw no future for the Nieuport 28 as a frontline fighter. It simply couldn't compete with the D.VII on equal terms.

That, and the fact that the plane was unanimously rejected by the French and only saw service because the Americans were desperate for aircraft says a lot.

Luke, regardless of its historical significance, are you okay with the fact that the N28 bleeds speed and loses elevator authority in a sustained turn to the point that it falls out of the sky?
Yes it should do exactly that if the turn radius is to small.

While I agree here, and find that the N28 has a very good plane-like real feeling flightdynamic (can´t really judge much on how it matches the historical record, though), Bender has a bit of a point here. The N28 does seem lose more energy then other RoF-planes in a sustained turn, but I´ve always suspected that the other planes sort of lose too little. And occasionally there is something odd with the elevator.

I felt that mostly this elevator thing (together with the turn radius) is what keeps people from enjoying the plane, despite that it can be very very fun to fly. Just the sound alone makes my neighbours shut the windows in expectation of a lawnmover ;=)
  • 0

#49 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 28 January 2015 - 16:10

Try getting an N28 out of a dive. Not a lot of fun when the ground is approaching. Low level loopings are not advised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qyg9Yu1Q1Q&feature=youtu.be&t=2m20s
  • 0

#50 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 28 January 2015 - 16:32

While I agree here, and find that the N28 has a very good plane-like real feeling flightdynamic (can´t really judge much on how it matches the historical record, though), Bender has a bit of a point here. The
N28 does seem lose more energy then other RoF-planes in a sustained turn
, but I´ve always suspected that the other planes sort of lose too little. And occasionally there is something odd with the elevator.

I felt that mostly this elevator thing (together with the turn radius) is what keeps people from enjoying the plane, despite that it can be very very fun to fly. Just the sound alone makes my neighbours shut the windows in expectation of a lawnmover ;=)
There is a good reason for this, the engine , although it had plenty of horse power it lacked torque. So when the engine was loaded up it would lose HP/RPM.
Now there is a couple of other things that keeps it from being a good turn fighter.
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#51 Hellbender

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

Posted 28 January 2015 - 16:59

Luke, regardless of its historical significance, are you okay with the fact that the N28 bleeds speed and loses elevator authority in a sustained turn to the point that it falls out of the sky?

Yes it should do exactly that if the turn radius is to small.
The N28 does seem lose more energy then other RoF-planes in a sustained turn, but I´ve always suspected that the other planes sort of lose too little.

What you're essentially saying is that the Nieuport 28 doesn't enter an accelerated stall when pulled too hard in a turn, which is what all the other planes do (at least the ones that CAN stall due to pulling the elevator too hard, so not the Albatros, for example). You're effectively putting the nose of your plane inside your turn radius, which starts bleeding off speed until you stall due to lack of speed, not because of your initially high AoA. In other words: you're pulling a cobra turn (sort of).

Seeing as there's been complaints of cobra turns on the BoS forums (may have been fixed in the meantime, this was a while ago), it's not unthinkable that the Digital Nature engine has a problem with calculating how the very light and very powerful N28 should behave when its elevators are pulled too hard.

I'll perform some tests tonight, setting up a curve to limit the full range of the elevator.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#52 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 28 January 2015 - 17:28

uiuiui bender, now you start to serve the waffles HOT.. BOS, a closed thread AND the worst debated aerial maneuver on the interwebs.. ;=)


What you're essentially saying is that the Nieuport 28 doesn't enter an accelerated stall when pulled too hard in a turn, which is what all the other planes do (at least the ones that CAN stall due to high AoA, so not the Albatros, for example). You're effectively turning inside your turn radius and bleeding off speed until you stall due to lack of speed. In other words: you're pulling a cobra turn (sort of).

ok, I had to read up on the defintions a bit, but basically i feel you´re mixing things up…

if we go with the accelerated stall defintion that makes all stalls at load factors over 1g "accerlerated" any stall with a bank angle and in a turn means it is an accelerated one.

But it isn´t quite as simple as that. "Pulled too hard" can mean 2 different things, in an accellerated stall, the g-onset rate matters. ie: how fast you pull. Something we all use in aerobatics, lets in snap rolls, this "uuaaaarg"HMMPF" pulling moment of really ripping on the stick.. but you can also do the gentle too much.

So lets look at high AOA flight.. and the difference to feel regaring this "inertia" between course in the air and where the nose is pointing. That is not a 100% identical, because for AOA, only the condtions at the wing matter (and yet agian the onset plays a role). Stall, defined as lift coefficent droping with increasing angle of attack can have different characteristicas.. and stretch over a different profile, it is not point, but zone.

Hence why there are different stall charecteristics of planes. some thicker, thickness-forward wings like on the fokker DVII have a less sharp development of stalled condition (that ranges from simply lift coeficent starts to decrease to total flow colapse) and you can fly those odd "overdrawn" circles that cost so much energy but it is also how much authority the elevator still has.. and that is an elevator desing problem (which is nothing but an inverted wing in the airflow flow, doing downforce instead of lift.. but in a part of the flow that might already have seen too much aircraft before and hence be less nice and streamy…)

In the N28 this autority of the elevator to balance on the edges of stall is lacking or sometimes seems "blocked" as if it was too small elevator.. or in a flow-shadow from the wings, which may or maybe not correct.. no way to tell unless someone spins his 28 for us.. But that is what you are really critizing, the point at which the lack of elevator effectivness sharply sets in and it feels "wrong" that you can not pull more, even it means demise of the orderly flight path.. the old Pfalz III also had that a bit, bit it is very much gone.. And the albies to great accellerated stalls.. the D5 with wepon mods (for max weight) feels also quite convincing to me.

But I`ll agree, a bit more elevator authority would be benefical to the 28.

Hillybilly has a point though, with the engine and power loss per RPM… so I actually would favour only an elevator overhaul, as stated before, that should do the trick, in my eyes.
  • 0

#53 Hellbender

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

Posted 28 January 2015 - 17:44

uiuiui bender, now you start to serve the waffles HOT.. BOS, a closed thread AND the worst debated aerial maneuver on the interwebs.. ;=)

Haha yeah, I apologise for even bringing up the word "cobra". Those happen waaay beyond max AoA, not just a little beyond.

EDIT: Deleted the rest. We can discuss this further when Dr.Zebra finishes his post. I'll make some flight tests in the meantime.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#54 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 28 January 2015 - 17:56

Sorry, was still working the revious post… as I have to think some things through, dynamics of high AoA flight is super interesting but definatly something I need to learn more on.

But just from the gut feel, I actually like the high AoA dynamic in the Digital Nature engine.. and think it is not flawed at all.. the thing i dislike comes AFTER that: stall recovery. Which actually seems less bad in the 28 and a tad bit more convincing.


But the physics are the same, really, and what I think might explain the odd elevator behaviour and the inexplicable loss of airspeed in what feels like a sustained turn, but in fact isn't: no accelerated stall to prevent you from going over your max AoA.

the loss of airspeed is not soo inexplicable. I´m with hillybilly that it is physicswise very explicable. And the lack of "accelerated stall" as explanation would kind of mean you would have difference between course through air and where the nose is pointing, so it would be more like the fokkers.. But it is rather the opposite. you can not do much "nose high" sillyness in the 28. When you "can not pull further" the nose is not pointing away much from the courseline. So it is elevator authority.



and for randomness a triplane *RAGEÜÄÄ*


  • 0

#55 Hellbender

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

Posted 28 January 2015 - 20:24

Oh my…

Oh my…

OH MY…


I'll report back soon, I promise.

If you don't hear from me again, tell my Nieuport I love her.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#56 Hellbender

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

Posted 28 January 2015 - 20:55

Could you please give this curve a go:

Image

(75% positive elevator, 100% negative elevator)

I think the sweet spot may even still be a little higher than 75%, but it's a good start.

She turns like a pig (like Jorri said, do NOT try looping at low altitude), but with this limitation, I can no longer push her so hard as to trigger the odd elevator behaviour.

EDIT: Preset added in attachment.

Attached Files


  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#57 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 28 January 2015 - 22:51

that actually may be another method but the same conclusion.. I just realized that the "last" bit of pull on the stick is not changing nose attitude but still costs energy, so you don´t really have a feedback point for not "overpulling"

meanwhile ruthless british propaganda slanders the albatross again… (I got a little bit distracted)


  • 0

#58 Hellbender

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

Posted 28 January 2015 - 22:55

Hahaha, love how you lose a wheel when hitting that balloon.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#59 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 29 January 2015 - 01:03

I too find that the elevator runs out of power. Find attached a nice diagram of tail surface blanking "shadowing" modelling used in a model plane flight simulator. I suppose that RoF uses something similar.

Testing I performed years ago indicated that the N28 has the lowest CLmax

http://riseofflight....10736&mode=view" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">download/file.php?id=10736&mode=view

But, the RoF N28 seems to run out of elevator before it gets to the stall.

Attached Files


  • 0

#60 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 29 January 2015 - 06:17

Luke, regardless of its historical significance, are you okay with the fact that the N28 bleeds speed and loses elevator authority in a sustained turn to the point that it falls out of the sky?

In the absence of better data being presented, yes, I am.
  • 0

#61 Hellbender

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

Posted 29 January 2015 - 10:37

Heh, this couldn't have been published at a better time:

Re: PC Pilot ROF Edition

Image
Image

Not saying PC Pilot is an authoritative source, but at least my feelings are shared by people who play flightsims for money.

The issue is totally worth the purchase, by the way, it's very complete and I'm sure it will bring some new interest to the sim.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#62 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 29 January 2015 - 12:17

Really?!? oh come on.. there really is LARGE enourmously LARGE difference between playing simulator games and flying in a real aircraft in some regards.

Saying fanboistic "ohh it was super fighter… it only suffered from those minor little technical issuses, but it´s just that spontaniously combusted several times, but what greeeeat fighter" and really climbing in a type you have seen to apparently reasonless catch fire twice… and that was reported to lose up to 25 of its performace after the first hours to fight for your life… I know what I would have hated here with a passion..

other then that, it is just merely stating the obvious

sorry if I sound groumpy, but I feel like the gui-overhaul today has been done by designers from hell..
  • 0

#63 Hellbender

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

Posted 29 January 2015 - 15:46

Really?!? oh come on.. there really is LARGE enourmously LARGE difference between playing simulator games and flying in a real aircraft in some regards.

Saying fanboistic "ohh it was super fighter… it only suffered from those minor little technical issuses, but it´s just that spontaniously combusted several times, but what greeeeat fighter" and really climbing in a type you have seen to apparently reasonless catch fire twice… and that was reported to lose up to 25 of its performace after the first hours to fight for your life… I know what I would have hated here with a passion..

other then that, it is just merely stating the obvious

sorry if I sound groumpy, but I feel like the gui-overhaul today has been done by designers from hell..

Okay, you're obviously very upset by the GUI redesign (I haven't seen it yet, so I may still become upset as well), but let's try to make some sense of your post.

The issues it suffered were far from minor. The bloody thing did catch fire, it did shed fabric and as you said, all rotaries lose power after the first few hours of flight.

Is that a reason why a turnfighter shouldn't be able to turn? No, I don't think so. And clearly I'm not the only one thinking that, both on and off this forum.


RoF has a very advanced damage model, and the devs have clearly shown that they want to take anecdotal engine peformance into account.

So why not just:

  • Make the engine extremely prone to catching fire – blip more than two seconds, or catch one bullet and that's it, you're a flamer
  • Make the wings take damage as you dive too hard – apply the damage visual effect, do it too often and they simply get ripped off
  • Slow the engine down to bring it in line with a "worn down" Gnome Monosoupape – same as was done with the Camel's "worn down" Clerget

and finally

  • Just let a turnfighter be a turnfighter…


I don't see myself as a fanboy of the N28, just someone who would like to see an underappreciated plane reach its full potential. Even if the type was completely irrelevant and the pilots who flew it stood no chance against the BnZ tactics of Germans in their Fokker D.VIIs. I also still don't think its FM is necessarily wrong. Perhaps it is really all the other FMs that are far too forgiving in a turn.

Heck, I don't even care in terms of multiplayer, really. I'm in any case going to keep on flying the snappiest of all the French turnfighters. The only one that can really hold a turn with an Albatros, and can twist around on a dime on accounts of its insanely responsive rudder. The 1076kg, 310hp V12 Breguet. I wish I was joking.


And when it comes to really being a fanboy, I'm a huge fanboy of the Hanriot.

Here's a picture of its top balloon-busting ace, Willy Coppens, and his biggest fanboy (we were even born in the same part of Brussels):

Looks familiar?
ImageImage

…in spite of being a fanboy, I still wish the Hanriot was "worn down" by at least 10km/h to be more in line with the "worn down" Camel. And I also wish more people would pick the Camel over the Hanriot, instead of what's happening now. The Hanriot just wasn't a relevant plane.


So calling me, or other people who question the N28, a fanboy is making things just a wee bit personal.

But I understand that you're upset, so let's not dwell on words.

:S!:
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#64 Wykletypl

Wykletypl
  • Posts: 539

Posted 29 January 2015 - 16:07

Well, the Hellbender above put it best in just one line.

I too am not a fanboy of N28 (in fact, after seeing what is going on on Deviantart I prefer to stay our of fanbases), but with me the point is when I do research on my own, and more than two sources say the exact same thing, then it's reliable.

And that is the problem with N28 - all the sources I had read say it's a turnfighter. WELL IF IT'S A TURNFIGHTER, WHY CAN'T IT ACT LIKE A TURNFIGHTER? WHY DOES RoF FORCE PLAYER TO FLY IT LIKE IT WASN'T DESIGNED FOR? Were they inspired by British Crusader Tank or something (Similar story between the two, guys?

Also, when talking about fixing it, think how much more intriguing 'Hat in The Ring' campaign and Belgian Career mode would have been if by changing planes You fly the game forced You to use different tactics, based on planes' specifications.
  • 0

#65 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 29 January 2015 - 16:51

hey, the "fanboism" part was aimed at PC pilot, because I usually scrape my head at the very comon noton of plastic-modelers, aviation fans all sorts of enthusiasts that so often declares a plane "good" despite lifethreating facts. A plane that is not reliably bringing it´s technically-theoretical performance regardless of how great this performance on paper is not good. And if it kills you, not at all good.


and yes, I am a bit of an N28 fanboy. I enjoy flying it in RoF, albeit not in combat and I am all for making it a more historic turnfigher (and let see some mp use) but I wish it would retain it´s good sides in whatever changes, like some of the energy losing behaviour, which kind of feels good and right from my perspective.. in combination with light weight and relative powerful engine, just flightdynamicswise. Yet again, I think the turnradius is more a problem for most players.. and making it turn better then an albie would likely be historically correct and gameplay wise beneficial.


Am also completly with you on the hanriot, from fm, gameplay and historic perspective you are just plain right there, no arguing. It is beautiful plane, but the overdominant engine takes a bit away from how good it could be in RoF.

and I am also a Willy Coppens fan, as I stated elsewhere but I haven´t been able to do his historical ballon top landing in the hanriot.

So all i do is occasional Coppens-rememberance-day-greeting to sleepy friendly balloncrews:

  • 0

#66 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 29 January 2015 - 20:06

Three reasons the Nieuport 28.C1 WAS NOT a turn-fighter.
Design,design,and design.
First the engine design, the Gnome 9n lacked the torque to maintain the HP and RPMs in high load situations. Increasing the drag = increasing the engine load = reduced HP& RPM.

Second the design of the wings, the upper wing is the dominant one. By placing the ailerons on the lower wing they have to do more work to force the upper wing to roll. This creates more drag than placing the ailerons on the upper wing.

Third the tail movement is rather long for a fighter, (good turn-fighters have short tail movements,like the DR1). What this does is more elevator and rudder input is required to make rapid changes in direction, and this causes more drag.
What the N28 was designed for was to compete with the Spad, but did not achieve this.
In general the Nieuport 28 was a so so airplane for 1917-1918.
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#67 Wykletypl

Wykletypl
  • Posts: 539

Posted 29 January 2015 - 21:21

Three reasons the Nieuport 28.C1 WAS NOT a turn-fighter.
Design,design,and design.
First the engine design, the Gnome 9n lacked the torque to maintain the HP and RPMs in high load situations. Increasing the drag = increasing the engine load = reduced HP& RPM.

Second the design of the wings, the upper wing is the dominant one. By placing the ailerons on the lower wing they have to do more work to force the upper wing to roll. This creates more drag than placing the ailerons on the upper wing.

Third the tail movement is rather long for a fighter, (good turn-fighters have short tail movements,like the DR1). What this does is more elevator and rudder input is required to make rapid changes in direction, and this causes more drag.
What the N28 was designed for was to compete with the Spad, but did not achieve this.
In general the Nieuport 28 was a so so airplane for 1917-1918.

Then here is a good question - If You say N 28 was not a turnfighter, why does every single source, including one here, on RoF website, say it was one?
  • 0

#68 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 29 January 2015 - 21:56

Maneuverable and turn-fighter are two different words, meaning two different things.Please post references stating the N28 was a turn-fighter.
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#69 Hellbender

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

Posted 30 January 2015 - 09:52

Three reasons the Nieuport 28.C1 WAS NOT a turn-fighter.
Design,design,and design.
First the engine design, the Gnome 9n lacked the torque to maintain the HP and RPMs in high load situations. Increasing the drag = increasing the engine load = reduced HP& RPM.

I'd like to read up on that. Could you please post a reference?

From my understanding, its performance would drop off rapidly at altitude. It would also need very frequent overhauls and be expensive to build and maintain. And, it had other technical issues. But working in reasonable condition, it would be exceedingly powerful under 1000m.


Second the design of the wings, the upper wing is the dominant one. By placing the ailerons on the lower wing they have to do more work to force the upper wing to roll. This creates more drag than placing the ailerons on the upper wing.

If there's one thing RoF's N28 can do, it's roll. So what are you saying exactly? That it shouldn't be able to roll like it does, or that the drag it generates while using the ailerons is the sole reason why the elevators are so unresponsive in a turn?

Then why isn't it able to easily do loops at low altitude, or even pull out of a dive, when no ailerons are used?


Third the tail movement is rather long for a fighter, (good turn-fighters have short tail movements,like the DR1). What this does is more elevator and rudder input is required to make rapid changes in direction, and this causes more drag.

Size of the elevators compared to the tail is comparable or even relatively smaller than those on the N17.

I'd be more than happy if it had the same rate of turn.


What the N28 was designed for was to compete with the Spad, but did not achieve this.
In general the Nieuport 28 was a so so airplane for 1917-1918.

As for how it was designed, if the Nieuport 28 would have been a first design for Delage, then yes, I'd have bought the whole "only built for beating the SPAD" argument. But it was obviously designed from the earlier Nieuports. Much like the Albatros D.Va was designed from the earlier D.III. I'm not saying the design was entirely successful (as with the D.Va – also a so-so plane), but not to the point of it falling out of the sky in a turn.


Maneuverable and turn-fighter are two different words, meaning two different things.Please post references stating the N28 was a turn-fighter.

Please post references stating that the Albatros (D.II, D.III, D.Va) was a turn-fighter. And don't give me "maneuverable" or "controllable", but specifically "turn-fighter". Yes, they outclassed the Nieuport 11 and 17, with higher speed, better dive and twin Spandaus, but it sure as hell didn't outturn them as it was "heavy on the controls". In RoF, all the Albatros fighters outturn all the Nieuports, even the Hanriot if you don't add a vertical element to your climb.

And please also post references stating that the Camel's top speed at sea level was 165km/h. And don't give me "slower on the level than everything else except the Fokker Dr.I". Slower where? On the level at what altitude? Over 3000m, where combat historically took place? Yes, of course it would have been slower at high altitude than scouts with inline engines. The fact that it's not just a little bit slower now, but dead slow at sea-level in RoF makes no sense.

But I digress. What remains irreconcilable with history for me in the N28's current FM in, is that it was rejected by the French. Why would they have rejected it? For the same reason they had rejected the Hanriot. Because it was a turn-fighter and belonged to an outdated fighter doctrine, even if elements of the SPAD were used to make it faster. If they were presented RoF's N28, they wouldn't have cared about the fact that it is a poor turner. Incidentally, RoF's Nieuport 28 climbs better than the SPAD XIII and has a great dive (no shedding of fabric whatsoever until the plane completely disintegrates at around 360km/h). We do not currently have the plane the French rejected. Sure, they would have rejected this one too. Anyone who takes it up for a test flight and sees that it can't hold a turn would, but that's rationalizing the flaws in its FM.



You know, this argument is going to keep turning circles (much like a Nieuport 28 doesn't). The fact that it's been reopened was a mistake (sorry, Wykletypl). The fact that the slow tail on takeoff was fixed and the rest of the plane was left the same, once and for all stating that the N28's FM is correct the way it is, was also a mistake (sorry, 777). It's a stone that was best left unturned.

For what it's worth, the biggest complaint I'm hearing from Central pilots right now, is that there is no more turn-fighting happening and everyone just runs away at high speed in their SPAD and SE5a. And this is, after all, historically accurate.

So in closing for me: RoF is fine the way it is. The most reasonable way of approaching the Nieuport 28 is to keep pretending that it doesn't exist. Enjoy your beloved Albatros (since it's in your avatar, I might as well call you a fanboy). Enjoy the fact that it outturns everything except the Camel and Pup and that you'll never get to use that turnrate, except maybe against some new pilot who makes the mistake thinking a Nieuport is a turn-fighter (the whole reason this thread was started in the first place).
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#70 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 30 January 2015 - 14:32

You have convinced yourself that the N28 was a turn fighter, the only notability the type had was the US was forced to use it due to lack of Spads.
So in closing for me: RoF is fine the way it is. The most reasonable way of approaching the Nieuport 28 is to keep pretending that it doesn't exist. Enjoy your beloved Albatros (since it's in your avatar, I might as well call you a fanboy). Enjoy the fact that it outturns everything except the Camel and Pup and that you'll never get to use that turnrate, except maybe against some new pilot who makes the mistake thinking a Nieuport is a turn-fighter (the whole reason this thread was started in the first place).
And you are right I'm a fanboy on the Alby and have been for a long time well before the "FIX". And I have taken down my share of Camels, Pups and N28s. I feel that the N28 is the most accurate FM in the game bar none.
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#71 Hellbender

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

Posted 30 January 2015 - 15:00

You have convinced yourself that the N28 was a turn fighter, the only notability the type had was the US was forced to use it due to lack of Spads.

You've convinced yourself that it wasn't.

The US were forced to use it for the same reason the Belgians were forced to fly the Hanriot and Camel instead of the SPAD XIII.


I feel that the N28 is the most accurate FM in the game bar none.

Absolutely agree. Let's campaign to get all the other FMs fixed to the point where every plane fall outs of the sky in a turn.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#72 Wykletypl

Wykletypl
  • Posts: 539

Posted 30 January 2015 - 15:40

Allright, You know what, guys? I know I might accused for trolling for saying something l;ike this, but I guess I know why ==NFF=HillBilly is so against making N28 what almost says it should be. I am not going to describe it, myself, but listen to this video:
https://www.youtube....h?v=mf5Uj4XIT1Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">

And focus on the final conclusions. It may be wrong, but for my way of thinking it explains his logic.

As for the N28 and Albatros D.Va, if You really need some proof why N28 should turn better than Albie, I have a proposition: Take their maximum weight, the horsepower of their engines, and calculate their power per weight ratio.

Why this particular one? If You read about Japanese Zeros, or any Japanese fighters, then You know they were highly manouverable because they were extremely light and had powerful engines when compared to their weight. And if You played the Flight Sim, then You know how fast planes loose power while in turning - So it better for them for have this power per weight ratio as high as possible.

So let me calculate this (Data from English Wikipedia):
Albatros D. Va
Maximum Weight: 937 kg (Yeah, almost a Tonne)
Engine Power: 200 hp
Power per Weight: about 0.22

Nieuport 28:
Maximum Weight: 560 kg
Engine Power: 160 hp
Power per Weight: about 0.28

See? Numbers say it loud out - Even though N 28's rotary engine causes more drag due to it's design, it shouldn't be enough to make it lesse manouverable than the overweight Albatros.
  • 0

#73 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 30 January 2015 - 16:07

First if you are going to compare weights please do it right. The N28 436/698= average of 567, the DVa 680/915= average of 797 not 937,(which is more than take off weight). The speed of the N28 is what keeps it from turning with the DVa, keep the speed up and you will rule the DVa.
Bye the way my numbers is from ROF store, I have been told too many times that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#74 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 30 January 2015 - 16:12

@ Hellbender
Absolutely agree. Let's campaign to get all the other FMs fixed to the point where every plane fall outs of the sky in a turn.
Really? :(
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#75 Hellbender

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

Posted 30 January 2015 - 17:36

See? Numbers say it loud out - Even though N 28's rotary engine causes more drag due to it's design, it shouldn't be enough to make it lesse manouverable than the overweight Albatros.

It's not as easy as that, though.

Otherwise you might as well remove the wings altogether and say its power to weight ratio is even better now, and basically it will be a rotary-powered rocket, which I can guarantee you won't turn. When you take what piecost has said before into account, we know that the N28 has low CLmax combined with a pretty high stall speed. After all, it has pretty a pretty low wing surface area.

http://riseofflight....10736&mode=view" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">download/file.php?id=10736&mode=view

So you should never expect it to have a great turn radius. What it should however be able to do, is turnfight like the Hanriot can.

Well, the opposite of the Hanriot, in fact. I'll explain.


The Hanriot can make a very good turn (on the level of Nieuport 17) combined with a good climb (on the level of SPAD 7 150hp), in order to counter the Albatros's excellent turn and average climb. In effect: the Albatros can't raise its nose high enough to get shots in while turning at the same time. So in effect, you're climbing in a shallow, tight spiral (chandelle), while the Albatros turns below you in a flat, very tight turn. You're basically beating its excellent horizontal turn with a little bit of climb.

What the Nieuport 28 should be able to to, is combine a decent turn (on the level of SE5a) with an excellent climb (better even than the SPAD XIII), at least at low altitudes. In effect, the Albatros can't turn its nose far enough to get shots in while climbing at the same time (so the opposite of the above). Right now, you can't do that, you're bleeding too much airspeed and you'll effectively fall out of the sky, instead of climbing in a steep, wide spiral (chandelle). You need to beat its average vertical climb with (comparatively) a lot of turn.

Does that make it a turnfighter? YES, absolutely. In the same way the Nieuport 17 pre-fix (a long time ago) was a turnfighter. One that can turn circles above the enemy, without being able to turn inside its turn radius. All the Nieuport 28 needs to be able to do that, is a turn radius comparable to the SE5a, and they're both pretty close in CLmax.


The Albatros can counter both the Hanriot and the (proposed) Nieuport 28 with a "predictive" prophang.

This, in turn, can be countered by changing the direction of your chandelle.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#76 Wykletypl

Wykletypl
  • Posts: 539

Posted 31 January 2015 - 22:18

Speaking of dogfighting, let me tell You my own experience - I fly a British career in Bomber squadron, and I prefer flying Airco D.H. 4. Because it can dogfight as well - It might take some time, but it's relatively easy in it to get behind and Albie, and damage it enough to destroy it. Especially when You have two guns.

A Bomber does much better job than Nieuport 28 here - Digressing from Historical sources, You don't think that this sounds at the very least weird? If anything, N 28 should be just as good in a dogfight as the Airco D.H. 4
  • 0

#77 Panthercules

Panthercules
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 16289

Posted 01 February 2015 - 03:36

Speaking of dogfighting, let me tell You my own experience - I fly a British career in Bomber squadron, and I prefer flying Airco D.H. 4. Because it can dogfight as well - It might take some time, but it's relatively easy in it to get behind and Albie, and damage it enough to destroy it. Especially when You have two guns.

A Bomber does much better job than Nieuport 28 here - Digressing from Historical sources, You don't think that this sounds at the very least weird? If anything, N 28 should be just as good in a dogfight as the Airco D.H. 4

Sticking with the historical sources, it's clear that the American air service only got the N28s because the French didn't want them (heck, even the Nieuport factory switched over to building SPAD 13s after making only a few N.28s), and the Americans traded in their N28s for SPADs as soon as enough SPADs were available. On the other hand, the DH-4s were so good that the Americans also started building them in the US and shipping them over to the Front, and kept using as many DH-4s as they could get their hands on right up until the end of the war.

That should tell you something about why the DH-4 can out-dogfight the N28.

:lol:
  • 0

New "Useful Materials" page now available: http://riseofflight....ks/#entry628960
Useful Skinning-related Info:  http://riseofflight....g-related-info/  
Spammers banned while still online: RoF SPAM killer markings 58.jpg


#78 Wykletypl

Wykletypl
  • Posts: 539

Posted 01 February 2015 - 09:19

Sticking with the historical sources, it's clear that the American air service only got the N28s because the French didn't want them (heck, even the Nieuport factory switched over to building SPAD 13s after making only a few N.28s), and the Americans traded in their N28s for SPADs as soon as enough SPADs were available. On the other hand, the DH-4s were so good that the Americans also started building them in the US and shipping them over to the Front, and kept using as many DH-4s as they could get their hands on right up until the end of the war.

That should tell you something about why the DH-4 can out-dogfight the N28.

:lol:

About 300 units produced in total is kinda hard to call it 's few' (Fokker dr. 1 had just 20 more units produced). And yes, I know even 'Red Baron' game from 1990 called the N 28 'mediocre'. But mediocre doesn't exactly mean bad (Even Fokker E.III and Moraine Bullet were more bashed in that game, and there were also called 'mediocre').

Still, since my mind is very literal and logical, I still think N 28 should be as manouverable as Albatros D Va. Because it wasn't certainly built for Energy Fighting. Aside from it's upper wing ripping in High-G dive, it's own construction says it.

Look at typical Boom and Zoom scouts: SPADs, S.E.5a and Pfalz D.XII. Do you notice some similarities between them? All four(five) of them are big, heavy and have powerful engines, needed to built up energy in Boom before going for Zoom. Nieuport 28 simply doesn't fit here.

And since after 1.034 update the fighters that had their FMs previously done wrong (like the Sopwith Pup, Triplane and Dolphin) now are on equal in turning fight with Albatrosses, I do not understand why N 28 was left out of the bunch.

If anything, if it's not for the manouverability, I would like to see how N 28 would behave after modifying it's energy management. Because I noticed most 'turn'-fighters in a turn fight keep speed at around 130 km/h, while N 28 has difficulty with keeping up 110 km/h. Meaning Your only option is to get behind D.Va first, wait for it to be forced to go straight a few seconds and then open fire on it and hope You will damage it enough to at least break off the fight.

And like I said, since N 28 is a very light airplane (560 kg at full compared to 937 kg of Albatros D. Va), I do not understand why it performs so poorly ingame.
  • 0

#79 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 01 February 2015 - 13:59

Wykletypl you are wrong about the S.E.5a it is small aircraft,about the same size as the N28 but weights more.
The biggest problem with N28 was it's engine,(a engine that never should been placed in a fighter) it is gutless.
Keep your speed up( above 170kph)and it is good. "note" It is not a B&Z, it is not a turn-fighter it is in between.
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#80 Hellbender

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

Posted 01 February 2015 - 16:54

The biggest problem with N28 was it's engine,(a engine that never should been placed in a fighter) it is gutless.

Where did you read this, exactly?
  • 0

J5_Hellbender



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users