Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What influences plane's manouverability


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 Wykletypl

Wykletypl
  • Posts: 541

Posted 12 March 2016 - 15:43

Well, exactly what is says on the tin. From what I knew about the war in the Pacific, I always thought the lighter planes were almost the most manouverable of all (And it stayed that way throughout the war in the Pacific).

 

So You can imagine my surprise when in RoF, a Nieuport 28, for some reason, cannot outturn an Albatross D. Va, which is at least 300 kg heavier than it. That means the case of scout's manouverability is a little more complex?

 

So what does make the scout better in a turn than it's adversary?


  • 0

#2 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 12 March 2016 - 20:03

 

 

So what does make the scout better in a turn than it's adversary?

The one with a higher lift to drag ratio will turn better.


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#3 remcov

remcov
  • Posts: 100

Posted 13 March 2016 - 18:06

Its a bit more complictared than just high L/D value. Structural limits of plane, engine limits and max lift capacity play a role.

http://www.faa.gov/r...anuals/aviation

On page 180 of the pdf aerodynamics for naval engineers it is nicely explained with also some graphs for clarification
  • 0

#4 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4145

Posted 19 March 2016 - 13:18

The one with a higher lift to drag ratio will turn better.

 

+1

 

It is a question of sacrificing airspeed for manoeuvrability and vice-versa. A higher lift to drag ratio will give you a better turn-rate, particularly at lower airspeed. OTOH you might prefer the superior airspeed but you cannot have both, all else being equal.


  • 1

#5 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 19 March 2016 - 13:33

+1

 

It is a question of sacrificing airspeed for manoeuvrability and vice-versa. A higher lift to drag ratio will give you a better turn-rate, particularly at lower airspeed. OTOH you might prefer the superior airspeed but you cannot have both, all else being equal.

(Disclaimer) I think people confuse maneuverability with sustaining a level turn, the latter requires a high L/D ratio and power,(torque). :icon_e_salute:    


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#6 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 19 March 2016 - 15:19

Yes, "maneuverable" is ambiguous.  Some of its meanings are...

 

high roll rate

high sustained turn rate

small turn radius

responsive controls

 

None of which necessarily go together.

 

At the same time, pilots universally describe the N28 as slower and more maneuverable than the Albatros.  In the game it is the exact opposite.  Welcome to Rise of Flight. :icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#7 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4145

Posted 20 March 2016 - 14:05

(Disclaimer) I think people confuse maneuverability with sustaining a level turn, the latter requires a high L/D ratio and power,(torque). :icon_e_salute:    

 You are quite right. The OP asked specifically about a turn (I presume a level-turn) so 'maneuvrability' is ambiguous in that context. OTOH, you can define 'turn' as any change of direction in any dimension. Barrel-rolls, wingovers, yoyos and zooms all have turn elements affected by the L/D ratio. By 'all else being equal' I was, of course, referring to the effect of airspeed and T/W ratio.

Cheers.


  • 0

#8 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 20 March 2016 - 14:22

Yes, "maneuverable" is ambiguous.  Some of its meanings are...

 

high roll rate

high sustained turn rate

small turn radius

responsive controls

 

None of which necessarily go together.

 

At the same time, pilots universally describe the N28 as slower and more maneuverable than the Albatros.  In the game it is the exact opposite.  Welcome to Rise of Flight. :icon_e_salute:

LOL   Was it not Eddie Rickenbacker that said his Nieuport 28 could not match the turn of a Albatros 2 seater ?


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#9 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 20 March 2016 - 15:41

Wasn't that near 19,000ft?


  • 0

#10 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 20 March 2016 - 15:50

Wasn't that near 19,000ft?

Would not both plane suffer from the same turnablity  at altitude? I can see where the N28 would suffer from engine performance at 19,000 ft, but turning? 


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#11 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 20 March 2016 - 19:27

Engine performance drop off would be similar.  Lift efficiency does not decrease linearly with altitude, and how it decreases depends a lot on wing design.  Albatros two seaters had high aspect ratios (long, narrow wings like a U-2), while the N-28 had a pretty low aspect ratio.  Even if the N-28 has lower wing loading, its L/D ratio will become worse faster as altitude increases.


  • 0

#12 Demon_

Demon_
  • Posts: 2080

Posted 20 March 2016 - 19:36

Interesting, thanks you. Get it Billy? :icon_e_biggrin:


  • 0

#13 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 20 March 2016 - 20:34

 Get it Billy? :icon_e_biggrin:

Get what? That a U2 will out turn a F4 Phantom at 60,000 feet. ;)


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#14 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4145

Posted 20 March 2016 - 23:11

Engine performance drop off would be similar.  Lift efficiency does not decrease linearly with altitude, and how it decreases depends a lot on wing design.  Albatros two seaters had high aspect ratios (long, narrow wings like a U-2), while the N-28 had a pretty low aspect ratio.  Even if the N-28 has lower wing loading, its L/D ratio will become worse faster as altitude increases.

 

At altitude, thrust falls off in proportion to weight. (the T/W ratio). Drag falls off in proportion to lift and the lift/drag ratio (as a whole) falls off in proportion to airspeed. The aspect-ratio make no difference to this because the lift/drag ratio (as a whole) always changes in proportion to airspeed and not wingloading.

 

High aspect-ratio might increase the absolute ceiling (level-flight only) but does nothing to increase the service ceiling (controllable flight). Generally speaking, it is the ratio of thrust-to-weight that decides the service-ceiling.

 

During level-flight at sea-level there is always a usable excess of thrust over weight at cruise-speed (often, but not always, ~20%) but this decreases to zero with altitude (the absolute ceiling). In other words, you would get more service altitude only by increasing thrust at an ever-increasing proportion to weight.

 

Cheers.


  • 0

#15 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 26 March 2016 - 14:40

So You can imagine my surprise when in RoF, a Nieuport 28, for some reason, cannot outturn an Albatross D. Va, which is at least 300 kg heavier than it. That means the case of scout's manouverability is a little more complex?

 

So what does make the scout better in a turn than it's adversary?

 

The ROF devs created the first planes in the image of their own mind's eye.  aka, they made them up to a great extent based on their own perceptions.  They got better over time at modeling planes corresponding to more realistic performance, but sadly, many like the N28 are not overly accurate representations of the aircraft themselves. 


  • 0

#16 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 26 March 2016 - 15:06

During level-flight at sea-level there is always a usable excess of thrust over weight at cruise-speed (often, but not always, ~20%) but this decreases to zero with altitude (the absolute ceiling). In other words, you would get more service altitude only by increasing thrust at an ever-increasing proportion to weight.

 

Cheers.

 

I think this is a little over simplified.  Thrust must be equal to drag to maintain level flight.  Excess thrust beyond what is required to overcome drag is used to climb.  Drag is dependent upon lift drag and form drag.  Lift drag is dependent upon weight and airspeed and wing shape (AR and airfoil).  This means I can affect the total drag with the wing shape.  If I manage to decrease total drag (with a higher AR for example), then I have more excess thrust for climbing higher/turning. 


  • 1

#17 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 27 March 2016 - 12:23

Get what? That a U2 will out turn a F4 Phantom at 60,000 feet. ;)

 

Would you really want to start a turning contest with an U2 at 60'000 feet? According to Ben Rich ("Skunk Works"), people got killed in the U2 mistaking it with its long wings for a glider and even crashed doing turns at much lower altitudes on those "visiting houses of friends and relatives" flights. Even tough the U2 glides VERY far from high altitude, it is a very delicate plane and not to be flown in the same way as a glider plane...

 

Thus, I wouldn't be so sure about your statement. How many g's can you pull in the F4 at 60k altitudeat Mach 2? Eurocanards as well as F-22 and F-15 pull roughly >7 g at about Mach 1.6. Up there, the U2 has a speed of ~0.9 Mach. I'd be weary to initiate a 2,5 g turn at these altitudes in the U2 with the same ease as doing a high g pull in a fast jet.

 

 

Z


  • 0

#18 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 27 March 2016 - 13:43

Would you really want to start a turning contest with an U2 at 60'000 feet? According to Ben Rich ("Skunk Works"), people got killed in the U2 mistaking it with its long wings for a glider and even crashed doing turns at much lower altitudes on those "visiting houses of friends and relatives" flights. Even tough the U2 glides VERY far from high altitude, it is a very delicate plane and not to be flown in the same way as a glider plane...

 

Thus, I wouldn't be so sure about your statement. How many g's can you pull in the F4 at 60k altitudeat Mach 2? Eurocanards as well as F-22 and F-15 pull roughly >7 g at about Mach 1.6. Up there, the U2 has a speed of ~0.9 Mach. I'd be weary to initiate a 2,5 g turn at these altitudes in the U2 with the same ease as doing a high g pull in a fast jet.

 

 

Z

Exactly the point I was making with sarcasm. Increasing aspect ratio does not increase turn ability. ;)    


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#19 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 27 March 2016 - 20:53

Exactly the point I was making with sarcasm. Increasing aspect ratio does not increase turn ability. ;)    

 

Increasing aspect ratio can make a plane fly at an altitude that it couldn't with the same wing area.  An increase in ceiling is a fortiori an increase in turn rate at the higher altitude.

 

Stick to the details of the discussion.  No one claimed that a higher AR increases turn rate by itself, but I did see a straw man here the other day.


  • 0

#20 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 28 March 2016 - 11:40

Increasing aspect ratio can make a plane fly at an altitude that it couldn't with the same wing area.  An increase in ceiling is a fortiori an increase in turn rate at the higher altitude.

 

....[snip]

 

Does it? Interesting. So far, I thought that increasing aspect ratio was a sole mean to decrease induced drag of an airfoil. But looking it up, my newly acquired smattering from wiki et. al. points more in the direction that there is indeed no correlation between aspect ratio and service ceiling. Within reasonable limits, a high aspect ratio wing is more efficient because it has less drag, not because it has more lift.

 

I assume you imply that by just reducing drag, the resulted lift to drag ratio is increased and thus you have better turn performance due to this increased lift to drag relation of the wing foil? Is the reduced drag, something that can be "invested in a higher AoA, meaning flight higher up in thinner air? Is this really practical? Is this really something practical to do as a designer?

 

There is the aforementioned U2 as example of high aspect, high altitude. But this is a VERY critical aircraft to fly. Its wing gives good lift at low AoA, but it stalls very quick when you mistake low wing loading with good slow speed handling.

 

There was also the the Westland Welkin (http://marksimner.me...estland-welkin/), built right after your reasoning gav. It was a failure. Although it could reach high altitude, the minimum speed increased so high that it approached the permissible Mach number such that no real maneuvering was possible anymore without fear of stalling. Plus, this high aspect wing did not give a significant advantage over Spitfires with adjusted superchargers.

 

From this, I would say just increasing aspect ratio of a wing is a very dangerous way “to go higher”.

 

(I remember one of my flying instructors upon being asked how high you can go with a glider plane, he replied: “How high you go is plainly a matter of intelligence”.)

 

When taking the wetted area of a plane into consideration, then it changes the game. Especially when when we are singing and dancing around the holy cow called "higher turn rate" (by which I would guess you are talking about sustained level turn rate). There, you fly rather slow and at a very high angle of attack, exposing the entire airframe to the slipstream, in a way it is not exposed during normal cruise flight. Making an airframe efficient in max. sustained level turn would give a rather crooked bird with bad level flight performance. I doubt that the higher induced drag of the stubbier wings make to much of a difference then.

 

I should like to know a bit more about your claim that high wing aspect produce a high service ceiling. The SR-71 has a remarkably low wing aspect ratio, but it seems like it can fly rather high. Same as the Avro Vulcan. It has a higher service ceiling then a B-47. Almost as high as the B-52. Taking the wetted area into consideration, they get very comparable however.

 

Regarding “max. sustained level turn rate”: Increasing power of the engine helps as much as more wing, in whatever flavor.

 

 

This also regarding the OP's question. Engine power or altitude you can spare influences your planes maneuverability as well.

 

 

Z


  • 0

#21 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 28 March 2016 - 23:20

ZX,

 

Here is the bottom line for AR: higher aspect ratio wings (for a given airfoil) have less induced drag as a percentage of lift produced.  Thus you get a higher L/D. 

 

Less drag translates to more excess power available which translates to better turn performance or maximum altitude attainable.

 

Regarding a good fighter aircraft, we want as much excess power as we can get in order to overcome increased induced drag due to tight turns or high altitude flight .  This loosely translates to wanting a higher thrust to weight ratio. 

 

Is it practical to have a very high AR wing on a fighter? Probably not due to the strength requirements needed to endure hard combat maneuvers.  Modern fighters and WWI fighters are similar in some regards but the technology is so vastly different that comparing SR-71s or F-22s to a WWI fighter is probably not going to yield a very meaningful discussion.


  • 1

#22 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 29 March 2016 - 00:01

 

 

Here is the bottom line for AR: higher aspect ratio wings (for a given airfoil) have less induced drag as a percentage of lift produced

Did you not forget that higher A/R wings have higher "Parasite Drag" than their lower A/R counter parts.


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#23 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 29 March 2016 - 09:25

ZX,

 

Here is the bottom line for AR: higher aspect ratio wings (for a given airfoil) have less induced drag as a percentage of lift produced.  Thus you get a higher L/D. 

 

Less drag translates to more excess power available which translates to better turn performance or maximum altitude attainable.

 

Regarding a good fighter aircraft, we want as much excess power as we can get in order to overcome increased induced drag due to tight turns or high altitude flight .  This loosely translates to wanting a higher thrust to weight ratio. 

 

Is it practical to have a very high AR wing on a fighter? Probably not due to the strength requirements needed to endure hard combat maneuvers.  Modern fighters and WWI fighters are similar in some regards but the technology is so vastly different that comparing SR-71s or F-22s to a WWI fighter is probably not going to yield a very meaningful discussion.

 

 

Hi Chill

 

Thnx for your input. So from this I would conclude that given all other things equal for example (not to bring jets in the discussion again):

 

A Cessna 152 with increased wing A/R has a higher ceiling.

 

But how much would I win? Let us assume I double wing A/R, using the same profile and offset etc. (all other things equal), creating twice the wingspan with half the chord length. (Basically creating some sort of glider plane wing). How much would I get as additional ceiling?

 

In practical terms, I would guess that the airframe drag bleeds so much power that the gained decrease in induced drag is minimal. Especially due to the fact that the increased lift only is a result through increased level speed by reducing the induced drag somewhat. Now if I go faster, I start to bleed more energy through increased drag of the entire airframe. The whole plane just won’t let me go as fast as the “better” wing would let me, as drag increases exponentially with speed increase.

 

The OP’s post was asking if the plane was indeed more maneuverable. Creating a large wingspan I feel is not the way to go. When I fly gliders with 20+ meters wingspan, I wouldn’t consider them very maneuverable, although they can turn impressively tight circles. But they have a roll speed less than an Airbus.

 

So my take is that there are better ways to decrease drag than making the wing a thin, narrow blade. A winglet will do. Wingtip tanks even help. The Piper Comanche flies better having them installed than without.

 

The ultra high A/R wing I’d consider the good option, when, like in a glider plane, you need a lot of lift to fly at minimal AoA at a comparatively slow airspeed. Being slow is just the result of having ultra-minimal thrust, because you want to keep your glide angle as shallow as possible.

 

But when you have an engine, just adding a constant speed prop will work wonders as you get a lot more trust from the same power at the crankshaft.

 

Lift I would never consider a constraint. Lack of speed is, such in maximum sustained turn. As said, sustained turn can well be improved by adding thrust. It is much more convenient to do than to sacrifice the planes roll abilities. If you have the best engine already, just make the wing area a bit larger. Significantly stretching the wings only comes into play when you’re already up high enough for even turbocharged engines drop power significantly. But then, the increasing minimum speed will get a problem. Wing flutter etc. is occurring in relation to TAS, not IAS.

 

When Kurt Tank stretched the wings on the Ta-152-H, he did so, because *lighter wing loading* would make a more shallow AoA possible above 12’000 meters, thus creating a faster plane. The added lift also made maneuvering easier up there. The decreased induced drag due to increased A/R was absolutely no issue, although surely a welcome effect. But only in this extreme case Kurt Tank would sacrifice one of the biggest assets of the Fw-190, its light ailerons, for added lift. IF induced drag was something Kurt Tank worried bout, why didn’t he make a higher A/R for all common Fw-190?

 

Another thing is: Planes with a high wing A/R are most always not maneuverable planes. Big gliders, they are anything but maneuverable, although they great “circlers” due to an obscenely low wing loading. This configuration is usually found in turboprop airliners. I’m only aware of Bob Hoovers Rockwell Commander that is great for stunting. And a plane with Bob Hoover on the controls is hardly your “control” for normal.

 

When you have a very exact specification on how your plane is operated and you have exhausted all your means in powering the plane, streamlining the hull, saving weight, etc, then you add the high A/D wing with the minimal required wing area (you want to keep the wing as small as possible to make it efficient at cruise speed) for given altitude and speed. Then it makes sense. But it is a tool to save fuel, not to make the plane agile.

 

I also fail to see a meaning correlation between wing A/R and service ceiling in real world GA planes. The Cessna 172 and the “stubby winged” Piper Cherokee 180 are very comparable aircraft. But the 172 has a ceiling of 14’550 ft, the Cherokee 160 has 15’000 ft. and the Cherokee 180 has 16’000 ft. service ceiling. So, the Cessna with the highest wing A/R loses out.

 

There is just no real world GA plane (or any non-turbocharged/gas turbine, pressurized) plane where wing geometry is a limiting factor for ceiling. Or name me one, as I couldn’t find any.

 

Although the better L/D ratio by increasing wing A/R may sound reasonable in theory, in the real world I still find it deeply impractical and even somewhat misleading. The fact that the claim per se is certainly correct is only a burden, because it is a design trend very much against the OP’s question.

 

You want to have a more maneuverable aircraft? Given all things equal, here’s my suggestions for practical design purposes:

DO:

  • Drop weight.
  • Increase power/thrust.
  • Make better plane control surfaces.
  • Make the plane smaller.
  • Put the heavy stuff together near the center.
  • Keep the plane structure strong enough for high g loading

 

DON’T:

  • Increase wing A/R

Long wings will be weaker, they break in maneuvers while reducing roll rate to unacceptable levels, speaking of “more maneuverable planes”. High wing A/R makes the wing heavy, as the thinner profile will require it to be made stronger, thicker beams if made from the same material as the “stubby wing” and will go against the first and most important thing you should do, namely “dropping weight”. How much heavier would the glider wing Cessna be (if that wing was made from the same material as the traditional wing)? Wouldn’t that extra weight cancel out the decreased induced drag? Just make the wing a bit bigger and you get all the lift you’ll ever need. Or put winglets on it.

 

Telling from this, I would also put in question the L/D relationship. I would say you better go for the thrust-to-(specific)drag ratio, because thrust-to-drag ratio determines level flight acceleration, while thrust-to-weight, thrust-to-drag, lift-to-weight and lift-to-drag ratios all determine climb performance. Yes, thrust-to-drag is in steady state in all planes 1, but not during maneuvering. Thus, for antique planed you can lift-to drag as a measure, because you can’t go fast anyway and all you do is climbing after losing altitude in a maneuver.

 

It really depends on what “maneuverability” means to you, as gav detailed above. And if you want to go high, go fast. If you want to maneuver, go powerfull, small and stubby. Like the Pitts Special.

 

 

Z


  • 0

#24 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 29 March 2016 - 10:24

Again, this is all being taken out of context.  The point was that it's not that surprising if Rickenbacker's N28 was out-turned by an Albatros at 19,000ft.  AR helps explain why.  That is all.

 

Someone writes that p in circumstances q, r, and s.  For the sake of a good forum tussle that's read as saying that p, q, r, and s under any circumstance. :icon_boring:


  • 0

#25 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 29 March 2016 - 15:31

Again, this is all being taken out of context.  The point was that it's not that surprising if Rickenbacker's N28 was out-turned by an Albatros at 19,000ft.  AR helps explain why.  That is all.

 

 

How does A/R explain it?

High A/R wings stall at lower angles of attack,they also produce higher lift at lower AoA, that means larger turn radius. 


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#26 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 29 March 2016 - 16:13

Again, this is all being taken out of context.  The point was that it's not that surprising if Rickenbacker's N28 was out-turned by an Albatros at 19,000ft.  AR helps explain why.  That is all.
 
Someone writes that p in circumstances q, r, and s.  For the sake of a good forum tussle that's read as saying that p, q, r, and s under any circumstance. :icon_boring:


Does the N.28 have the same wing loading as the Albatros recon? I gave plenty of arguments why AR I would consider wing AR a very bold way to explain the claim of the Albatros being able to outturn the N.28. Same as the Cessna "cannot outturn" the Cherokee near service ceiling, despite having higher AR. If your argument was of practical value, then the Cessna should be able to do so.

(For the sake of good forum tussle.)

;)

Z
  • 0

#27 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 29 March 2016 - 17:48

How does A/R explain it?

High A/R wings stall at lower angles of attack,they also produce higher lift at lower AoA, that means larger turn radius. 

 

Where did you read that?  I'm not sure that AR has the effect of reducing stall AOA...


  • 1

#28 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 29 March 2016 - 18:10

Where did you read that?  I'm not sure that AR has the effect of reducing stall AOA...


That would be news to me as well.
  • 0

#29 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 29 March 2016 - 18:33

I think Gav's reasoning that AR could contribute the Alb's performance against the N28 has merit, but I would be surprised if that was solely responsible.  I have read that rotaries do not maintain power with increasing altitude as well as other types of engines.  There are probably a number of reasons a real world pilot might find himself unable to turn well with an Alb if he was flying a N28.  However, in the case of ROF, I think they modeled the N28 to be a dog based upon its poor reputation (due in large part to disintegrating wings is my understanding) from WWI.  Modeled accurately, I think it would be a much better aircraft in ROF.


  • 2

#30 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 29 March 2016 - 19:44

Looking up Wiki, it seems a fully loaded Albatros C.XII has about half the wing loading of the N.28. Indicated service ceiling is very comparable of both planes (assuming wiki is remotely right). No wonder if the N.28 can't follow a turn of that Alb up there...
  • 0

#31 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 29 March 2016 - 20:21

What I have trouble with Gav claims this took place at 19,000'( Eddie's N28 vs Alby 2 seater) Eddie said he was diving on the 2 seater, how much above the service ceiling was he? And would it made any difference at 5,000'?  

 

 

 I think they modeled the N28 to be a dog based upon its poor reputation 

You got that part right, the N28 could not turn well.


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#32 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 30 March 2016 - 06:56

...

You got that part right, the N28 could not turn well.

 

Where does that info come from? Such has been mentioned in threads before, but why do you think "it can't turn well"? (Whatever that may be specifically.) Talking of Eddie's writings, he mentioned IIRC that some pilots frowed upn their newly handed SPAD, because it wasn't as maneureable as the N.28. So it can't be that bad.

 

The main defects of the N.28 I know of are the nasty habit of shedding to wing cloth in violent maneuvers (mainly becuase the linen was applied in a very stupid way) as well as having a habit if setting the engine on fire if you blipped it for more than 2 seconds. Vibration indiced cracking of the tank piping also didn't help to gain confidence in the aircraft, but that was corrected eventually. Plus it was not fast enough at that stage of war against the D.VII to have the initiative in a fight.

 

Is there any original source to the claim that "it can't turn well"? I'm curious.


  • 0

#33 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 30 March 2016 - 14:07

Well maybe I should have said turn tightly,(small turn radius). 

 

 

The main defects of the N.28 I know of are the nasty habit of shedding to wing cloth in violent maneuvers (mainly becuase the linen was applied in a very stupid way) 

Maybe you should do a little more research on this.http://www.aviation-...ory/dr1wing.htm


  • 1

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#34 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 30 March 2016 - 16:05

Well maybe I should have said turn tightly,(small turn radius). 

Maybe you should do a little more research on this.http://www.aviation-...ory/dr1wing.htm

Interessting. Thanks for the link!


  • 1

#35 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 30 March 2016 - 16:12

Interessting. Thanks for the link!

Anything to understand the true Nieuport 28 is always interesting to me. :icon_e_salute:

 

P.S. here is a photo of the leading edge gone.

Attached Files


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#36 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 30 March 2016 - 16:19

Well maybe I should have said turn tightly,(small turn radius). 

Maybe you should do a little more research on this.http://www.aviation-...ory/dr1wing.htm

 

I always thought that it was mainly due to the tacking of the cloth used by Nieuport, instead of sewing it to the ribs and the spar. Adding the lack of spanwhise stringers makes a  bad mix indeed.

 

I guess, mounting the ailreons to the lower wing is some sort of workaround to the problem? ;)

 

 

Regarding the article on the Dr.I's issue, I thought it was pretty obvious that they had manufacturing issues (bad glue) for their entire half of the produced aircraft. Design flaws certainly don't help in this case either...

 

Z


  • 1

#37 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 30 March 2016 - 16:22

Anything to understand the true Nieuport 28 is always interesting to me. :icon_e_salute:

 

P.S. here is a photo of the leading edge gone.

 

Crappers! He really lost the entire leading edge... the cloth also doesn't seem to be wrapped too far around the nose ofthe wing. If you just tack it on from above and below, there must be a lot of force on the tacks that supposedly hold the fabric.


  • 0

#38 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 30 March 2016 - 16:31

Crappers! He really lost the entire leading edge... the cloth also doesn't seem to be wrapped too far around the nose ofthe wing. If you just tack it on from above and below, there must be a lot of force on the tacks that supposedly hold the fabric.

I think the real problem came form the leading edge ribs bending upward during high AoA maneuvers like,pull-ups after a dive, extreme hard turns.

It's a shame that is not modeled in ROF.

 

Another one, hard to believe he landed safely.    

Attached Files


  • 1

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#39 Ben_Twings

Ben_Twings
  • Posts: 408
  • LocationAlbion

Posted 30 March 2016 - 18:02

I think the real problem came form the leading edge ribs bending upward during high AoA maneuvers like,pull-ups after a dive, extreme hard turns.

 

I read that someone building a replica discovered that the fabric attachment method was flawed, but for historical reasons they used the same method for the replica.

 

 

It's a shame that is not modeled in ROF.

 

Yes the RoF N28 could just do with another problem couldn't it?

 

 

    Another one, hard to believe he landed safely.

 

 

With the ailerons on the lower wing, provided that the upper wing didn't break-up or detach, the main problem facing the pilot should have been a much higher landing speed than normal. Perhaps other pilots didn't appreciate that fact.

I'm wondering whether the responsiveness of the tail group could be compromised by turbulence generated froim the damaged wing.


  • 0

Polish-infested London


#40 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 30 March 2016 - 18:41

 

 

Yes the RoF N28 could just do with another problem couldn't it?

Ben I'm really surprised at this attitude, after all you're the one crying about realism. 


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users