Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nieuport 28 turn rate and realism vs. plane balance


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Hellbender

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

Posted 05 December 2009 - 11:17

With the recent fixes to a great many flight models, I do wonder whether the little Noop 28 will see some love in the future regarding its awful turn rate in a sustained turn and its elevated stall speed. I still haven't found a single source which states that the N28 just couldn't hold a sustained turn.

It definitely shouldn't turn like a Camel or even a DVII, but it should at least be able to hold its own for a short while.


Another question that comes to mind is whether NeoQB is really aiming for realism or something akin to plane balance. On the Allied side we seem to have the following for 1917+.


SPAD

+ excellent climber (especially over short distances)
+ good speed
- poor visibility


SE5a

+ good climber (especially over long distances)
+ excellent speed
- fragile engine


Camel

+ insane turn rate
- poor speed
- deadly spin
- fragile wings? (haven't noticed this, honestly)


Dolphin

+ good all-round plane
+ excellent visibility
- them bloody wings come off (okay, not anymore since 1.009, I suppose)


Nieuport 28

+ solid engine
- poor turn rate
- unstable gun platform due to asymetrical placement


So what's up NeoB, is this a conscious decision?

If so, I suppose the Dolphin needs a new disadvantage and the Nieuport 28 needs a new advantage since the DVII got such a substantial buff.



You did realise you'd have the Nieuport 28 whine brigade on your six by buffing the DVII, didn't you?

:roll:
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#2 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 05 December 2009 - 11:55

Yea i still dont know whay N28 with such good wingloading compare it to other planes ( even to SE5a and Spad XII) have such bad turn rate. I think it shouldn't be at least worse then Spad or Se5a.
  • 0

#3 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 05 December 2009 - 13:40

Totally agree with you.

I think that the N28 is the most inaccurate modelled plane in ROF since the very beginning. I can't believe that 5 out of 6 of the german planes we have right now, could've easily outturned that plane in a dogfight, as they can in ROF.

I think it should be able to outturn atleast both Pfalz and Albatros planes.
  • 0

#4 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 05 December 2009 - 14:52

With the recent fixes to a great many flight models, I do wonder whether the little Noop 28 will see some love in the future regarding its awful turn rate in a sustained turn and its elevated stall speed. I still haven't found a single source which states that the N28 just couldn't hold a sustained turn.

It definitely shouldn't turn like a Camel or even a DVII, but it should at least be able to hold its own for a short while.


Another question that comes to mind is whether NeoQB is really aiming for realism or something akin to plane balance. On the Allied side we seem to have the following for 1917+.


SPAD

+ excellent climber (especially over short distances)
+ good speed
- poor visibility


SE5a

+ good climber (especially over long distances)
+ excellent speed
- fragile engine


Camel

+ insane turn rate
- poor speed
- deadly spin
- fragile wings? (haven't noticed this, honestly)


Dolphin

+ good all-round plane
+ excellent visibility
- them bloody wings come off (okay, not anymore since 1.009, I suppose)


Nieuport 28

+ solid engine
- poor turn rate
- unstable gun platform due to asymetrical placement


So what's up NeoB, is this a conscious decision?

If so, I suppose the Dolphin needs a new disadvantage and the Nieuport 28 needs a new advantage since the DVII got such a substantial buff.



You did realise you'd have the Nieuport 28 whine brigade on your six by buffing the DVII, didn't you?

:roll:

The camel is still fast enough to outrun any german plane ;)

Btw, the supposed oppoent of the N28, the Albatros D.Va, is still pretty weak :P

Now that the Pfalz D.IIIa is slower there is nothing to stop the Se5a from ruling the online servers.

I don't deny that your special N28 got relatively worse due to the german planes mostly improving but the overall balance with the british planes is still off imo, haven't tried the D.VII online yet however. Who is gonna play on T&T tonight? ;)


Totally agree with you.

I think that the N28 is the most inaccurate modelled plane in ROF since the very beginning. I can't believe that 5 out of 6 of the german planes we have right now, could've easily outturned that plane in a dogfight, as they can in ROF.

I think it should be able to outturn atleast both Pfalz and Albatros planes.

If it could do that it would be superior in all regards just like the Se5a ;)
  • 0

#5 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 05 December 2009 - 15:07

There's a reason for why the N28 was replaced with the Spad 13 as quickly as possible. It was an abysmally mediocre plane, and I was surprised to see it included in RoF as one of the stock aircraft.
  • 0

#6 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 05 December 2009 - 15:11

Probably marketing, since it was the first fighter used by the USA in wwi it might be of interest to the generic american customer.

I can see the point of it though, having an underdog plane is always nice. Since the N17 is totally outclassed the closest step is the N28.
  • 0

#7 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 05 December 2009 - 15:24

There's a reason for why the N28 was replaced with the Spad 13 as quickly as possible. It was an abysmally mediocre plane, and I was surprised to see it included in RoF as one of the stock aircraft.


These are many resons but still it doesnt explain why in ROF N28 is the worse tuner?

N28 comparing to Spad has such shortcomings:

- inline engine was more reliable then rotaries and give more power
- Spad was faster better climber and had more roughted airframe
- N28 had problems with wing failures in dives
- still N28 was beeter in manouverbility but as new faster and better climbing planes were coming manouverbility wasnt such important. See SE5a comparing to Fokker Dr1.


So still i dont get why N28 which IRL was know as very nimble and manoverbility plane according to USA pilots report is the worst turner in ROF. Even Spad is better. Dont think its is accurate.
  • 0

#8 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 05 December 2009 - 15:58

Sustained turn rates and radii are not a simple function of wingloading.
  • 0

#9 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 05 December 2009 - 16:02

Sustained turn rates and radii are not a simple function of wingloading.

Manouverbility of N28 was reported as better then in Albatros and even DVII. N28 had also better wingloding. I dont say that wingloading is everything in turn but it has also impact in these.

N28 is the worse turner in ROF atcually. It is much worse not only then DVII and Albatros but also worse then Spad XII and Se5A. I think that difference is too big and casue uncorrect N28 disadvetnage in game comparing it to other planes. I think it should be at least better in turn then Spad XII and similar to Se5a ( if not better). Se5a also was not know ( as Spad ) as a good turner oppposite to N28 pilots opinions.
  • 0

#10 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 05 December 2009 - 16:19

Btw, the supposed oppoent of the N28, the Albatros D.Va, is still pretty weak :P
Very true, the DVa is way too slow still. That doesn't mean that just because the DVa is undermodelled right now, the N28 should be worse than it really was aswell (beside that, the DVa is more a SE5 counterpart ingame, imho).

If it could do that it would be superior in all regards just like the Se5a ;)
Compared to the german planes? Maybe. It should be turn&burn plane, not a boom&zoom. Comparing it with the SE5 makes only sense because of its current state in ROF.

Also the N28 had other weaknesses, like a fragile upper wing.

There's a reason for why the N28 was replaced with the Spad 13 as quickly as possible. It was an abysmally mediocre plane, and I was surprised to see it included in RoF as one of the stock aircraft.
Exactly right.

However, that doesn't explain why the current turn rate is very low, even compared to the SPAD and SE5. It was one of the worst entente planes in WW1 at it's time but not one of the worst turners.
  • 0

#11 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 05 December 2009 - 16:48

But so far the criticism of the RoF N28 is largely based on anecdote. Remember the statistician's maxim: "anecdotal evidence = no data."
  • 0

#12 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 05 December 2009 - 16:48

quoted instead of edit…
  • 0

#13 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 05 December 2009 - 17:18

But so far the criticism of the RoF N28 is largely based on anecdote. Remember the statistician's maxim: "anecdotal evidence = no data."



Combat experience showed the N.28 to have outstanding manoeverability, an excellent rate of climb and a respectable top speed. Major Hartney, the comander of the 27th Aero (and later the 1st Pursuit Group) summed up the aircraft when he described 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. However, there are clues available in the writings of the day. Included below is a summary of comparisions distilled from books that were written during or shortly after the war. At the very least the table below indicates how pilot's in that day and age viewed the airplane they flew as it compared with other aircraft.

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) -

The N.28 clearly benefited from good manueverability and an impressive rate of climb, however it was not considered as rugged as the Spads which replaced it. A flight test (19) of a prototype which weighed about 48 lb less (20) than the version the USAS adopted yielded the following results:

Altitude Time to Aprox rate Speed
m ft min fpm mph
500 1,640 - 1356 -
1000 3,281 2'42" - -
1500 4,921 - 1159 -
2000 6,562 5'25" - 123
2500 8,202 - 894 -
3000 9,843 8'92" - 121
3500 11,483 - 729 -
4000 13,123 13'42" - 117
4500 14,764 - 475 -
5000 16,404 20'33" - 111


http://www.airminded.net/">http://www.airminded.net/

Rest you could get from planes data like power, wing area, take of weight
  • 0

#14 Hellbender

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

Posted 05 December 2009 - 19:50

The SPAD XIII is indeed superior to the Nieuport 28 in sheer performance, which really is all that matters in the end. Still, the Nieuport 28 should be able to outturn the SPAD and not stall at such high speeds in a turn, plain and simple.

As for its Gnome Monosoupape, reports vary wildly. Thomas Sopwith found it extremely reliable and called it "one of the greatest single advances in aviation" (Nahum, Andrew (1999). The Rotary Aero Engine. NMSI Trading Ltd. ISBN 190074712X). Obviously, actual wartime performance will have been a different matter altogether, considering the entire engine is essentially a giant moving part.

This is one parameter we'll probably never be able to simulate correctly in Rise of Flight, the fact that not all aircraft were flown fresh off the factory floor.



So, as always, I propose a compromise:

1) give us the turn rate it deserves, somewhere in between the SPAD and the Camel

2) make it easier to overrev / overheat (like the SE5a and the Camel), simulating the fact that you're not operating a brand new engine in ideal conditions



I think it would have the potential of being one of the most "balanced" planes out there, something NeoQB is obviously trying to achieve in this sim.

Not quite the fastest, not quite the best climber, not quite the best turner, not quite the most reliable, but pretty decent in all categories. This seems to fit its description perfectly according to everything I've read about it in the past few months.

And yes, right now you really need to be a masochist not to fly an SE5a or a SPAD (Camel and its quirky insane turn rate aside).



NeoQB, I dare ask of you as a great admirer of your work, give us a plane worthy of the real Nieuport 28.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#15 PeterGrozni

PeterGrozni
  • Posts: 152

Posted 05 December 2009 - 20:26

I keep reading how the Nieuport could outmanoeuver most German aircraft (better roll, light and responsive controls and good climb), yet you keep claiming about its turning ability. What you've shown here tells us nothing about it's specific turning capability and you seem so certain how it should turn. On what do you base these estimates?
  • 0

#16 Hellbender

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

Posted 05 December 2009 - 21:45

I keep reading how the Nieuport could outmanoeuver most German aircraft (better roll, light and responsive controls and good climb), yet you keep claiming about its turning ability. What you've shown here tells us nothing about it's specific turning capability and you seem so certain how it should turn. On what do you base these estimates?

I base it entirely on the pilot accounts and raw data I've read in print and online.

Are those reports reliable? Very unlikely.



Then again, we don't know which sources NeoQB is using to base their flight model on, as they've not divulged this information so far. Yet, something tells me those aren't 100% accurate either.

I would definitely invite NeoQB to share their sources with us.



Numbers aside, the dedicated Noop drivers here have probably raked up more simulated flying hours than their actual counterparts back in the day. If you ask me and others to describe the Nieuport, the word maneuverable really doesn't come to mind.

Outclimb and outspeed with an already established energy advantage (everything except the DVII)? Yes.

Outroll? Sure.

Outmaneuver? No.



Granted, the definition of "outmaneuvering" can differ greatly from pilot to pilot, but bear with me for a moment here.

Ask my "enemy blood brother" Imperator whom I've flown against numerous times online, my ground rule is to never ever turn the Nieuport in a fight without a substantial energy advantage (and preferably back-up). Even then, a single turn or so and you've already bled off the only advantage you had, putting you entirely on the defensive.

I don't think a Great War aviator would've been keen on labeling a plane that is no match for a prepared enemy in a straight dogfight as "maneuverable".
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#17 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 05 December 2009 - 22:43

I keep reading how the Nieuport could outmanoeuver most German aircraft (better roll, light and responsive controls and good climb), yet you keep claiming about its turning ability.
So you think that an airplane that has a very bad turn rate (like the N28 ingame, its worse than MOST planes, not just one or two planes) would be rated as a plane with "outstanding manoeverability" just because it had a good roll rate (again, in ROF, the N28 rollrate is not really spectacular that i would call it "outstanding") and responsive controls and a good climbrate (the above source clearly gives the plane a "outstanding manoeverability" and a "good climbrate", so the ability to climb well is not even "included in the "outstanding manoeverability")?
  • 0

#18 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 05 December 2009 - 23:22

:P I survived a sortie with the N17 earlier \o/

Regarding the topic "manouvrability" and "agility" can mean alot of things, even ww2 pilots did not really differentiate between horizontal and vertical agility, the Fw190 when it entered service for example was praised as superbly agile but the substained turnrate was far from good, maybe it is the same case with the N28? There is also thrust/weight to conside apart from the wing profile which I have no idea of.


The way you described flying the N28 is exactly how I flew the Fw190 :) Don't engage unless you are higher, do a few passes on already engaged enemies, as soon as you lose your energy advantage dive/split-S and run for home. Then climb back up, rinse and repeat. And of course never turn more than 45° in order to get a deflection shot, never try to settle on somebodys tail unless you are both going 700km/h ;)


Btw, the D.VII is alot better now but the N28 is not "supposed" to compete with it if I am not mistaken. The D.Va was also improved however, I think we should have a look how much the balanced changed before we discuss how to improve the N28 ;) What definetly puts me off is the weird gunnery in it.


I found you a new plane however:
Image


I might actually try to make a skin if you like it, there should be some time until we can use custom skins properly online ;)
  • 0

#19 Hellbender

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

Posted 06 December 2009 - 00:07

Ooh, excellent! :shock:

Post-war obviously, but would still make a great looking skin.



Man, if only they'd put the Hanriot HD1 in.

Crap plane that the French refused to fly and thus sold to the Belgians, but I'd gladly fly it to my fiery death time and time again.

What a beaut.

Image





In the meantime I'll settle for this. Too bad part of the aircraft is obscured in this pic.

Image
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#20 Hellbender

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

Posted 06 December 2009 - 00:32

Btw, the D.VII is alot better now but the N28 is not "supposed" to compete with it if I am not mistaken. The D.Va was also improved however, I think we should have a look how much the balanced changed before we discuss how to improve the N28 ;) What definetly puts me off is the weird gunnery in it.

On-topic again, indeed, the Fokker D.VII should be superior in a same-energy state situation, with comparable speed and a definite edge in maneuverability. Actually, the D.VII should even outmaneuver the Dr.I, which doesn't appear to be the case now.

I suppose this is what we're getting with the D.VIII soon (instead of the D.VIIF), which should rightfully outclass the Nieuport 28 completely in a same-energy state situation. Heck, it will outclass pretty much anything that doesn't have an energy advantage.



I'm really not asking for an easy mode here, it should be bloody damn difficult to turn with a D.VII in a Nieuport 28.

Right now however, it's not difficult, it's impossible.



In a pure one-on-one on the deck, the D.VII should still win, but the Nieuport should be able to put up a fight long enough for buddies to arrive, instead of being forced to extend away with a marginal speed advantage.

I'm not asking for the turn rate of the Camel either (which I find ridiculously good, even when turning to the left), something halfway between the Camel and the SPAD, probably closer to the SPAD.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#21 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 06 December 2009 - 11:50

It still amazes me how well the camel can turn, just yesterday evening I was once again watching one camel take on about 8 germans and it took 5 or more minutes to take it down, I was merely spectating the show from above afraid of coliding with a german :lol:
  • 0

#22 PeterGrozni

PeterGrozni
  • Posts: 152

Posted 06 December 2009 - 15:12

I think we agree that the Ni.28 has some major FM flaws. What we seem to disagree is what this flaws exactly are and how they should be fixed. You press forward with the turn while I see major problems with the engine and how it affects this aircraft.
The main problem I saw from day 1 with the Ni.28 is that it seemed to be flying with an inline engine, not the powerful rotary it had. There's almost no trace of any torque or gyroscopic precession effect from the engine. You can plainly see how the 110 and 130 HP rotaries affect the Dr.I and Camel and yet this 160 HP engine of the Nieuport barely causes any such effects on its handling. The aircraft accelerates poorly and does not handle like an aircraft with a rotary engine.
With proper acceleration and handling I think it would become the „fast acting gem“ with excellent manoeuvrability we read about in various sources. I am not sure it would add much to the turn capability itself, but it would certainly help sustain it better and would therefore improve dogfight capabilities considerably. This is my point of view on the matter anyway. I certainly hope that the FM of this aircraft will get an overhaul. I just hope it'll not be turned into something it was not, for even as it is atm it's a brilliant little aircraft I love to fly.
  • 0

#23 Lormar

Lormar
  • Posts: 222

Posted 07 December 2009 - 05:43

Hi every one! First my Feedback:
Since we are talking about the N. 28 I figured I would pipe in with my experiences with its power plant. I work at the Old Rhinebeck aerodrome in upstate New York, and we have an original 160 hp Gnome 9n powering our Sopwith Camel. Let me tell you that power plant is a beast! I like to tell people that the angrier a rotary sounds the better its running, and the 160 is about as angry as they get! That said, whenever we start it up we have a man with a fire extinguisher at the ready, standing next to the man throwing the prop, for if you don’t start on the first pull or so you have a good chance of lighting the cowling on fire, with the amount of fuel and castor the beast throws out. Also, the pilots a EXTREAMLY carful about running with the selector set to low timing, or the blip held down for too long, as it can light up in the air as well, and that would not be good. Lastly, if any of you ever get to see a rotary running at night, it is unreal! The engine literally has a thin ring of fire around it as it runs!
Now my suggestions: I think a slight chance to light yourself up with improper use would be a good way to instill a little healthy respect for the power plant into players ;-) . Secondly With our new ability to fly at night it might be a good idea to give Rotary power plants a healthy dose of fiery exhaust. I haven’t flown a night mission yet in game so if they do already, pardon me!
Cheers!
- Mark
  • 0

#24 Hellbender

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

Posted 07 December 2009 - 10:37

Also, the pilots a EXTREAMLY carful about running with the selector set to low timing, or the blip held down for too long, as it can light up in the air as well, and that would not be good. Lastly, if any of you ever get to see a rotary running at night, it is unreal! The engine literally has a thin ring of fire around it as it runs!
Now my suggestions: I think a slight chance to light yourself up with improper use would be a good way to instill a little healthy respect for the power plant into players ;-) . Secondly With our new ability to fly at night it might be a good idea to give Rotary power plants a healthy dose of fiery exhaust. I haven’t flown a night mission yet in game so if they do already, pardon me!
Cheers!
- Mark

Thanks for your feedback, Lormar!

This sounds like a truly excellent idea, give the Noop the power and turn it deserves, but let there be a chance of lighting the Monosoupape on fire by fiddling too much with the selector or blip.


Please, NeoQB, listen to this man!
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#25 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 07 December 2009 - 20:30

Also give it the problem with the fragile wing/fabric skinning of the upper wing, a rotary engine effect (like the Camel and DR.1, it behaves like an inline engine powered plane right now). I'm not asking to just increase the turnrate, but instead give it a realistic flightmodel with all it's strenghts and weaknesses.
  • 0

#26 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 07 December 2009 - 21:25

Also give it the problem with the fragile wing/fabric skinning of the upper wing, a rotary engine effect (like the Camel and DR.1, it behaves like an inline engine powered plane right now). I'm not asking to just increase the turnrate, but instead give it a realistic flightmodel with all it's strenghts and weaknesses.

Yea N28 should be fixed in these way

+1
  • 0

#27 PeterGrozni

PeterGrozni
  • Posts: 152

Posted 08 December 2009 - 09:14

Also give it the problem with the fragile wing/fabric skinning of the upper wing, a rotary engine effect (like the Camel and DR.1, it behaves like an inline engine powered plane right now). I'm not asking to just increase the turnrate, but instead give it a realistic flightmodel with all it's strenghts and weaknesses.

Yea N28 should be fixed in these way

+1

It seems somebody else has to report some of the things I already wrote about for people to agree with. :(

I've seen several threads over several forums where people complained over the Ni.28 in RoF. Threads filled with "wing area vs weight" theories and a lot of "feeling" and "believing" type of proof of how it should outturn almost everything under the sun and I haven't seen even once anybody realise the problem with the engine, even after the Camel and Dr.I were released. It is really depressing that the ones driving this FM change forward missed such an obvious problem and keep blindly pushing for better turning.

You guys keep pushing for what you feel the aircraft should fly like. Good luck.
  • 0

#28 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 08 December 2009 - 17:22

I already commented in the old N28 thread, atleast one month before the release of the DR.1 and Camel, that i was wondering why there was no effect from the N28 rotary engine etc.

Anyway, let's wait and see if we're going to get a realistic FM for the N28 anytime soon. Looking at the recent FM fixes (DVa not fixed, DXII not fixed, DVII fixed [imo] after 9 updates etc.), i guess we'll have to wait a while.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users