Jump to content

=IRFC=Hbender

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    1209
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1510 Excellent

4 Followers

About =IRFC=Hbender

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Madrid, Spain (from Brussels, Belgium)

Recent Profile Visitors

2202 profile views
  1. You're the expert on this high aspect ratio business, especially with regards to the Siemens-Schuckert that has even worse wing loading than the N28. I just see high wing loading + Camel wings (RAF 15) = bad, but that's not the whole picture. How do we present something conclusive based on data to the devs?
  2. The lack of overall responsiveness is what's striking me as inaccurate above all. With a sufficiently unstable machine and high wing loading, which would certainly be the case if its wing surface is in fact 16m^2 and it weighs 700kg, it should be possible to pull hard instantaneous turns, at the cost of massive airspeed/energy loss, typically resulting in a stall after less than a half turn radius. Simply put: there's very little wing in the way to stop the plane from pitching around its lateral axis. This is unsustainable, but it would work wonders as a defensive or even aggressiv
  3. For it to count as an airplane kill it should first fly like one.
  4. The Nieuport 28 as a damage absorber. Literally the flimsiest thing to have flown in French/American skies in 1918. Okay. Okay. Anyway, I'm done trying to reason with people who adhere to dogma (and ironically thanks again to @unreasonable for approaching this with measurable data). I look forward to dusting off Captain Darling and taking him in a ride in our 1500kg twin-Lewis armed Breguet turnfighting snaprolling death machine.
  5. Okay man, if it's purely feelings that you want: I feel that the divide between people who consider themselves Entente and Central has never been bigger, and that we may as well be playing different game at this point. It's a feeling I never got during Rise of Flight, maybe simply because the Camel and Dr.I were always dominant and close to equals. @US93_Larner is right to say that this game has lost a lot of its pure fun factor with the new DM. But it's a sim, not a game, so let's not go there. When it comes to any plane I want as much historical accuracy as possible, for now we'v
  6. Trupo, don't derail the discussion and don't make this into an "Us vs. Them" thing. It's bad enough as it is. I don't believe in miracles, I believe in physics. There are some things you cannot just handwave away, and I would say that a plane apparently lacking part of its wing is one of them. All that you are doing is feeding the trolls who would rather see Flying Circus (and all of IL-2 GB) fail so they can pick apart the carcass and become sad little king of their sad little hill. To me there is NO GREATER AND MORE URGENT PRIORITY (beyond fixing the DM) than having the 200hp Mer
  7. They did the math! Sir, I think you've just solved the mystery. They used a different set of data to build the actual 3D model. So we have 16m^2 from the 3D model and actual building plans — but unsure which building plans, because there were several prototypes. But we have 20m^2 from the listed in-game specs (directly taken from Frank Tallman's) and from the design history: the 15m^2 base Nieuport 24 was used to build Nieuport 28 prototypes and wing surface was increased twice, once to 18m^2 and finally to 20m^2.
  8. In this case the fix will be to turn it completely invisible online.
  9. I can’t add any more reactions today so: 😠 But have a 🍺 anyway for bringing it up! (also crap for all the right reasons, awesome for all the wrong reasons)
  10. I'd like to see it perform up to its historical specifications, and I fear that this is simply impossible — much like the Fokker Dr.I that is still stuck at 165km/h. The Nieuport 28 was NOT a good machine, it was plagued by tons of operational issues with its wings and engine. However, there is nothing, zero, nada, zilch evidence, including from simple numerical data (wing loading + power loading + airfoil), that this machine could not turn better. This isn't black magic, it's physics. Even if we consider all the data in FC to be accurate (700kg / 20m^2 wing surface / Eiffel 14 SPA
  11. I'm "Entente-minded" insofar that I always fly on the side that is outnumbered, but okay, I'll bite. The S.E. is substantially faster than everything on Central, except for the Fokker D.VIIF accelerating in a dive. Unless you make a mistake or get bounced, you can get away and come back later in a better position. The Dolphin is faster than everything on Central except the Fokker D.VIIF and isn't substantially faster than the Pfalz and Fokker D.VII accelerating in a dive. You can outturn both low on the deck, especially if your "Central-minded" opponent somewhat underes
  12. @Jason_Williams and @AnPetrovich I think most of us here recognise and are grateful for the effort you're putting in to bring these old planes to the new engine and that it's not cost effective to redo everything. It's no different with the Nieuport 28: she looks fantastic, also in VR. And she sounds great! This was always by far the most controversial plane in all of Rise of Flight when it comes to how it flies, and because of the refinements in IL-2 Great Battles Digital Warfare engine, it appears to fly even worse now. All I'd like to understand is: why? This was one
  13. See that doesn't make sense. If she has high wing loading or an inefficient thin wing like the SPAD, then she should have a good instantaneous turn, followed by a sharp stall when you attempt to sustain the turn. This is what happens in a P-47 or a F-104 Starfighter. But that's not the case here, the elevators are simply not effective and they appear to add parasitic drag without significantly altering the AoA. She sort of flops about until she loses speed and falls to the ground. There's never a sharp stall. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that the center of grav
×
×
  • Create New...