Jump to content

Nieuport 28 initial impressions (+ bug reports submitted, see root post)


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

We just got a new plane, we tried to discuss pros, contras and possible uses, it got derailed into idle guessing why it was "broken". There should be separate thread for that (I believe Bender made one before plane got even released).

I see good data here and academic attempts to match vs historical accounts. The data appears to be suggesting an incorrect or at least materially inaccurate turn performance i.e. it’s a bit broken.

 

If the Dr1 in game couldn’t out-turn the Dolphin, can you honestly say with a straight face that you wouldn’t be suggesting a remodel? Other than a speed issue with the Dr1 and DM impact, all the Central scouts fly in line with historical accounts, if not better.

 

For example, on the DM and the Dva, it was known to shed wings and fabric in a dive with some examples, so you could argue that we have something like that right now in the sim. Apart from that it does everything pretty well, in some cases like sustained turn, questionably well. It’s not the dud MvR said his was. Besides, the DM has disproportionately impacted Entente planes, and argueably over-tanked Central birds like the laughable 10g Diii. 
 

If you see ‘Entente-minded’ players asking for more fixes, it just might be the volume of issues and not their attitudes. That’s great that you enjoy the Dolphin - that’s great - I’d just love to see it performing at the standard which made French squadrons want to trade it for their SPADs. Central players get to enjoy a Diii that can pull more gs than an f15.
 

As for getting up and shooting planes down, Larner’s record MP streak has made it through all the DM changes and is still going, without a parachute.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

 

 

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.

 

dj8V3Gg.jpg

 

zGMgKu2.jpg

 

ggpLHc6.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note also that the 3D model has no sweep to the wings but does have slight upper wing dihedral: just like the the French plan.

Edited by unreasonable
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

As for getting up and shooting planes down, Larner’s record MP streak has made it through all the DM changes and is still going, without a parachute.

 

*never crosses the lines

 

 

4acd7j.png

Edited by US213_Talbot
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

As a 3PG pilot, I shudder at the thought of the 'drag and absorb' damage tactic. There's a certain contingent within 3PG who are all adept at outright killing pilots given a good firing window (and there's a certain pilot in US213 that will kill you outright with almost any close-range sight picture....). It certainly could work, but that particular tactic is extremely punishable by anyone who's worked on their marksmanship...! 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


Re: other points - might be an idea to set up a group PM between involved parties to continue that particular line of discourse. That way we can go at each other as much as we want and not have the N28 thread get locked. 


Nah, as soon as the webpage says Flugpark is back I'm going back there :)

 

Quote

Re: N28, 

We managed to jam a surface (Rudder, I think?) last night but it took a lot of doing, and we only managed it once or twice. I can't remember if we tested it at range (it feels to me like the further out you shoot, the higher the chance of a surface being knocked out), but we were pouring rounds straight into the fuselage of the N28 specifically trying to jam controls. 

Overall, the N28 is very, very durable and seems to be far less prone to surface loss than other aircraft - to the point where we were actually starting to wonder if it's being used as a "Test-bed" for a DM revision. Overall, from what limited time it's been in, it's certainly 'felt' more like historical accounts in terms of DM - AKA, wings being lost only happens after a particularly severe beating, and control cables being severed is the exception to the rule. 

As a 3PG pilot, I shudder at the thought of the 'drag and absorb' damage tactic. There's a certain contingent within 3PG who are all adept at outright killing pilots given a good firing window (and there's a certain pilot in US213 that will kill you outright with almost any close-range sight picture....). It certainly could work, but that particular tactic is extremely punishable by anyone who's worked on their marksmanship...! 

The N28 is definitely going to have to be used in groups like you say, though - I can imagine it faring better in scenarios involving enough planes that the turn and zoom rates start to become less prevalent and it's more a case of "shoot what's in front of you, dodge what's behind you". If you get somebody seriously latched onto your tail, you'll be very hard-pressed to get away. 

Personally, I think the speed just isn't good enough to be a major factor vs the German scouts. We ran a test yesterday where I faced off against Biddle's Albatros, reenacting a 'live flugpark' scenario (AKA - try to kill the EA, try to run if it goes south). Fair enough, Biddle's a Class-A pilot, but the N28 attempting to escape is a bit hit-or-miss (literally - you can crawl away from an Alb but if he's halfway decent at shooting out to 500m then you're in big trouble) 


Observations I agree with in bold. I don't think it's testbed for DM revision, more likely a plane designed from ground up to work with current DM. Which is good sign for FC2 planes at least (looking at you, Spad 7).

I agree that "drag and absorb" would be horrible against 3PG :). OTOH, if I am wounded and need to RTB, N.28 is one of Entente planes I'd rather be in (S.E has the same stability, but fragile wings).

My experience as Entente pilot is based on current enviroment - people and DM - either being largely outnumbered and trying to ambush other lone planes without attracting attention of J5, or having my mates with me and taking on the J5 themselves. The S.E. was my first choice, and her great stability got me home alive from many big engagements, but I rarely could kill anyone solo in her. The Camel got the results but she made me suicidally cocky, and once tail surfaces got hit (I made a habit of not getting hit at all, but it's hard to maintain) the Camel becomes spinning death trap. The Dolphin was compromise of sort, stable enough to keep flying with jammed surfaces, fast enough for getaway vehicle (must have when flying for Entente), capable enough to kill people in it... fragile, but at least it kept me from getting cocky. Spad, my SA is to bad for it, but I could keep up with Drookasi in it. (Like I said, they are all bad :) )

Now we're getting N.28. Hopefully fast enough to keep up with Spads,  less fragile than Dolphin, visibility as good as SE (but without her fragility), good candidate to get me home when I'm wounded and disengaging (stable and durable), smart controls that will let me react to targets of opportunity in big fight. If she had more ammo she'd make great ground attacker. Is she good plane for lone wolfing? Hell no. Is she good plane to go to AI dogfight area? Never. Is she good plane for supporting Drookasi in his Spad or Bidu in his Dolphin (knowing that with these guys around I'm mostly getting assists anyway)? I have to take her into real situation and see, but the potential is there.

... Am I replacing her with Spad 7? As soon s it comes out.



 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

Is there no surviving Nieuport 28 in the world to take measurements from? Or original plans? If so, then it's easy to submit a bug report (wing dimensions incorrect) instead of having endless discussions...

Vander, the National Museum of the USAF in Dayton Ohio has a 28 on display.  Good luck getting permission to be able to measure it though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

 

*never crosses the lines

 

 

4acd7j.png

 

Now you have my attention....

 

After the Fly in  we will be serving white cake in the mess.

47 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

 

 

As for getting up and shooting planes down, Larner’s record MP streak has made it through all the DM changes and is still going, without a parachute.

 

 

Yes he is the exceptional...that 1 in 10000  n^&^%%!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Maqui said:

I noticed today that killing a Nieuport in Quick Battles don't register in the game.  You get no awards for the kills.  I hope that this lack of kill record doesn't also include online games.  I reported this today in Bugs.

 

The screengrab here is after I shot two nieuports down in Quick battles.  

no kill.jpg

Finally,  a reason to fly it!

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels sluggish to me and not terribly responsive overall in this representation. It's reasonably fast, but I think the Spad and even the SE have more going for them in this game. I like new planes, but would have preferred instead a fix for the wider DM issues or upgrades to existing planes to bring more balance to the game (e.g., SE prop modifications, etc.). I'm still holding some hope for Vol. 2 bringing back some order to the game, and for the Spad VII 180.

Edited by NO.20_Krispy_Duck
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Vander, the National Museum of the USAF in Dayton Ohio has a 28 on display.  Good luck getting permission to be able to measure it though.

It's a replica, but built of original parts. It should be good for measurements.

071029-F-1234S-011.thumb.jpg.18130cc8eedd84ef8ff499248e319b0d.jpg

If it is not suspened, somtimes the staff can be convinced/bribed into doing the measurements for you. Not having visitors touch the exhibits is usually the reasonable choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Observations I agree with in bold. I don't think it's testbed for DM revision, more likely a plane designed from ground up to work with current DM. Which is good sign for FC2 planes at least (looking at you, Spad 7).


It would be nice if they took that route and then went back and revised FC1 planes. I'm sure we'll find out with the Pfalz XII (Based on RoF experiences) and the SPAD VII (Based on FC SPAD XIII).  As it stands currently, I'd expect both to fall apart if someone so much as coughs within a 10 foot radius of them. I hope to be pleasantly surprised...
 

42 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Now we're getting N.28. Hopefully fast enough to keep up with Spads,  less fragile than Dolphin, visibility as good as SE (but without her fragility), good candidate to get me home when I'm wounded and disengaging (stable and durable), smart controls that will let me react to targets of opportunity in big fight. If she had more ammo she'd make great ground attacker. Is she good plane for lone wolfing? Hell no. Is she good plane to go to AI dogfight area? Never. Is she good plane for supporting Drookasi in his Spad or Bidu in his Dolphin (knowing that with these guys around I'm mostly getting assists anyway)? I have to take her into real situation and see, but the potential is there.


From what we saw while testing her, the only way you're getting away in an N28 is if the Hun is ignoring you in favour of going after someone else...




 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

From what we saw while testing her, the only way you're getting away in an N28 is if the Hun is ignoring you in favour of going after someone else...
 

It's my own plane trying to kill me that worries me most in these situations :). 

(I fully expect Pfalz D.XII to be as stupidly fragile as she is in RoF. She will fit nicely among FC1 planes)

(We should have gotten Hanriot instead, her performance was close to what N.28 was supposed to be like). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:


(I fully expect Pfalz D.XII to be as stupidly fragile as she is in RoF. She will fit nicely among FC1 planes)
 

 

I think they are putting a lot of work into correct centering of iron sight.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, NO.20_Krispy_Duck said:

It feels sluggish to me and not terribly responsive overall in this representation.

 

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 aggressive maneuver, and it might explain the "fast acting, fast moving gem" quotes. In the current FM / DM this would be prime G-LOC / wing snapping territory, too.

 

Granted, that would be a very strange beast indeed. The only plane I can think of that comes close is something akin to an F-104 Starfighter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

It's a replica, but built of original parts. It should be good for measurements.

071029-F-1234S-011.thumb.jpg.18130cc8eedd84ef8ff499248e319b0d.jpg

If it is not suspened, somtimes the staff can be convinced/bribed into doing the measurements for you. Not having visitors touch the exhibits is usually the reasonable choice.

Last time I was there it was on the floor.  I am a "Friend of the Museum" member, and live a couple hours away from there.  Perhaps I will try to reach out to them.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Stephen Harker’s excellent compilation “Aircraft performance data for WWI” there is a table for the Nieuport 28 with the following data which contains the infamous 20 m2 (215 ft2) wing area number:

 

“Table 27: Nieuport 28 performance figures. The main sources are Peter M Bowers [12] and Davilla and Soltan [71,p 408]. Wing span 26 ft 3 in; wing area 215 ft2; wing loading 7.6 lb=ft2.

 

[12] Bowers, P. M.: 1966, The Nieuport N.28C-I, Vol. 79. Leatherhead, Surrey, England: Profile Publications Limited.

 

[71] Davilla, J. J. and A. M. Soltan: 1997, French Aircraft of the First World War. Boulder, Colorado USA: Flying Machines Press.”

 

Another interesting thing this table tells us is the weight: 215*7.6=1634 lb or 742 Kg.

 

So the numbers for weight and wing area seems to be all over the place........

 

But, as Sir Winston Churchill famously said already in 1939: “The wing area of the Nieuport 28 is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma” :big_boss:

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Why is the ammo capacity so low? Was that a historical design feature because of CoG issues? It seems strange for a late war aircraft. Or did the French just not like giving the Yanks enough ammo out of some gallic spite thing? Or were the Yanks just that good that they didn't need much lol?

 

 

 

Ammo capacity isn't the issue; it's creating an opportunity to fire it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the NASM's N28 has original wings (someone's probably mentioned this already), albeit essentially totally postwar. 

to quote from their website: 
 

"Single-engine, single-seat, French-built World War I biplane fighter; 160-horsepower Gnome Monosoupape 9n rotary engine; reproduction tail; numerous replacement parts on fuselage. Green, tan, brown, black camouflage upper surfaces. Light green-gray under surfaces"....

...."The upper wings have a manufacturing date of February 1919 with serial numbers 7103 (left panel) and 7226 (right panel). The lower left wing panel is marked as having been fabricated in November 1918 with serial number 6465. The lower right was made in October 1918 with serial number 6432".

Edited by US93_Larner
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more input on the factor between the chord of the upper and lower wing: I have a very detailed Nieuport 28 drawing from John McKenzie at The Aerodome forum which I got from him because it shows the wing profile in detail and I needed that for Xfoil modeling. Unfortunately I can't post it here because I don't know the provenance but measuring in that very detailed drawing I get a 1.299 chord factor so that ties in nicely with the French drawing giving 16 sqrm wing area with chords of "1" and "1.3" and span "8.16" m.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Holtzauge said:

Some more input on the factor between the chord of the upper and lower wing: I have a very detailed Nieuport 28 drawing from John McKenzie at The Aerodome forum which I got from him because it shows the wing profile in detail and I needed that for Xfoil modeling. Unfortunately I can't post it here because I don't know the provenance but measuring in that very detailed drawing I get a 1.299 chord factor so that ties in nicely with the French drawing giving 16 sqrm wing area with chords of "1" and "1.3" and span "8.16" m.

 

Which is exactly what the FC 3D model also has.  Part of the problem with aviation compendium books is that they all use secondary sources without checking, so any errors just get repeated. 

 

The French plan is a C.1, ie the production model used in WW1 - the 20m^2 only gets mentioned in a discussion of various prototypes AFAIK.  Unless someone can actually measure a live and not too bodged up N.28 and show that the area is significantly different, I think we have to go with the plan.

 

On flying I am reminded how nose heavy it seems compared to other rotaries. After take off you can climb at full power with the hands off the stick - try that in a Camel or Dr.1 and you will loop!  Then in flying it is a pig to pull up. I do like the engine though: would love to have the 4 stage cylinder control in a Camel. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

 

If the Dr1 in game couldn’t out-turn the Dolphin, can you honestly say with a straight face that you wouldn’t be suggesting a remodel?


This.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

 

 

On flying I am reminded how nose heavy it seems compared to other rotaries. After take off you can climb at full power with the hands off the stick - try that in a Camel or Dr.1 and you will loop!  Then in flying it is a pig to pull up. I do like the engine though: would love to have the 4 stage cylinder control in a Camel. 

 

 

So what you're saying is that, in order to solve the leaden tail, the Dev's moved the CofG forward thus creating an energy "suckling" pig when it wants to pull it's nose up 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

because it shows the wing profile in detail and I needed that for Xfoil modeling.

What kind of profile(s) did you get from these drawings?

Edited by ZachariasX
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =IRFC=Artun said:

If the Dr1 in game couldn’t out-turn the Dolphin, can you honestly say with a straight face that you wouldn’t be suggesting a remodel?

 

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but didn't Chill post an article, a wee while back, about the Camel and DR1 turn comparison, and didn't it suggest that wing length played an important part in sustained turn, in which case I would think that a Dolphin, in certain circumstances, would indeed outturn a DR1. It's trying to get the bugger to keep turning in the same direction that the trick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

So what you're saying is that, in order to solve the leaden tail, the Dev's moved the CofG forward thus creating an energy "suckling" pig when it wants to pull it's nose up 😉

 

I have no idea what they did, but according to a RoF thread AnP said the original take-off  issue was to do with the propwash at high AoA..... it is not always as simple as we would like. The combination of CoG and/or weak elevator just makes it very unresponsive in pitch: the rudder and ailerons are fine.  Fly it like a FW 190 and it is OK. ;) 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

What kind of profile(s) did you get from these drawings?

 

Actually more like the RAF-15 than the SPAD XIII profile in terms of camber and nose droop so 2D Clmax should be in the same order as the SE5a.  Add to this that as we know more than 3/4 of the drag in a turn is induced and that the 28C1 has such nice high aspect ratio wings and good power loading so it's a mystery it does not turn better in-game.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

Actually more like the RAF-15 than the SPAD XIII profile in terms of camber and nose droop so 2D Clmax should be in the same order as the SE5a.  Add to this that as we know more than 3/4 of the drag in a turn is induced and that the 28C1 has such nice high aspect ratio wings and good power loading so it's a mystery it does not turn better in-game.

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

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?

 

Good question. TBH I think this thread already contains all the data needed. In fact for sustained turn performance calculations by hand are perfectly possible but I don't have the time: I'm working on a book project where the 28C1 and a number of other planes are simulated in C++ to the same level as in the Camel and Dr.1 paper but that is not ready yet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

Good question. TBH I think this thread already contains all the data needed. In fact for sustained turn performance calculations by hand are perfectly possible but I don't have the time: I'm working on a book project where the 28C1 and a number of other planes are simulated in C++ to the same level as in the Camel and Dr.1 paper but that is not ready yet.

Just being curious, why C++? It seems to me that other languages (e.g. Python, MATLAB, possibly even something like FORTRAN) are much better suited to calculations of the kind because of the many readily available scientific toolpacks (not to mention that they're easier to program in, which is admittedly somewhat subjective). Not that I have anything against C++, but if I have to simulate something or do anything scientific, C++ usually ranks somewhere at the bottom of my list of programming languages.

 

This is not meant as any kind of criticism, and you may well have very valid reasons that I haven't thought of given that I'm admittedly not well versed in aerodynamics let alone fluid dynamics simulations. I'm just curious about the reasons you favoured C++ over the many alternatives :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Why is the ammo capacity so low? Was that a historical design feature because of CoG issues? It seems strange for a late war aircraft. Or did the French just not like giving the Yanks enough ammo out of some gallic spite thing? Or were the Yanks just that good that they didn't need much lol?

 

 Possibly because the second gun was added late in development.  Originally designed with a single gun, the 28 was competing with the new SPAD XIII which was being developed with two guns. With the narrow fuse on the N28 there was a problem with getting both guns between the struts due to the ammo feeder systems. The original gun was on the port side, and the additional gun was placed just in side the struts.

 

 Seems plausible I guess, that this configuration also caused limits to the amount of ammo it could store and feed reliably. 

 

 

Edited by J5_Gamecock
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • =IRFC=Hbender changed the title to Nieuport 28 initial impressions (+ bug reports submitted, see root post)
  • SYN_Haashashin locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...