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

[Holtzauge]

8 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

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

 

Could of course have done the simulation in any language but I  added the C++ to make it clear that it’s a computer simulation that’s all. The reason it's in C++ is I suck at JAVA and it was originally written in the now extinct language Simula.

 

If you are interested in the details you can see it under section “Verification of simulation model” in this paper covering Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr.1 turn performance.

[BMA_Hellbender]

10 hours ago, Titanslayer63 said:

Nieuport from what i heard can't out-turn a Spad 13  in game is this true for the real Nieuports? Seems off

 

It's true and it does seem off. Why this is the case is not clear, other than the fact that the plane's flight model is a straight port from Rise of Flight.

 

Eddie Rickenbacker on meeting a SPAD in his Nieuport 28 (Fighting the Flying Circus): 

 

"Both of us continued dead ahead at each other for twenty seconds or so until we arrived almost within shouting distance, when I discovered to my great relief that he wore the blue center cocard of a Frenchman and his machine was a Spad. We had fortunately neither of us fired a shot. Suddenly I saw the French pilot zoom up over me and attempt to get on my tail. Whether joking or not, I couldn’t permit such a maneuver, so I quickly darted under him and got the best position myself. The Nieuport can outmaneuver a Spad and has a little faster climb; so the stranger soon found he had his match.”

 

I'm sure that people will still think of uses for it, but as far as impressions go for the newly released FC2, it's not good.

 

 

1 hour ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Not sure if this has been brought up but did you know the N28 is invisible? Not the pilot. 

 

So I've heard, yes. Who's going to take screenshots and submit the bug report this time?

 

I'd volunteer to do it, but I don't know, I was actually planning on having a bit of fun with the flak truck tonight.

[Carl_infar]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

Both of us continued dead ahead at each other for twenty seconds or so until we arrived almost within shouting distance, when I discovered to my great relief that he wore the blue center cocard of a Frenchman and his machine was a Spad. We had fortunately neither of us fired a shot. Suddenly I saw the French pilot zoom up over me and attempt to get on my tail. Whether joking or not, I couldn’t permit such a maneuver, so I quickly darted under him and got the best position myself. The Nieuport can outmaneuver a Spad and has a little faster climb; so the stranger soon found he had his

For me its always funny when the anegdotal stories are used as scientific evidence. The question could be leaving for example the pilot skill aside, did they had same amount of fuel,ammo at the time ofntheir encounter, how much pilots weight, how many  hours each engine had (how old was it) etc...

 

Another of my all time favourate is the boasting of some p51 pilots that they destroyed tigers by bouncing the 0,5 " undernith them... (Not to mentaion that for them each tank they seenwas a tiger)

Edited April 23, 2021 by Carl_infar

[SYN_Vander]

2 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Could of course have done the simulation in any language but I  added the C++ to make it clear that it’s a computer simulation that’s all. The reason it's in C++ is I suck at JAVA and it was originally written in the now extinct language Simula.

 

If you are interested in the details you can see it under section “Verification of simulation model” in this paper covering Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr.1 turn performance.

 

Very interesting paper Holtzauge! I too studied Aeronautics, but ended up in Telecoms :). It is nice to 'activate' my university knowledge again. Back in the day I used Xfoil to design an airfoil for an 'unmanned aerial vehicle' with low Re numbers. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

27 minutes ago, Carl_infar said:

For me its always funny when the anegdotal stories are used as scientific evidence. The question could be leaving for example the pilot skill aside, did they had same amount of fuel,ammo at the time ofntheir encounter, how much pilots weight, how many  hours each engine had (how old was it) etc...

 

The plural of anecdotes is data.

 

 

 

[Carl_infar]

12 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

The plural of anecdotes is data.

 

 

 

Anegdots without hard data are still anegdots, 

 

The statements : outstanding manevroubility doesnt say if it was sustained turn ,roll rate or instant turn rate, or at what speeds, nor gives any value...

 

Same with comparision with spads , statements that they didnt have the manuvrability doesnt say if they mean the better turn or roll rate, or how much better, or at what speeds...

 

 

The aerobatic competition is the most funny of the above. In aerobatic competition its about flying the manuvers cleanly, there nothing about comparing the roll, turn ect rates between the planes.

 

[Cynic_Al]

So in conclusion we can say that the N28 has met in every way the expectations of all RoF players, including the likelihood of anything changing.  We must give credit to the company for justifying the eagerness of all those who couldn't wait to pay for it in advance.

[BMA_Hellbender]

14 minutes ago, Carl_infar said:

Anegdots without hard data are still anegdots, 

 

The statements : outstanding manevroubility doesnt say if it was sustained turn ,roll rate or instant turn rate, or at what speeds, nor gives any value...

 

Same with comparision with spads , statements that they didnt have the manuvrability doesnt say if they mean the better turn or roll rate, or how much better, or at what speeds...

 

 

The aerobatic competition is the most funny of the above. In aerobatic competition its about flying the manuvers cleanly, there nothing about comparing the roll, turn ect rates between the planes.

 

According to the hard data presented throughout this thread she has lower wing loading than the Albatros D.Va and a more efficient airfoil than the SPAD, in spite of having relatively high wing loading. In spite of any speculation regarding sustained or instantaneous turn performance, which is indeed anyone’s guess, she can do neither, which suggests at least an error in balance and stability.

[J5_HellCat_]

[No.23_Triggers]

I went out to confirm my N28 multiplayer suspicions last night, and - can confirm - it's a lemon LOL 

EDIT: Also seems like N28s aren't counted as air kills in multiplayer

Edited April 23, 2021 by US93_Larner

[Holtzauge]

5 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

Very interesting paper Holtzauge! I too studied Aeronautics, but ended up in Telecoms :). It is nice to 'activate' my university knowledge again. Back in the day I used Xfoil to design an airfoil for an 'unmanned aerial vehicle' with low Re numbers. 

 

Thanks! Yes, Xfoil is still a gem and amazing that Mark Drela did it already in the 80's and that it's still useful today. I'm in Telecoms myself these days, worked on the Gripen back in the days but went to greener pastures more than 20 years ago when a lot of the Swedish defense industry began the long downhill slide.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Holtzauge

[SYN_Vander]

20 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Thanks! Yes, Xfoil is still a gem and amazing that Mark Dreal did it already in the 80's and that it's still useful today. I'm in Telecoms myself these days, worked on the Gripen back in the days but went to greener pastures more than 20 years ago when a lot of the Swedish defense industry began the long downhill slide.

 

It will be very interesting to see the results for the N28. Your data will be the best source we'll get  and it will all be verifiable.

[01Wingchaps]

2 hours ago, Carl_infar said:

Anegdots without hard data are still anegdots, 

 

The statements : outstanding manevroubility doesnt say if it was sustained turn ,roll rate or instant turn rate, or at what speeds, nor gives any value...

 

Same with comparision with spads , statements that they didnt have the manuvrability doesnt say if they mean the better turn or roll rate, or how much better, or at what speeds...

 

 

The aerobatic competition is the most funny of the above. In aerobatic competition its about flying the manuvers cleanly, there nothing about comparing the roll, turn ect rates between the planes.

 

 

I think we have enough to conclude the N-28 flight model as it exists is not accurate, and the developers need to go back to the drawing board.

 

Call the pilot's testimony 'anecdotal' if you wish, but these are reports from men who flew and fought in these machines. What we have in the Nieuport 28 is clearly not 'more maneuverable' than the SPAD XIII, it bears no resemblance to what history describes.

 

The developers have given us an incredible simulation. In this particular case we're asking them to re-evaluate the numbers.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 01Wingchaps

[US96_Wright]

5 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

It's true and it does seem off. Why this is the case is not clear, other than the fact that the plane's flight model is a straight port from Rise of Flight.

 

Eddie Rickenbacker on meeting a SPAD in his Nieuport 28 (Fighting the Flying Circus?

 

"Both of us continued dead ahead at each other for twenty seconds or so until we arrived almost within shouting distance, when I discovered to my great relief that he wore the blue center cocard of a Frenchman and his machine was a Spad. We had fortunately neither of us fired a shot. Suddenly I saw the French pilot zoom up over me and attempt to get on my tail. Whether joking or not, I couldn’t permit such a maneuver, so I quickly darted under him and got the best position myself. The Nieuport can outmaneuver a Spad and has a little faster climb; so the stranger soon found he had his match.”

 

I'm sure that people will still think of uses for it, but as far as impressions go for the newly released FC2, it's not good.

 

 

 

So I've heard, yes. Who's going to take screenshots and submit the bug report this time?

 

I'd volunteer to do it, but I don't know, I was actually planning on having a bit of fun with the flak truck tonight.

Sad part is you quoted from a comment of which they deleted on that forum to my knowledge. If its going to be a direct port its going to severely hinder my expectations. One could say its odd that the one planes they keep castrating or messing up constantly and pretty consistently are allied aircraft. 

Edited April 23, 2021 by Titanslayer63

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

The plural of anecdotes is data.

That's bullocks. The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". You can have a million anecdotes, but it'll never become data. Your statement is akin to saying global warming doesn't exist because we had snow and freezing temperatures this year, and two years ago, and the year before. Or, conversely, that it does exist because we've had a couple of the warmest days on record. It may look like it tells you something, but in fact it tells you nothing, nada. Similarly, the only thing the anectodes you quote shows, is that at least some pilots were of the opinion that the N28 was rather maneuverable.

 

2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

According to the hard data presented throughout this thread she has lower wing loading than the Albatros D.Va and a more efficient airfoil than the SPAD, in spite of having relatively high wing loading. In spite of any speculation regarding sustained or instantaneous turn performance, which is indeed anyone’s guess, she can do neither, which suggests at least an error in balance and stability.

For something to be "hard data," in other words a scientific fact, it must be:
1) objective
2) measurable
3) verifyable

The first by definition disqualifies statements such as the ones you quote, most of which are based on N28 pilots' perspectives instead of that of a neutral observer. The second disqualifies vague terms such as "fast" or "outstanding," which also applies to a lot of the statements, and the third (besides being somewhat of a bogus point for subjective statements) also disqualifies these statements since not enough is known about the exact circumstances they flew in to replicate the results.

 

I looked at all the posts in this thread, and in fact I found only four statements that check these three boxes and can hence be called "hard data."

- wing dimensions

- weight (combined with the above this gives wing loading)
- airfoil
- combat results against Central aircraft

 

Of these, combat results are rather unreliable since they discount many factors such as pilot training, aerial superiority etc.

 

As the (indeed very interesting!) paper by Holzauge shows, wing loading and airfoil also only tell part of the story as the Camel, with higher wing loading and inferior airfoil, is shown to outperform the Dr.I in most cases.

 

The only conclusion that can therefore be drawn from all the "hard data presented throughout this thread" is that there is too little hard data to make any definite statements on whether the N28 flight model is accurate or not.

Edited April 23, 2021 by AEthelraedUnraed

[No.23_Gaylion]

That's the thing about anecdotal evidence of events and historian Peter Hart explains it in a great way. One person relating events tells the story only how that one individual saw it, but taking his story, all his mate's stories, the enemy perspective of the event, unit histories and diaries, technical manuals, and so forth you begin to have a picture of what the event was like overall.

 

 

[US96_Wright]

Though i will admit, the probability the Nieuport would be nicer in a turn compared Spad 13 of which is a heavier aircraft is high. Now Im definitely not an airplane engineer nor do i have the technical know how. But when you it comes across from people that i talk to that the Spad is out-turning the Nieuport of which is a lighter aircraft. In using common know how of Aviation one wouldnt be out of norm to think something is wrong with such performances 

[unreasonable]

What I would like to see as a mod or DLC is a movable trim weight. Real pilots could in fact alter the trim of their planes to some degree, either by adjusting rigging or with weights, but we cannot. I do wonder if the N.28 would feel better with a slightly further aft CoG.  

[US96_Wright]

5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

What I would like to see as a mod or DLC is a movable trim weight. Real pilots could in fact alter the trim of their planes to some degree, either by adjusting rigging or with weights, but we cannot. I do wonder if the N.28 would feel better with a slightly further aft CoG.  

TBH that might fix the turn issue a little but best not overdone otherwise it could be very twitchy. And Trim Weights would be nice

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, Carl_infar said:

The aerobatic competition is the most funny of the above. In aerobatic competition its about flying the manuvers cleanly, there nothing about comparing the roll, turn ect rates between the planes.

 

Wait a minute...

 

 

 

1922...

 

Switzerland...

 

Won the aeronautical competition against all opponents...

 

 

 

 

Siri, show me a picture of the Swiss N28.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Enhance 34 to 46.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Enhance 57 to 19. Track 45 right. Stop.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Pull back. Track 180 right. Rotate 120, extrapolate, clarify, reticulate splines, enhance to 4K. 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

MON DIEU!

 

I rescind all my previous comments!

 

 

This was clearly a smear campaign from the Société Anonyme des Établissements Nieuport to bring their longtime competitor Aéroplanes Hanriot et Cie into disrepute. No way the Nieuport flying trashcan could have won. To think that they would go to such lengths as to bribe American aviators and the entire international aviation press at the time to discredit the glorious — no, flawless Hanriot HD.1! And SPAD, there was also a SPAD that entered that competition. The dude who flew it died in it. Sorry.

 

Finally after all those years the truth has come to light, and they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling flightsim forum nerds.

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender

[US41_Low]

Global cooling. Global warming. Climate change. Climate emergency. Politics.

 

Climate 

My larger point being that the poster above can say anecdotal evidence isn’t data or evidence or usable or whatever his point is, but it’s just semantics. Engineers use pilot word-of-mouth to give feedback on new jets or adjustments to jets or what have you. Word of mount experience is always used as part of the analysis. You can decry the use of pilot anecdotes but the rest of the world will continue using pilot feedback without you.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Relic

[Cynic_Al]

35 minutes ago, 01Wingchaps said:

The developers have given us an incredible simulation. In this particular case we're asking them to re-evaluate the numbers.

 

Do you want fries with that?  There seems to be a belief that there's an army of developers with a surfeit of time available for the resolution of issues such as these, when it has been made abundantly clear that is not the case.  Having said that, it could be that given familiarity with the related code, the necessary changes could be trivial, however we are also told that those responsible for it have moved-on.  As for those that remain:

 

 

 "They have other things to do"

 

[J2_NobiWan]

39 minutes ago, Relic said:

My larger point being that the poster above can say anecdotal evidence isn’t data or evidence or usable or whatever his point is, but it’s just semantics. Engineers use pilot word-of-mouth to give feedback on new jets or adjustments to jets or what have you. Word of mount experience is always used as part of the analysis. You can decry the use of pilot anecdotes but the rest of the world will continue using pilot feedback without you.

 

Engineers use feedback from test pilots who are also engineers. I doubt that this can be said form the guys that were cited above. I worked enough with pilots to only rely on hard data.

[US41_Low]

And yet those engineers will keep sending test pilots up to give feedback.

 

I don’t even have the n28 and can’t speak to anything about it. It’s simply the idea that people would discount and ignore the ONLY firsthand combat pilot experience of the machine in question is simply silly and falls into the realm of historical revisionism. You don’t have to base everything off of it. But you absolutely should reference it. 

Edited April 23, 2021 by Relic

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

That's bullocks. The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". You can have a million anecdotes, but it'll never become data. Your statement is akin to saying global warming doesn't exist because we had snow and freezing temperatures this year, and two years ago, and the year before. Or, conversely, that it does exist because we've had a couple of the warmest days on record. It may look like it tells you something, but in fact it tells you nothing, nada. Similarly, the only thing the anectodes you quote shows, is that at least some pilots were of the opinion that the N28 was rather maneuverable.

 

For something to be "hard data," in other words a scientific fact, it must be:
1) objective
2) measurable
3) verifyable

The first by definition disqualifies statements such as the ones you quote, most of which are based on N28 pilots' perspectives instead of that of a neutral observer. The second disqualifies vague terms such as "fast" or "outstanding," which also applies to a lot of the statements, and the third (besides being somewhat of a bogus point for subjective statements) also disqualifies these statements since not enough is known about the exact circumstances they flew in to replicate the results.

 

I looked at all the posts in this thread, and in fact I found only four statements that check these three boxes and can hence be called "hard data."

- wing dimensions

- weight (combined with the above this gives wing loading)
- airfoil
- combat results against Central aircraft

 

Of these, combat results are rather unreliable since they discount many factors such as pilot training, aerial superiority etc.

 

As the (indeed very interesting!) paper by Holzauge shows, wing loading and airfoil also only tell part of the story as the Camel, with higher wing loading and inferior airfoil, is shown to outperform the Dr.I in most cases.

 

The only conclusion that can therefore be drawn from all the "hard data presented throughout this thread" is that there is too little hard data to make any definite statements on whether the N28 flight model is accurate or not.

We don't have the data , they didn't have it either,  so they use data which they think is right in the model,  but if that produces model which contradict only existing "anecdotal"  data this should be tweaked,  we are buying and we should not dispute that for 10 years, we are customers and as collective we know it is wrong and we do not need telemetry  data to prove it.  This game is for us not for them. Show me the data is just excuses to do nothing,  they made those old FM without it too it obvious. Not all data but some part is just educational guess and bad results. Use anecdotal information to benefit genre not fight against it.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Titanslayer63 said:

One could say its odd that the one planes they keep castrating or messing up constantly and pretty consistently are allied aircraft. 

 

One thing is not tied to the other, so let's please stay away from the conspiracy theories.

[Dakpilot]

I'm a pilot

 

I've been in books

 

I truly hope my anecdotes are not used in any FM disussions in 30 years time as some sort of proof or even as a firm generalisation.

 

(very unlikely but I am just making a point)

 

I also know many pilots who have written books and would 99% never use their anecdotes as proof of anything , from the size of their bar tabs to aircraft performance

 

People just need to stop posting random x pilot says x plane is more 'maneuverable' or I outurned Y aircraft, there are simply too many variables for it to have any definitive value

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[J2_Trupobaw]

2 hours ago, Titanslayer63 said:

. One could say its odd that the one planes they keep castrating or messing up constantly and pretty consistently are allied aircraft. 

Albatros, Pfalz and Fokker D.VII have the wrong engine for time period. Every central scout except maybe D.VIIF is underperforming for powerplant it supposedly has (I expect "200hp" versions to finally match performance of historical 180hp versions and cross fingers for Chill). We are soon getting a 185 km/h D.VIII, a Pfalz D.XII that is anthitesis of historical plane, and DFW C.V with 1916 engine (in 1918 they flew with overcompressed variant).  This is the realism baseline of our sim. One could say it is odd that we hear outrage only when Entente machine ends up mangled. (Remebmer all the drama when D.V oil system was overheating the engine under 2k, making plane close to uselss? Me neither.)

Thanks for illustrating my point.

Edited April 23, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

[US41_Low]

Are there any written accounts of the n28 being a poor performing, sluggish, brute?

 

Not that it would matter to some of you since apparently it is acceptable to ignore firsthand historical experience, but I’m just curious to know since you all have done more research.

[Dakpilot]

No one I believe is saying it is acceptable to ignore first hand experience. 

 

However pilot quotes and passages rarely have enough context and necessary details to be of any use as  proof, but they can invite correct research 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[No.23_Gaylion]

53 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

One could say it is odd that we hear outrage only when Entente machine ends up mangled. 

 

Yeah totally silent. 

 

 

58 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Remebmer all the drama when D.V oil system was overheating the engine under 2k, making plane close to uselss? Me neither.)

Thanks for illustrating my point.

 

You mean the bug that was fixed after it was properly pointed out?

 

Dude knock it off man, we complain just as much about albatros and cl2 wings.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dakpilot said:

I'm a pilot

 

I've been in books

 

I truly hope my anecdotes are not used in any FM disussions in 30 years time as some sort of proof or even as a firm generalisation.

 

(very unlikely but I am just making a point)

 

I also know many pilots who have written books and would 99% never use their anecdotes as proof of anything , from the size of their bar tabs to aircraft performance

 

People just need to stop posting random x pilot says x plane is more 'maneuverable' or I outurned Y aircraft, there are simply too many variables for it to have any definitive value

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

That sounds anecdotal.

[No.23_Triggers]

44 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

One could say it is odd that we hear outrage only when Entente machine ends up mangled. (Remebmer all the drama when D.V oil system was overheating the engine under 2k, making plane close to uselss? Me neither.)

Ok, it's time to cut the shit. 

I do remember the complaints about the D.Va oil system. I'll also point out that that was fixed following said complaints. There have also been both Central and Entente pilots complaining about the Alb D.Va and CL.II's ridiculously weak wings. There were multiple mentions from both 'sides' that the D.IIIaü should be available for the Central FC planes. And, oh! Look! They're going to add D.IIIaüs now! 

But if the 'Entente pilots' dare to suggest that any of their own planes are incorrect in any way, they're "Having unrealistic expectations" and "expecting miracles" according to you. 

I'm all for you having whatever opinion you have about which FC planes need fixes and which don't, but don't spin a false narrative about Entente players being the only ones who make complaints. 

[J5_HellCat_]

Edited April 23, 2021 by J5_HellCat_

[Trooper117]

20 minutes ago, J5_HellCat_ said:

 

I like that!

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

Squeaky wheel was always the first to be replaced.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

We don't have the data , they didn't have it either,  so they use data which they think is right in the model,  but if that produces model which contradict only existing "anecdotal"  data this should be tweaked,  we are buying and we should not dispute that for 10 years, we are customers and as collective we know it is wrong and we do not need telemetry  data to prove it.  This game is for us not for them. Show me the data is just excuses to do nothing,  they made those old FM without it too it obvious. Not all data but some part is just educational guess and bad results. Use anecdotal information to benefit genre not fight against it.

I'm not advocating either for or against a different flight model, and I couldn't care less whether the N28 FM is eventually changed or not. I merely insist that people use objective, measurable and verifyable data in their arguments why the FM is wrong and should be changed.

 

Frankly, I cannot understand how anyone can possibly be against that.

[BMA_Hellbender]

6 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I looked at all the posts in this thread, and in fact I found only four statements that check these three boxes and can hence be called "hard data."

- wing dimensions

- weight (combined with the above this gives wing loading)
- airfoil

 

 

6 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

As the (indeed very interesting!) paper by Holzauge shows, wing loading and airfoil also only tell part of the story as the Camel, with higher wing loading and inferior airfoil, is shown to outperform the Dr.I in most cases.

 

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and doubt that you've thoroughly read this and this thread, nor looked at the in-game data or even thoroughly read through @Holtzauge's paper for that matter.

 

 

So allow me to reiterate:

 

• SPAD XIII:
  
  
  
  820kg
  20.2m^2
  = 40.59kg/m^2
  
   
• Nieuport 28
  
  
  
  698kg
  20m^2
  = 34.9kg/m^2

 

So normally the buck would stop here and we'd say: Nieuport 28 has lower wing loading hence better sustained turn and behaviour in FC is wrong.

 

 

But @unreasonable went the extra mile and measured the actual pixels of the 3D model to prove aerodynamically why our N28 misbehaves and came to the conclusion that the surface is actually 16m^2.

So again:
 

• Nieuport 28 (with corrected measurements from 3D model)
  
  698kg
  16m^2
  = 43.625kg/m^2

 

Now that's looking way more like the FC N28! So here it is: Nieuport 28 has higher wing loading hence worse sustained turn and FC is right.

 

But then we take a cursory look at the Albatros D.Va.

 

• Albatros D.Va
  
  
  
  915kg
  21.2m^2
  = 43.16kg/m^2

 

That is juuuuust about better than the Nieuport 28, but it's also worse than the SPAD. In FC, the Albatros clearly outturns the SPAD, it's almost on the level of the Camel, even.
 

So now we must look at airfoils.

 

 

(not to scale, the Albatros is much bigger than it looks here and the Göttingen 298 is smaller)

 

Thicker, in general, is more efficient at sustained turning (high CLmax).

 

Eiffel 14 = SPAD airfoil

RAF 14 (/ 15) = Sopwith Camel / S.E.5a airfoil

Albatros = ...Albatros airfoil

Göttingen 298 = Fokker Dr.I airfoil

 

 

...as for the Nieuport 28: it has a Nieuport 28 airfoil.

 

It's close to a RAF 14, but not quite. In fact it's something in between.

 

 

Thank you @94th_Vernon and @SYN_Vander.

 

 

If we look behind the scenes for a moment, we can see that the N28's airfoil in the 3D model is indeed almost exactly between the two:

 

SPAD (very thin airfoil):

 

 

Nieuport 28 (in between airfoil):

 

 

Camel (thin airfoil):

 

 

 

In the sim, the N28's wing behaves almost exactly like a SPAD (they were the first Entente planes developed by NeoQB back in 2009), especially in a dive, as she can take 8.5g in a pullout (tested this yesterday). The Camel, by comparison, is limited to something like 6.5-7g, same as the S.E.5a or Dolphin. So really the Nieuport's wing is already too tough, but fair enough, Nieuport was primarily building the Nieuport 28 for speed and sought compromises. The article Destined to Fail: The Nieuport 28 Wing (Theodore M. Hamady) goes into detail how the linen would balloon due to the pressure building up around the leading edges.

 

 

By way of comparison, here's the Albatros medium thick airfoil:

 

 

So finally we come to the end of the story: the Albatros turns so well because it has these medium thick wings in spite of having high wing loading, the SPAD has the best wing loading but very thin wings, and the Nieuport 28 has roughly the same wing loading as the Albatros, but (almost) equally thin wings as the SPAD so it is the worst of the three. Q.E.D.

 

CORRECT! And I agree that is what's happening right now in RoF / FC more than likely.

 

However... (sorry, you wanted data, you're going to get data — and I have to tread lightly because I'm entering "Central screeching" territory)

 

 

• Fokker D.VII
  
  
  
  909kg
  20.4m^2
  = 44.56kg/m^2

Again the worst one of the lot so far. But check out this T H I C C   B O I I

 

 

 

In spite of its massively thick wing, the Fokker D.VII has a worse sustained turn than the Albatros D.Va (and Pfalz, which isn't even an efficient sesquiplane).

Mmmmh... Are the Albatros/Pfalz wings optimistic in their sustained turn...

[ Central screeching intensifies ] 

...or is there yet something else at play?

 

And here I have no more answer for you, because I believe that aspect ratio is involved and I trust in @Holtzauge's upcoming simulations.

Otherwise a plane like the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV with a massive wing loading of 48.7kg/m^2 and a demonstrated rate of turn of 10s, rivalling the Sopwith Camel, could never achieve such a feat. And before you ask for its wing thickness (Göttingen 180):

 

Medium thick, more or less similar to the Albatros.

 

 

 

In conclusion (holy waffles batman, finally)

 

• Either the 3D model (16m^2) or the data (20m^2) on the N28 is wrong. It's one or the other. I tend to think the 3D model is right and it may even ignore the 20m^2 figure outright or the N28 would simply have a better sustained turn, no questions asked. The 20m^2 is the figure from Frank Tallman's Flying the Old Planes, which could be a second series Nieuport 28A with slightly redesigned wings. Or it could just be wrong.
   
• Where the hell does all this weight come from? The Camel weighs 431kg empty, the Nieuport 28 weighs 436kg empty. Makes sense: the Camel has more wing area, the N28 is longer and has a bigger engine. They both weigh 700kg full (give or take 2kg). But the N28 takes less fuel and has only half the ammo.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  And sure Americans are supposed to be fat, but come on, there's at least 50-60kg unaccounted for.
  Could it be the balloon guns? Or the extra 4m^2 of the Nieuport 28A?
   
• The airfoil remains a mystery. Let's consider the fact that the sim engine thinks it is a true SPAD wing, but it really wasn't. Does it really matter? In the long run, no. This isn't a turnfighter, nor was it built to be one. That doesn't mean it couldn't turn at all.
   
• Finally, all of this has been to see what it's sustained turn could potentially be like. Personally I think it was unremarkable, though almost certainly better than a SPAD XIII — unless the American aviators were lying. Why would they? After all they were very candid about the fact that this plane gave them the runs due to castor oil splatter and killed some of them through fabric shedding and engine fires.
  
  Even with a relatively high wing loading, that still doesn't explain the fact why it is so sluggish and unresponsive to controls, as if its elevator were ineffective. A light and unstable plane with a high wing loading is capable of sharp instantaneous turns which could certainly make them feel more maneuverable than a SPAD. In conclusion: its center of gravity is likely misaligned, and that could be due to any number of reasons.

Edited April 23, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender

[J5_HellCat_]

10 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and doubt that you've thoroughly read this and this thread, nor looked at the in-game data or even thoroughly read through @Holtzauge's paper for that matter.

 

 

So allow me to reiterate:

 

• SPAD XIII:
  
  
  
  820kg
  20.2m^2
  = 40.59kg/m^2
  
   
• Nieuport 28
  
  
  
  698kg
  20m^2
  = 34.9kg/m^2

 

So normally the buck would stop here and we'd say: Nieuport 28 has lower wing loading hence better sustained turn and behaviour in FC is wrong.

 

 

But @unreasonable went the extra mile and measured the actual pixels of the 3D model to prove aerodynamically why our N28 misbehaves and came to the conclusion that the surface is actually 16m^2.

So again:
 

• Nieuport 28 (with corrected measurements from 3D model)
  
  698kg
  16m^2
  = 43.625kg/m^2

 

Now that's looking way more like the FC N28! So here it is: Nieuport 28 has higher wing loading hence worse sustained turn and FC is right.

 

But then we take a cursory look at the Albatros D.Va.

 

• Albatros D.Va
  
  
  
  915kg
  21.2m^2
  = 43.16kg/m^2

 

That is juuuuust about better than the Nieuport 28, but it's also worse than the SPAD. In FC, the Albatros clearly outturns the SPAD, it's almost on the level of the Camel, even.
 

So now we must look at airfoils.

 

 

(not to scale, the Albatros is much bigger than it looks here and the Göttingen 298 is smaller)

 

Thicker, in general, is more efficient at sustained turning (high CLmax).

 

Eiffel 14 = SPAD airfoil

RAF 14 (/ 15) = Sopwith Camel / S.E.5a airfoil

Albatros = ...Albatros airfoil

Göttingen 298 = Fokker Dr.I airfoil

 

 

...as for the Nieuport 28: it has a Nieuport 28 airfoil.

 

It's close to a RAF 14, but not quite. In fact it's something in between.

 

 

Thank you @94th_Vernon and @SYN_Vander.

 

 

If we look behind the scenes for a moment, we can see that the N28's airfoil in the 3D model is indeed almost exactly between the two:

 

SPAD (very thin airfoil):

 

 

Nieuport 28 (in between airfoil):

 

 

Camel (thin airfoil):

 

 

 

In the sim, the N28's wing behaves almost exactly like a SPAD (they were the first Entente planes developed by NeoQB back in 2009), especially in a dive, as she can take 8.5g in a pullout (tested this yesterday). The Camel, by comparison, is limited to something like 6.5-7g, same as the S.E.5a or Dolphin. So really the Nieuport's wing is already too tough, but fair enough, Nieuport was primarily building the Nieuport 28 for speed and sought compromises. The article Destined to Fail: The Nieuport 28 Wing (Theodore M. Hamady) goes into detail how the linen would balloon due to the pressure building up around the leading edges.

 

 

By way of comparison, here's the Albatros medium thick airfoil:

 

 

So finally we come to the end of the story: the Albatros turns so well because it has these medium thick wings in spite of having high wing loading, the SPAD has the best wing loading but very thin wings, and the Nieuport 28 has roughly the same wing loading as the Albatros, but (almost) equally thin wings as the SPAD so it is the worst of the three. Q.E.D.

 

CORRECT! And I agree that is what's happening right now in RoF / FC more than likely.

 

However... (sorry, you wanted data, you're going to get data — and I have to tread lightly because I'm entering "Central screeching" territory)

 

 

• Fokker D.VII
  
  
  
  909kg
  20.4m^2
  = 44.56kg/m^2

Again the worst one of the lot so far. But check out this T H I C C   B O I I

 

 

 

In spite of its massively thick wing, the Fokker D.VII has a worse sustained turn than the Albatros D.Va (and Pfalz, which isn't even an efficient sesquiplane).

Mmmmh... Are the Albatros/Pfalz wings optimistic in their sustained turn...

[ Central screeching intensifies ] 

...or is there yet something else at play?

 

And here I have no more answer for you, because I believe that aspect ratio is involved and I trust in @Holtzauge's upcoming simulations.

Otherwise a plane like the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV with a massive wing loading of 48.7kg/m^2 and a demonstrated rate of turn of 10s, rivalling the Sopwith Camel, could never achieve such a feat. And before you ask for its wing thickness (Göttingen 180):

 

Medium thick, more or less similar to the Albatros.

 

 

 

In conclusion (holy waffles batman, finally)

 

• Either the 3D model (16m^2) or the data (20m^2) on the N28 is wrong. It's one or the other. I tend to think the 3D model is right and it may even ignore the 20m^2 figure outright or the N28 would simply have a better sustained turn, no questions asked. The 20m^2 is the figure from Frank Tallman's Flying the Old Planes, which could be a second series Nieuport 28A with slightly redesigned wings. Or it could just be wrong.
   
• Where the hell does all this weight come from? The Camel weighs 431kg empty, the Nieuport 28 weighs 436kg empty. Makes sense: the Camel has more wing area, the N28 is longer and has a bigger engine. They both weigh 700kg full (give or take 2kg). But the N28 takes less fuel and has only half the ammo.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  And sure Americans are supposed to be fat, but come on, there's at least 50-60kg unaccounted for.
  Could it be the balloon guns? Or the extra 4m^2 of the Nieuport 28A?
   
• The airfoil remains a mystery. Let's consider the fact that the sim engine thinks it is a true SPAD wing, but it really wasn't. Does it really matter? In the long run, no. This isn't a turnfighter, nor was it built to be one. That doesn't mean it couldn't turn at all.
   
• Finally, all of this has been to see what it's sustained turn could potentially be like. Personally I think it was unremarkable, though almost certainly better than a SPAD XIII — unless the American aviators were lying. Why would they? After all they were very candid about the fact that this plane gave them the runs due to castor oil splatter and killed some of them through fabric shedding and engine fires.
  
  Even with a relatively high wing loading, that still doesn't explain the fact why it is so sluggish and unresponsive to controls, as if its elevator were ineffective. A light and unstable plane with a high wing loading is capable of sharp instantaneous turns which could certainly make them feel more maneuverable than a SPAD. In conclusion: its center of gravity is likely misaligned, and that could be due to any number of reasons.

 

Holy F'n informative post ...You really out did yourself on this one ...... Salute o7

 

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

55 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and doubt that you've thoroughly read this and this thread, nor looked at the in-game data or even thoroughly read through @Holtzauge's paper for that matter.

As I stated, I read this thread and the paper. I didn't read the other thread or any other information, of which I'm sure there's a whole lot all around the internet, and neither did I claim to have done so.

 

Is there any particular reason you doubt that I read those?

 

56 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

However... (sorry, you wanted data, you're going to get data — and I have to tread lightly because I'm entering "Central screeching" territory)

Absolutely I wanted data. And you provided it, which makes this post of yours more valuable than 90% of all the other posts by everyone in this thread with the well-meant (and certainly interesting!) but not very valuable anectodes and all the unnecessary jabs from Entente to Central players and vice versa....

 

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

Where the hell does all this weight come from? The Camel weighs 431kg empty, the Nieuport 28 weighs 436kg empty. Makes sense: the Camel has more wing area, the N28 is longer and has a bigger engine. They both weigh 700kg full (give or take 2kg). But the N28 takes less fuel and has only half the ammo.

That's a very interesting question indeed.

 

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

And here I have no more answer for you, because I believe that aspect ratio is involved and I trust in @Holtzauge's upcoming simulations.

I can agree with you here. A scientific simulation is basically the only way to be sure, short of flying the actual thing, and I hope that his paper settles this discussion, one way or the other. Although, as you point out, even that'll only tell part of the story as there are other things than just the wings that come into play such as elevator authority, CoG and the like. Unless Holzauge plans to include those in his simulations?

 

On another note, I just flew the N28 for the first time (was away from my gaming rig for a couple of days...) and I think it flies OK... its sustained turn is indeed a bit low, but on the other hand I tried a 360 degree instantaneous turn which I think I did in around 8 seconds from the moment I started my roll (counted out the seconds rather than measuring with a stopwatch so I may be a bit off). IMO that's pretty decent. At least it didn't feel very sluggish at all until I lost my energy.

[Pahec97]

What hasn't been talked much are the wingtips. Most of WWI planes have straight no bullshit ends, but N28 has those nice curves, which were used by most planes after WWI, there surely is a benefit. Wingtip change has shaved off 1,5 seconds in turn time on Yak-9, here the impact might be even better. This however would be difficult ot analyze with simple methods like xfoil.