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

[BlitzPig_EL]

I tried the 28 this weekend.

 

Just one more added to the "No fly" list.  It's not bad for solo sight seeing flights, but if any Central Powers aircraft show up, you are better off just bailing and saving all the time (30 seconds or so) till it shoots you down.

 

Back to the Pfalz, unfortunately.  I look really silly in a Picklehaub.

 

I'm so tired of struggling with the Entente kites, when all you have to do is fly for the Kaiser and rule the sky.

 

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

8 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

For the record: the Hanriot (?) is a Nieuport 17 / Camel hybrid with very gentle stall characteristics, a decent climb and mostly harmless with its tiny single non-muzzle boosted machinegun. It's really nice against a D.VII if you're a good shot, dead against a Dr.I in a dogfight (which it never fought in real life). But it's agile, stupidly cute to look at and not defenseless, as it's easier to outmaneuver than to outrun/outroll bullets.

 

Hanriot was all that BUT, had the weakest wings of them all so I can't imagine what it'll be like in FC.

[J2_Trupobaw]

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'm so tired of struggling with the Entente kites, when all you have to do is fly for the Kaiser and rule the sky.

Entente planes are more capable than Central ones. They are harder to master, stupidly overspecialised and ridden with flaws that will be exploited against you if you don't know the plane intimately. But, once you learn to keep them in their narrow comfort zone, they give you extra mileage over everything Central that isn't D.VIIF at over 2k. Central planes are easier, more forgiving, but quickly run out of tricks to offer you.

It's characteristic that, both among my friend and enemies, I see people have strong preference of one Entente type.

Edited April 25, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

[No.23_Triggers]

5 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'm so tired of struggling with the Entente kites, when all you have to do is fly for the Kaiser and rule the sky.

 

2 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

once you learn to keep them in their narrow comfort zone, they give you extra mileage over everything Central that isn't D.VIIF at over 2k.

That's the unfortunate truth to Entente planes - they are very much "Specialist tools".  Sans Dr.I, Central scouts are tame on the controls and easy to learn to fly and fight in right out of the box. On the other hand, Entente planes require more finesse on the controls and/or specific flying and fighting styles. 

 

If you try your Fokker tricks in an S.E., the Hun will make a quick meal out of you...

...but once you've mastered an Entente plane, they can become truly formidable. The best examples of that are the Camel and the SPAD XIII - Fokker fodder in the wrong hands, widow makers in an expert's hands....

...all that being said, despite the forum bickering and whatnot, the community's pilots in general (particularly the larger squadrons) are usually happy to give some pointers to guys that want to learn and improve in the game, so it's always worth asking if they can give you any tips, or asking to drop by on a Squadron training night! 

 

I don't know how much they dabble in the Entente dark arts, but J5 have been particularly welcoming to newer guys as guests on their training day (Saturday, I believe it is), and the 3rd P.G. guys are always happy to give some pointers for aspiring SPAD jockeys  

[JGr2/J5_Cremer]

On 4/22/2021 at 6:58 AM, ZachariasX said:

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

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.

I have photos of this one on display at the Dayton Air Museum.  I'll share when I can dig them up.

[Off_Winters]

Hi All,

I'm one of the few that seem to like the new n28. I can easily maintain tight turns using top or bottom rudder to keep the nose were I want it, without washing off too much speed. It rolls fine, (way easier to barrel roll than the camel in game) it climbs well. in single player (haven't had a chance to get online yet) I can knock down AI on ace settings and fly with them without to much trouble. 

It is tail heavy and I find it tiresome to keep forward pressure on the stick. but other than that I have no complaints.

[Todt_Von_Oben]

I'm flying the N28 in VR with CH controls: Fighterstick and Pro Pedals; default settings, mostly.

 

Some say she's tail-heavy.  I think the FC1 FM is generally okay but a few planes require pitch trim.  The Fighterstick allows trim adjustments to pitch and roll; the N28 needs a little nose-down trim but not as much as the Dr1.  Trimmed to the sim, she flies fine.  

 

Is she slow or clumsy?  Well, not the fastest or most formidable; but not too bad.  I'm making deep, meaningful moves to the stick and pedals; something like the Albatros.  

 

For the N28, I think pedals are a definite advantage if not a must-have item.  I don't think a twiststick is going to work as well for this plane; you can and should really boot the rudder to get her to perform.  

 

Still, she's not as "nimble" as the triplane; snap-rolls about like the DVa or DVII and that's not especially good.  

 

Painted with a broad brush, I'd color her "fair to middling-good for the era."  Against the right plane, you could have a lot of fun turnfighting.  I wouldn't try to hit-and-split with it on a regular basis, though. 

 

But those of us who fly WW1 sims because we enjoy competing in these earlier, less-capable designs (where the aircraft's technological weaknesses must be compensated for with the pilot's aerobatic skill and dogfighting savvy) will be happy to see this new addition to the stable; it opens the door to additional turn-fighting scenarios.

 

Powerplant: just the sound of that godawful flying chainsaw is objectionable enough to justify its destruction!  (But you can hear 'em coming and that's an advantage you can use in a fight.)

 

My Fighterstick has a "roller" throttle I've hooked-up to a push-pull cable.  With the N28, different throttle settings give Idle, Half, and Full Power.  

 

Oddly, when I cut back to idle on short-final, the engine will suddenly roar to full power without me touching the controls!  No idea why, yet.

 

I don't have a joystick button dedicated to the Blip Switch but I do have one for the Starter so I use that as a blip switch during landing and it's working okay so far.  

 

But i'm forced to leave it off during the rollout (or it will roar to METO power again) and that makes taxiing difficult because (if it does restart; not always if left off too long) I usually like to carry a couple hundred extra RPM to keep me rolling straight and I haven't been able to do that with this plane yet.  Not sure what's happening there yet but working on it.

 

One thing I did notice that might be a legitimate glitch: when I shoot down an N28 in QM, the kill doesn't register in the stats.  (Haven't come up against one in MP yet but the kills definitely don't show up in SP.)

 

Anyway, that's where I'm at with it so far and THANKS to the Developers for this new addition; I'm having fun with it.  Now that it's Springtime, I'm looking to flying it on one of the new map sections one of these days, too.  

 

Prosit!

 

TVO

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

It's a very pleasant very stable machine to fly. It's as if the local aeroclub had brought Cessnas back in time to 1918 and strapped twin Vickers to them.

 

In multiplayer scenarios that are not 1v1 she holds her own very well thanks to her respectable speed, excellent climb, decent visibility, very good dive and very good durability. Yesterday I was able to keep multiple Dr.Is on my six, guns blazing and bait them to a group of friendlies. A Dolphin, in spite of being faster, would have lost wings or control cables had I attempted the same. This obviously makes no sense: these are all wood and fabric planes, they should handle bullet damage more or less the same way.

 

Its only real downfall is its high stall speed and extremely poor sustained turn, worse than the SPAD indeed. The roll can somewhat be used defensively if your opponent isn't a crack shot. And yes, if you fly a bunch of them together they become a swarm of deadly bumblebees. Even D.VIIFs were avoiding us in the end. Oh and apparently they turn invisible (which I didn't see — badum-tshhh) and they don't count as air kills when you shoot them down. But truth be told I saw very few go down, unless singled out.

 

What even is this thing...

 

 

Anyway, if this plane as it exists today in RoF / FC gets the same sustained turn as the Albatros D.Va with no other changes, it will basically become a "SuperPfalz D.IIIa". In fact I suspect they share almost the same FM with a few turn, power and stall speed adjustments. It flies like a very stable, very strong, very well built in-line. Heck it makes the SPAD feel zippy, unstable and weak by comparison.

 

I mean, is this supposed to be the Breguet 14, maybe? Did they swap FMs by accident?

 

I don't even know what to say anymore. I will post a bug report to communicate the findings in this thread, but this thing needs to go back to the drawing board in order to become a Nieuport and not a Pfalz.

[J2_Trupobaw]

4 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

What even is this thing...

 

 

It's the Trenchmower(TM).

[J2_Bidu]

7 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

It's the Trenchmower(TM).

This is a very antrupomorphic view of the N28...

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

excellent climb, decent visibility,

I thought more decent climb, excellent visibility....but I think the SPAD might have put me out of touch 

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

A Dolphin, in spite of being faster, would have lost wings or control cables had I attempted the same. This obviously makes no sense: these are all wood and fabric planes, they should handle bullet damage more or less the same way.

I know we've already said it multiple times in this thread so far, but...yes. DM is much more in need of a revision than FMs are (even with several planes apparently having questionable FM qualities). Pre-4.006 was a lot more enjoyable and fulfilling with the old DM and current FMs. 

 

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

Its only real downfall is its high stall speed and extremely poor sustained turn, worse than the SPAD indeed. The roll can somewhat be used defensively if your opponent isn't a crack shot. And yes, if you fly a bunch of them together they become a swarm of deadly bumblebees. Even D.VIIFs were avoiding us in the end. Oh and apparently they turn invisible (which I didn't see — badum-tshhh) and they don't count as air kills when you shoot them down. But truth be told I saw very few go down, unless singled out.

I imagine the N28 would fare far better in a reasonably sized flight owing to its DM - from my experience, the bigger the furball the less individual aircraft performance factors in, as it starts becoming more of a case of "just shoot whoever's in front of you and hope for the best". A good example was when the 3rd P.G. went out in S.E.5as to film Talbot's Cecil Lewis video - we were out looking to get into a proper turn-and-burning furball for the cinematics, and we ended up giving a pretty good account of ourselves vs a similarly-sized swarm of D7s, Albs, Pfalzes and Dr.Is mainly because it boiled down to exactly that - just shoot what flashes in front of you and hope someone's shooting whatever's behind you! 

[BMA_Hellbender]

18 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

I thought more decent climb, excellent visibility....but I think the SPAD might have put me out of touch 

Yeah, that SPAD of yours has spoiled you, the N28 only climbs ~5s slower to 1000m, only the Fokker D.VIIF (with altitude throttle) climbs faster than both.

 

And yes: decent visibility, says the Flipper man. ?

[J2_Trupobaw]

Pros:

- Fast! and good climb

- Durable compared to FC1 planes.

- Good initial maneuvrability, light controls at high speeds.

- Stable gun platform, excellent in non-deflection shots.

- Balloon guns

- Good spotting visibility

- Good teamplane.

 

Cons:

- Horrible energy retention

- Bad sustained maneuvrability, heavy controls at low speed

-Low endurance, huge fuel consumption forces heavy fuel loads.

- Small ammo load

- Windscreen frame badly reduces visibility when aiming.

- Windscreen and energy retention make it bad at deflection shots.

- Bad solo plane.

 

The Entente machines are supposed to be highly specialised tools that you need to learn deeply to unlock superior performance and avoid crippling flaws. Nieuport 28 takes this notion to extreme, runs with it (away) laughing maniacally, then falls down the stairs. For every single advantage the plane gives, there is a crippling flaw in the same area. Best for non-deflection shots, worst for deflection shots, good visibility for spotting, bad visibility for aiming. It's bag of extremes with no middle ground, as if some munchkin tried to recreate FW-190 by mini-maxing stats of a WW1 plane in some RPG; or a Loonely Toons take on FM. It's pure joy to fly, but hard to use in combat. I love flying this plane, but range of combat situations i'm comfortable using this it in is narrow.

 

Edited April 26, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

[No.23_Gaylion]

On 4/21/2021 at 6:27 PM, =IRFC=Hbender said:

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)

 

I've been hammered for six weeks straight. My family begs you to stop *hic*

[J2_Von-Graff]

It appears a valid question would be, how effectively can you dive away from a 1-pass attack in the N28 without sustaining substantial damage from a pursuing foe. It would seem there is some potential here as apparently the engine can take an extended dive under power. At least this has been my limited experience with the machine. I suppose more testing is requisite.

 

Graff> 

[No.23_Gaylion]

Good luck! We will remember you and wear a poppie on our lapels in your honor.

 

Protip: watch out for those CL2's. They are quite nasty following you in those dives.

Edited April 26, 2021 by US213_Talbot

[J2_Von-Graff]

Well now that's why I asked. ?

 

Graff>

[J2_Trupobaw]

I tried all-out dive away after one pass failed to cripple enemy plane twice. It went well until a bullet hit my wing, then both wings collapsed. I did survive one of the crashes, though, and eventually got the kill for guy who shot me down (unlike him) for that initial pass.

[No.23_Starling]

12 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

I tried all-out dive away after one pass failed to cripple enemy plane twice. It went well until a bullet hit my wing, then both wings collapsed. I did survive one of the crashes, though, and eventually got the kill for guy who shot me down (unlike him) for that initial pass.

Landed at an inactive AF with a single hit in him? I’ve done that more than once and counted as shot down.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Note to self: to build a streak, tag people with a single bullet then gtfo and hope they will get bored and ditch somewhere.

[J2_Von-Graff]

I tried all-out dive away after one pass failed to cripple enemy plane twice.

 

Hmmm, sounds like this possibly isn't a reliable tactic. What machines were you assaulting in these 2 attacks? And did you maintain full dive speed all the way through, or slow to aim and shoot before continuing your dive?

 

Graff>

[No.23_Starling]

On 4/25/2021 at 8:55 PM, J2_Trupobaw said:

Entente planes are more capable than Central ones. They are harder to master, stupidly overspecialised and ridden with flaws that will be exploited against you if you don't know the plane intimately. But, once you learn to keep them in their narrow comfort zone, they give you extra mileage over everything Central that isn't D.VIIF at over 2k. Central planes are easier, more forgiving, but quickly run out of tricks to offer you.

It's characteristic that, both among my friend and enemies, I see people have strong preference of one Entente type.

That’s what bothers me the most about the Entente plane set. If the RL types were so specialised how did anyone live long enough to make ace?
 

If the Viper SE5a could sustain a turn with the Dva like the data shows (shown in this thread and in analysis by aerospace engineer Bennett in his publications) then you’d at least have one “starter” plane for the Entente. 

I practiced hard to get good at the Spad in RoF because I was tired of being out turned or prop hanged by a Dva in anything non-rotary, and because even the Camel couldn’t beat the Dr1 in a turn in RoF. You can carp on all you want about taking what we have, but I don’t believe for a second the community would tolerate a poorly turning Dr1. And rightly so.

An N28 that could match the Dva in a sustained turned would go further to having at least one all-rounder Entente plane, and would be closer to the science we have available.

 

I see the community couldn’t tolerate an under-powered Dva (surely we can’t have one weak Central plane?) so Central is getting the AU engine. But I guess Entente players should shut up and make do.

 

Mix in 100% reliable parachutes with no weight penalty and absurdly strong wings (10gs in the diiia anyone?) and you have an unbalanced and ahistorical planeset favouring Central.

 

Face it, there is a bias and it’s not based upon data. Feel free to post data here about the Heinecke parachute being 100% reliable here and I’ll retract my statement. 

[ST_Catchov]

48 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

If the Viper SE5a ....

 

OH NO! Now you've done it Rummy! I was just beginning to forget how shithouse it is. The nightmares had stopped along with the night sweats and itchy scalp. Although that may be dermatitis. But the hair's still good, which as every fighter pilot knows, is vital for the image. See the movie.

 

If the devs could at least fix the Se5a, I might forgive them their "Fokker is a God, as are all other Central aircraft designers but not so much fanbois bias" unintended oversights on Entente aircraft performance.

 

And knowing full well they are open to suggestions, I expect these changes are imminent. 

 

 

 

 

[US41_Winslow]

Several airplanes do seem to need flight model revisions, mainly the Nieuport, Albatros and Pfalz.  Something is definitely off with all of three since none of them match how pilots said they flew, and especially the latter two which can’t stall in level flight.  However, my opinion is the Albatros and Pfalz should be fixed first as they were the mainstay of the German Air Service for the better part of a year, compared to the Nieuport, which was used by a few USAS squadrons for a few months.

[ZachariasX]

7 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

parachutes with no weight penalty

You know that a full repaint in the field can weight up to as much as a parachute? Both together weigh about as much as half a (central) fuel load.

 

It would be quiet something if we had to enter our actual weight for the weight and balance setup as well. It would be fun to see who can‘t climb past 3000 meters... ?

Edited April 28, 2021 by ZachariasX

[No.23_Triggers]

7 hours ago, Miners said:

Several airplanes do seem to need flight model revisions, mainly the Nieuport, Albatros and Pfalz.  Something is definitely off with all of three since none of them match how pilots said they flew, and especially the latter two which can’t stall in level flight.  However, my opinion is the Albatros and Pfalz should be fixed first as they were the mainstay of the German Air Service for the better part of a year, compared to the Nieuport, which was used by a few USAS squadrons for a few months.

Agree - I think more than anything the Alb's complete ease of handling has disrupted the "historical feel" fairly significantly, in a number of different ways. I can't really say about the Pfalz, because I don't know much about it past it was said to be a good diver (although I don't expect there were many planes in WW1 that were quite as forgiving on the controls while being that manoeuvrable)...

Namely: 

Alb vs S.E.5a / N28 / Dolphin - the S.E's turn vs the Alb has been debated a few times on the forum already, and a fair few people believe that the S.E. had the turn on the D.Va. Perhaps, perhaps not, but it would seem that they were more closely matched IRL than FC would have us believe.  I can't help but wonder if the Alb and the others would be more closely matched in FC if the Alb had nastier (or even just any) stalling characteristics in a knife fight (the Alb was apparently known for stalling sharply in tight turns - definitely not a trait our own Alb suffers from). 

I will say that a well-flown dolphin will already have the edge in manoeuvrability over the Alb in FC, but a skilled Alb pilot can give a dolphin a good run for its money. Personally, I think it would make for more interesting fights if both planes were in danger of snapping into a stall when being pushed to their limits against each other. 

Alb vs Fok. D.VII - Well, the two won't be dogfighting each other usually, but I've thought for a while now that the Albatros' overly-easy handling qualities compared to its historical counterpart really discredits the vanilla D.VII and it's historical significance - as will probably be the case once both get their D.IIIaüs. One of the most well-known things about the D.VII is that the German pilots adored it for its sedate handling qualities compared to what they had before. In FC it has those same qualities...but so does the Alb, and the Alb is arguably easier to manoeuvre in a dogfight as well as being a more stable gun platform. IMO, that just relegates the D.VII to a much-tougher-but-harder-to-aim Albatros / Pfalz, and doesn't leave a huge amount of incentive to pick it over the other two (particularly not the Pfalz, which is also very tanky). Just compare that to history, where German pilots would give an arm and a leg to trade in their Alb for a Fokker! 

More than anything, the Alb (as well as [insert plane here]) needs its DM fixed, so it stops falling to pieces or losing its controls every time someone coughs near it. But I think it would be nice to see a more accurately represented Albatros D.Va (and hopefully D.II / D.III) in Flying Circus at some point in the future...

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by US93_Larner

[No.23_Starling]

7 hours ago, Miners said:

Several airplanes do seem to need flight model revisions, mainly the Nieuport, Albatros and Pfalz.  Something is definitely off with all of three since none of them match how pilots said they flew, and especially the latter two which can’t stall in level flight.  However, my opinion is the Albatros and Pfalz should be fixed first as they were the mainstay of the German Air Service for the better part of a year, compared to the Nieuport, which was used by a few USAS squadrons for a few months.

This. Do we know of anyone with a Dva airframe who could tell us if it will stall in a flat turn? Kermit Weeks maybe? That would be an objective starting point. Is this something which could be modelled in C++?
 

100% agree too about the Diii and Dva performance vs the vanilla Dvii. I take the Diii now any time over the Dvii. Our Dvii offers little performance improvement over the Dva (other than Kevlar armour), which makes no historical sense. Why doesn’t this bother more Central pilots? Is it fear of a Dva downgrade? Certainly when I’ve suggested this before with data presented I’ve had my head bitten off on the forum.

 

As per Larner’s post, I am not definitely suggesting the data says the SE5a should out turn the Dva (Bennett’s book says it should just have the edge), but I am positing that the gap needs closing.

 

Is this another case for Hellbender to build a pack of evidence for the devs? I also agree that the Dva and Diii should be a higher priority for another look at that the n28.

Edited April 28, 2021 by US93_Rummell

[unreasonable]

 

19 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

This. Do we know of anyone with a Dva airframe who could tell us if it will stall in a flat turn? Kermit Weeks maybe? That would be an objective starting point. Is this something which could be modelled in C++?
 

 

The only reason an Albatros would not be able to stall in a turn is if the elevator was incapable of making the wings exceed their critical AoA. Exceed critical AoA and you stall - it is as simple as that. I cannot make an Albatros V stall out in a powered tight turn with maximum elevator - it is close, hence the vibration. In a straight line power off condition it will stall and eventually dip a wing.  

 

The Vintage Aviator Albatros DVa pilot report states " The Albatros doesn’t appear to have any nasty habits in flight. Stalls with and without power are straight forward without a huge wing drop, they are preceded by plenty of warning and easily corrected."  So this is almost like the FC version - except that this mentions stalls with power. If you could get 1-2 degree more AoA with the elevator you would be able to stall in a power on turn and then have to correct by easing off. 

 

"In flight the D.Va performs well, not nearly as well balanced and harmonized as the RAF SE.5a though. The ailerons are heavy and the roll rate isn't very spectacular, the elevator is very sensitive, almost too sensitive while the rudder is less than adequate."

 

Which does not sound much like our Albatros.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by unreasonable

[No.23_Triggers]

19 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The Vintage Aviator Albatros DVa pilot report states " The Albatros doesn’t appear to have any nasty habits in flight. Stalls with and without power are straight forward without a huge wing drop, they are preceded by plenty of warning and easily corrected."  So this is almost like the FC version - except that this mentions stalls with power. If you could get 1-2 degree more AoA with the elevator you would be able to stall in a power on turn and then have to correct by easing off. 

That's interesting - I remember reading an RFC report that had a much different opinion of the Alb, generally calling it unwieldily and difficult to fly - I wish I knew where I originally found it to get the full context again! 

Either way, you can't really argue with a TVAL pilot who's flown a real Alb (or at least, the closest thing we have left to a real flightworthy alb...) 

EDIT: Looks like the RFC report was re-printed in an old C&C international and was an evaluation of the Albatros D.I, not the D.Va, according to C&C's table of contents for older editions

EDIT 2: C&C International Vol. 20 apparently has an article on an Albatros D.V which was tested at Martlesham - might have something interesting in there...

Edited April 28, 2021 by US93_Larner

[BMA_Hellbender]

Two bug reports are up:
 

 

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

9 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

That’s what bothers me the most about the Entente plane set. If the RL types were so specialised how did anyone live long enough to make ace?

French, they had Spads and used them as interceptors. British, died a lot, plus they got credited with victory when they said thought they saw enemy plane go into the spin. 
 

Quote

If the Viper SE5a could sustain a turn with the Dva like the data shows (shown in this thread and in analysis by aerospace engineer Bennett in his publications) then you’d at least have one “starter” plane for the Entente. 

That was Hispano-Suiza S.E.5.a, not Viper. Viper was high altitude interceptor, and low altitude (<5k) performance (where we play) was worse then H-S variant. H-S variant would be the basic Entente plane... and we don't have it.

The Entente plane you want is (pre-2014) Sopwith Triplane. It's coming.
 

Quote

I see the community couldn’t tolerate an under-powered Dva (surely we can’t have one weak Central plane?) so Central is getting the AU engine. But I guess Entente players should shut up and make do.

Quote

Face it, there is a bias and it’s not based upon data. Feel free to post data here about the Heinecke parachute being 100% reliable here and I’ll retract my statement. 

The Albatros/Pfalz/Dr.I we have is under-powered compared to the real thing with the same power plant (Abie performance is matches British tests of battle-worn specimen they captured; Entente planes performance matches test flights and factory specs meant to win government contracts). The Central pilots keep using it successfully since 2009 anyway (it's called soldiering on, not shutting up and making do), despite its shortcomings.

The "200hp" variant? If it comes, it will give us approximation of real life 180hp variant.

Quote

Mix in 100% reliable parachutes with no weight penalty and absurdly strong wings (10gs in the diiia anyone?) and you have an unbalanced and ahistorical planeset favouring Central.

Suure, let's blame the parachutes for Entente planes being difficult to use. Their weight penalty pretty much cancels out with the plane performance being lowered for all Central planes except D.VIIF.
 

Quote

Our Dvii offers little performance improvement over the Dva (other than Kevlar armour), which makes no historical sense.1

D.VII is still best German plane after D.VIIF - it's only plane with reasonable climb and reasonable speed. It is still inferior to everything Entente has (even Camel is faster in level flight). D.IIIa is only better in airquaking, diving fast and forgiving piloting mistakes.

 

Quote

I practiced hard to get good at the Spad in RoF because I was tired of being out turned or prop hanged by a Dva in anything non-rotary, and because even the Camel couldn’t beat the Dr1 in a turn in RoF. You can carp on all you want about taking what we have, but I don’t believe for a second the community would tolerate a poorly turning Dr1. And rightly so.

Why do you even persist with flying Entente planes if you hate them so much and don't want to fly them to their strengths? From what you say, you would be happiest as Albie / Pfalz driver. Flying plane you enjoy beats flying plane you don't enjoy while complaining that planes you don't fly are more enjoyable. Why are you out to frustrate yourself?

IMO, the Abatros/Pfalz are way to forgiving on controls and energy retention, other planes are mostly fine. Especially Pfalz. They are also way to slow for 180hp engine. Especially Albatros. Handling is not much of a problem for me because Entente planes can still secure energy and altitude, the docile handling just lets you avoid the attacks for longer and maybe let you punish enemy if he makes an error and gives you an opening. And yeah, Entente does not have this kind of crappy but easy and airquake-happy plane (They do have Dolphin and Camel that can do everything Central planes can though, as long  as you manage your energy and G-forces).
 

[No.23_Starling]

Please share data about the Dva and Diiia being too slow in game with the Mercedes engine. I’d be interested to read it.

 

On the SE5a engines, you could be right on the HS engine (id need to see data) but that doesn’t change the turn vs Dva debate backed up by data. Perhaps we do need an HS and Viper variant as much as we need an AU engine. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

I persist with the SPAD because it’s fun and rewarding to work very hard and routinely beat anything you come across regardless of questionable FM and DM. I gave up flying the Camel in RoF as I said as I got sick of Dr1s out turning me, likewise the SE5a getting easily out turned by the Dva. So yes, I did give up on most of the Entente planes. I said that in my previous post. 
 

Im not advocating an air quake plane - that’s not a helpful comment - im suggesting that a more beginner friendly entente scout which more closely matches the data wouldn’t be a bad thing for new players wanting to fly Entente.

 

Youre also ignoring the Diiia 10g wing stress, the parachute failure rate etc etc. If the Dva energy retention bothers you why haven’t you put in a bug report or repeatedly requested it fixed like you have with the AU engine? 

 

Basically what I’m saying is that you can’t cry foul of the AU engine and try to ignore or downplay complaints around Entente types made as objectively as possible with the data available, nor ignore complaints around the 10g diiia nor 100% effective parachutes.

 

Also, a take-it-or-leave it / why do you bother flying comment is likewise unhelpful and disrespectful (I still like you a lot! Lovers can quarrel) - I still love the sim and am super grateful for it and the awesome community. I have never made a disparaging comment like this about the Central complaints around the AU engine - I agree with you 100%. It would be nice if you could objectively return the favour.

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by US93_Rummell

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

That's interesting - I remember reading an RFC report that had a much different opinion of the Alb, generally calling it unwieldily and difficult to fly - I wish I knew where I originally found it to get the full context again! 

Either way, you can't really argue with a TVAL pilot who's flown a real Alb (or at least, the closest thing we have left to a real flightworthy alb...) 

EDIT: Looks like the RFC report was re-printed in an old C&C international and was an evaluation of the Albatros D.I, not the D.Va, according to C&C's table of contents for older editions

EDIT 2: C&C International Vol. 20 apparently has an article on an Albatros D.V which was tested at Martlesham - might have something interesting in there...

 

I do not see any direct contradiction. There was a long article somewhere from someone flying a D.V noting that the roll was very poor with significant yaw, climb and acceleration indifferent, as it is very draggy, but it did dive well just being so heavy. Cannot find that quickly. That is consistent with it being "unwieldy", and does not mention the stall behaviour.  These vague qualitative terms are always difficult to interpret when applied to specific, measurable characteristics.   

 

The Vintage Aviator report just suggests that it should be able to stall power on (which is next to impossible in the game in a normal turn) but that the onset is clear (true in game) and easily recovered. 

 

  

[BMA_Hellbender]

Unwieldy and heavy on the controls means just that: it took a lot of effort to get the Albatros going where you wanted, compared to most Entente scouts that were light on the controls, including the Nieuport 28.

 

The sustained flat turn of the Albatros D.Va in absolute terms is a bit of a mystery, though I believe it was decent enough. Well, same as the Nieuport 28, as the simulation data proves. Especially at higher altitudes with a 200hp engine, which is where the Albatros would have operated, I'm sure many a Camel and S.E.5a pilot would have been unpleasantly surprised — if they could even climb up to them.

 

The low altitude flat scissor shenanigans of the D.Va with sudden direction changes and the likes and docile stall behaviour is in one word: a joke. Same with the Pfalz D.IIIa. The only plane in all of WWI that had a gentle stall behaviour and could prophang like that was the one mentioned in the armistice (honourable mention to the Fokker Dr.I, D.VI and D.VIII who all share a similar airfoil design). The D.Va makes the D.VII look like a joke at low altitude.

 

But okay, those are all feelings and anecdotes. If we stick purely to the data, then there it is: N28 rotates late / stall too quickly and doesn't flat turn as well as it should. Beyond that we're talking about the inner workings of a flightsim of which I claim no in-depth knowledge.

[J2_Trupobaw]

57 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

Im not advocating an air quake plane - that’s not a helpful comment - im suggesting that a more beginner friendly entente scout which more closely matches the data wouldn’t be a bad thing for new players wanting to fly Entente.

 

 

The "beginner friendly" planes as we have them are aberrations. Nobody should have them.

The advantage Albatros Pfalz have against Entente types (and D.VII which you also denounce) is that they give crutch to pilots who suck at energy management, which offensively is useful in airquake. 

Anyway, Sopwith Triplane is going to be that. I didn't fly it much in MP before 2014 killed it, but supposedly it was easy to fly and more than match for 2009 Albatros we have. 
 

Quote

If the Dva energy retention bothers you why haven’t you put in a bug report or repeatedly requested it fixed like you have with the AU engine? 

Because it has been reported and discussed ad nauseam in RoF already. The result of five years of such reports was 2014 revision that added power to engine without changing energy retention, which resulted in crazy Albatros from late RoF and convinced devs revising WW1 planes keeps people unhappy in different way. The Albatros / Pfalz/N28 FM should be redone from the scratch, and I don't believe there is will and means to do that. We are getting ports of RoF planes and we're stuck with 2009 errors because they need huge, unprofitable revisions. With 2009 errors coming back, we are digging up long dead discussions (with new participants) and suggesting new results. There won't be.

I'm asking for 200hp variants because devs are more open to doing new planes than making non-cosmetic changes to 12 years old ones, so maybe they will get them more right. 200hp H-S S.E.5a, with 4-blade, finer pitch prop, is absolutely the most important 1918 Entente plane missing from RoF.

What does it mean for us? Absurdly slow FokkerD.VIII; Pfalz D.XII that cannot dive but for some reason is very light on controls and stupidly fast in level flight; great, beginner friendly Sopwith Triplane, great Spad 7 (all four of them hopefully as durable as N.28) . So, fear not.

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

The "beginner friendly" planes as we have them are aberrations. Nobody should have them.

 

[...]

 

We are getting ports of RoF planes and we're stuck with 2009 errors because they need huge, unprofitable revisions. With 2009 errors coming back, we are digging up long dead discussions (with new participants) and suggesting new results. There won't be.

 

And then we must wonder why some people are reluctant to buy the new sim, if longstanding issues from 12 years ago that everyone agrees on cannot be resolved.

 

I can sympathise with the fact that a full rework of the N28 isn't financially viable and all that can be done is to make it "better" than the current Albatros D.Va (same stall speed, same sustained turn), which itself is in need of a rework... and thus the N28 ends up being a "beginner friendly" plane that is too significant compared to its historical counterpart — fine! Limit its availability in multiplayer. Same as with the Fokker D.VIIF. I mean, how many N28s were even ever operational? Like 200? And only in the American sector. It can be as invisible as the Hanriot is now. It's okay Talbot, you don't have to, think of your family.

 

It's the exact same issue with Fokker Dr.I: somehow that one was slowed down to 165km/h in order to have a top speed below that of the Albatros D.Va, whereas it should simply perform up to spec (165km/h TAS at 4000m, ~175km/h IAS to sea level), and be available in equally small numbers as the N28.

 

Just don't invent ways to make a plane worse for game balance. It leads to the craziest mental gymnastics and everyone ends up frustrated.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Bringing N.28 energy retention to the UFO standards of Albatros is shooting yourself in the other foot. It's textbook example of making a plane worse for game balance. We saw such quick fixes in 2014 and I'd rather not see them again.  Both planes need more redesign than dev team is willing to dish out, and that's it. ATM they are relics of the earliest stage of development. 

[J2_Von-Graff]

Another element at play here is the lack of entire squad or group tactics being utilised, as most of our takeaways on performance come from lone flying. Meaning if you have a schwarm of 3 or 4 planes working as a unit the dynamic changes a bit. In a Spad you boom and zoom and get out as a lone wolfer. With two or three working as a unit you can stay put, even over enemy territory and when working together correctly you can literally suppress the enemy and clobber him until you want to leave, provided you've done your homework and don't get jumped from above. It would be interesting to see the dynamic of 3 or 4 N-28s working together as this is how they were flown, but that being said it does seem it should turn a bit better. For what its worth.

 

G> 

 

ps...and yeah, the Alby needs the carburetor fixed for the smidge of umph it has been denied as well as the rusty breakaway bolts in the wing roots replaced. Ah well.

Edited April 28, 2021 by J2_Von-Graff

[76SQN-FatherTed]

Just now, J2_Von-Graff said:

Another element at play here is the lack of entire squad or group tactics being utilised, as most of our takeaways on performance come from lone flying. Meaning if you have a schwarm of 3 or 4 planes working as a unit the dynamic changes a bit.

Yeah I 've talked about this is in the past when we compare RoF/FC planes to what was written about them.  The other factor we forget about is fear.  In game,  the benefit of being able to extend is probably less important to most than it would have been IRL.  Thus, the SE is often lazily referred to as the "Ace maker" or "Spitfire of WW1", so people expect the game-version to be uber, whereas probably it was mostly liked by its pilots because they could use it to run away.

[US41_Low]

16 minutes ago, CfC=76SQN-FatherTed said:

Yeah I 've talked about this is in the past when we compare RoF/FC planes to what was written about them.  The other factor we forget about is fear.  In game,  the benefit of being able to extend is probably less important to most than it would have been IRL.  Thus, the SE is often lazily referred to as the "Ace maker" or "Spitfire of WW1", so people expect the game-version to be uber, whereas probably it was mostly liked by its pilots because they could use it to run away.

Yes and this is a problem that plagues all combat flight sims. DCS for example regularly has people on multiplayer configuring their F-14s (flaps, assists) to do sustained 9-12g turns at tree top altitude for rate fights. This is an absurdity. Pilots don’t train to fight in near suicidal ways. They train to get the job done and get home safely. F-14s were commonly restricted by command to keep below 6.5gs in combat to ensure good maintenance over a longer period of time, but players will cite one pilot pulling 14gs one time to avoid the deck and surviving as proof that it’s realistic for the f-14 to dogfight at 9-14gs.

 

Similarly with the f-18 people use the paddle switch to override the flight computer and allow them to pull 9-12gs in a turn despite real f-18 pilots telling the player base they are flying and fighting incorrectly as the switch is never used in combat and only used to avoid splattering into the deck.

 

Real fighter pilots with training and experience say that even with a g suit pulling 5gs sustained for several minutes isn’t a walk in the park. It’s very physically demanding. And so there is a limit to how much of that you can do in a single mission without needing rest.

 

il-2 great battles is trying to fix this by introducing g fatigue and I’m happy they did so, but I’m not sure I see it really affecting WW1 planes. 
 

I have to imagine that most WW1 combat was similar to ww2 combat: shooting someone unaware of you, doing head on passes with each other, or doing a couple evasive maneuvers then diving away.

 

probably never see what you see in the endless furball on flug

 

Im ordering some books to read to confirm or refute my suspicions at any rate.