Gr.Viper 131 Posted January 21, 2007 I think the only way it can be improved is by pressing Shift+Del on the keyboard http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?s=&am...ost&p=66103 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfabert 0 Posted January 21, 2007 Now, N28 plane is done--> Did you plan to leave the engine stationary, or will there be a later modification to make it rotate with the prop like the engine did on the real N28? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+EmlD 3 Posted January 21, 2007 (edited) Did you plan to leave the engine stationary, or will there be a later modification to make it rotate with the prop like the engine did on the real N28? Did it really do it, i didnt know that...and no one have told me about it :no2: Edited January 21, 2007 by EmlD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firecage 1 Posted January 21, 2007 Did it really do it, i didnt know that...and no one have told me about it :no2: Yea you might want to look at the DR1 data file and see how they handled it. If I remember somewhere here there was an article about haveing to make 2 engine sets. one for graphics and one for the real info on the eng. I will try and see if I can hunt that article down for you. oh do we have the new FM from Tex yet? <slightly frothing at the gills for it? man I wish I had 3d max. I have an older version like 3.1 or something like that. I don't see much way to justify to myself a $3500 dollar expense for games. That's a few house payments Great work from all of you designers ... thank you . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted January 21, 2007 That damage modeling is great! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+TexMurphy 0 Posted January 21, 2007 Sorry for the delay in posting this but site was down friday and then there was a patch of powder I had to take care of in norway... ;) Sorry but sking comes before gameing.. ;) I would like to still test this version a bit more and would like some input on it so please fire away. If you have A-Team access then try to test this version vs the Albatros DIII and Pfalz DIII. Tex N28_data.txt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfabert 0 Posted January 21, 2007 Did it really do it, i didnt know that...and no one have told me about it :no2: Yes, the engines in WWI aircraft that had a radial piston layout were almost all rotary types, where the prop was fixed to the engine and the whole lot rotated around a fixed crankshaft. Your model is very beautiful and properly captures the elegance of the N28. If you can just get the engine to spin along with the prop it will be externally perfect, so far as my preferences for detail require. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heck 496 Posted January 22, 2007 Emil, what beautiful work! Been waiting to see how this one developed. I am so glad that talented people like yourself are working on this sim. And a tip of the wing to Tex for his flight modelling. The spinning engine issue requires just a one line modification in the N28_data.ini. If you go to the engine section and change this line: SpinnerNodeName=Prop Axle to this: SpinnerNodeName=EngineZ then your engine spins. Hope this helps you. Again, it is a beautiful machine. I can see why some American pilots complained bitterly about having to abandon this wonderful aircraft in favor of Spads. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+EmlD 3 Posted January 22, 2007 Hi! ... 34. Some texture editions (on Fuselage, Guns, Wires, Gear struts) 35. FM last edition added by TexMurphy 36. The Engine rotation done. Sfabert, thanx for hint. coming soon 1. Posting in downloads section on CombatAce after several tests on last FM edition. Thanx! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+TexMurphy 0 Posted January 22, 2007 Note on the FM... I have been working on it at hard setting... please try to test fly it on both hard and normal... Tex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gr.Viper 131 Posted January 22, 2007 I did a couple of test flights on hard... Climbs like a brick for some reason. And I barely manage to perform an immelman - I think it's due to engine power, because it accelerates rater slowly too. Performs fine against stock D.V but it seems that Fokker would score kills on N28 without a problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+TexMurphy 0 Posted January 22, 2007 Viper Accelleration and Climb rate go hand in hand. Lift coefficients have to do with climb but just in terms of "how slow can I go without stalling" so planes with equal accelleration but different lift, the one with most lift will climb faster as it will stall later. Though the main characteristic is accelleration, thrust to mass ratio. The climb rate of a N28 is 733 feet/min. The latest FM is in that hood but higher, somewhere around 800 feet/min. There are two types of climb rate, sustained and zoom climb. Zoom climb beeing when you are converting energy from speed into altitude. Example dive, get speed up to 180 mph and climb back up. Zoom climb is faster then sustained climb. Zoom climb has very little to do with accelleration and more to do with mass and drag. A heavier aircraft bleeds energy slower then a light aircraft as the vector force of the plane is f = m*v^2 and its this force that the drag is working against. Equal drag then higher mass and it retains e better. The N28 has low mass which means that it will zoom climb quite poorly. It also has a quite weak engine hence it climbs quite badly. The Pfalz DIII has a mass of 695kg which is higher then the N28s 532kg. Still the Pfalz climbs better 820 feet/min. That would indicate that the Mercedes engine was more efficient or that the german propellers where more efficient so that it procued more thrust. The Albatros DVa is also heavier 685 and has a 180 HP Mercedes engine and subsequently it climbs faster at 907 feet/min. This establishes that the N28 should have a lower sustained climb speed and also since its lighter it should have a worse zoom climb. I think the current FM represents this quite well. Problem is that it should be more nible as well and now we are comming to the problematic part. What is more nible? Well one thing which is obvious is that it has huge controll surfaces and hence it should have good roll, powerfull rudder and a good pitch. But that should also mean that it should have quite high drag from rudder, ailerons and elevators. This with bad energy retention should result in the N28 getting slow fast. With the poor accelleration this should also mean that it has trouble regaining speed if it gets into tight manouvering. That is what I read from the statistical and physical appearance of the plane. Usually nimble is good sustained turn rates and good vertical ability. That is something I just cant see this plane ever having. I can see it having very tight instant turn rate and instant vertical manouvers. What Im working at trying to find atm is a good ballance in the drag from the controll surfaces. You should feel that you bleed E when you crank that rudder but it shouldnt be to a too extencive level. You should be able to instantaniously out turn a Albatros but not in a sustained manouver. Still trying to find the sweet spot there. Well thats some of the thoughts Im workin with. Tex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gr.Viper 131 Posted January 22, 2007 Ok... I just tried N28 in RB3D - it's seems to be more responsive to elevators there. Don't know about ails, though - it turned out I was flying with bottom left wing shot off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+TexMurphy 0 Posted January 22, 2007 Thats a good compare... elevators is one of the things I want to change.... can you please fly them both a bit more and provide me with over all feel impressions... Tex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Tailspin 3 Posted January 22, 2007 Performance Combat experience showed the N.28 to have outstanding manoeverability, an excellent rate of climb and a respectable top speed. Major Hartney, the comander of the 27th Aero (and later the 1st Pursuit Group) summed up the aircraft when he described the Nieuport 28 as "a fast moving, fast acting gem" (7). What this means in absolute terms and how this and other early airplanes actually performed is a matter for debate. However, there are clues available in the writings of the day. Included below is a summary of comparisions distilled from books that were written during or shortly after the war. At the very least the table below indicates how pilot's in that day and age viewed the airplane they flew as it compared with other aircraft. N.28 vs Speed Climb Dive Manuever Spad 180 hp same (8) N.28 better(8)(9) Spad better(9) N.28 better(8)(9) Albatros D.V DV faster (10) mixed (10)(11) DV better (12) N.28 better(11) Camel N.28 faster(13) N.28 better (14) - - Fokker D.VII - N.28 better (15) - N.28 better (15) Rumpler (C Type) N.28 faster(16) - N.28 faster(16) N.28 better (16) Albatros(C Type) N.28 faster(17) - - - Pfaltz D.III - - D.III faster(18) - The N.28 clearly benefited from good manueverability and an impressive rate of climb, however it was not considered as rugged as the Spads which replaced it. A flight test (19) of a prototype which weighed about 48 lb less (20) than the version the USAS adopted yielded the following results: Altitude Time to Aprox rate Speed m ft min fpm mph 500 1,640 - 1356 - 1000 3,281 2'42" - - 1500 4,921 - 1159 - 2000 6,562 5'25" - 123 2500 8,202 - 894 - 3000 9,843 8'92" - 121 3500 11,483 - 729 - 4000 13,123 13'42" - 117 4500 14,764 - 475 - 5000 16,404 20'33" - 111 Complete text available here.... The Nieuport 38 Page Well crap. I can't get the text edited to space properly. See the text at the link for comparisons to contemporary A/C Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+TexMurphy 0 Posted January 22, 2007 Hmmm that page shows climb rates of about 1 357 feet /min Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+TexMurphy 0 Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) Ok this is starting to get annoying four sites four different climb rates... and we are talkin by a mile!!! 853 feet/min http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Nieuport_28 1181 feet/min http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/n28.htm 772 feet/min http://militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail...aircraft_id=399 1357 feet/min http://www.airminded.net/n28/n28.html I guess the number variation is depending due to historical source of data... I would guess French, US, UK and German data would differe... so my sudgestion is to pin it at either a avg of the four (1040 feet/min or there about)... Edited January 22, 2007 by TexMurphy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Tailspin 3 Posted January 22, 2007 Yes. Initial climb to 1000 meters and 1159 up to 2000 meters. Note according to the comparisons it climbs better than the 180hp Spad, the Camel, and the DVII and is more manoeverable than both the Alb. DV and Fokker DVII. Also according to the flight test report, linked on the same page, "3). Rudder................Good. The airplane does not slide." Seems to me the N28 was an excellent performer, at least as good or better than some of the best contemporaries...EXCEPT for the unfortunate tendency to shed its upper wing fabric if pulled out of a dive without care taken. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Tailspin 3 Posted January 22, 2007 This is why IMHO its more important to find a balance within the game according to how the other planes perform relative to each other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted January 22, 2007 Hey Tex you got any books with that kind of info in it? I am curious to see what they say. I am pulling out all my Osprey books to see if its got anything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfabert 0 Posted January 22, 2007 Hey Tex you got any books with that kind of info in it? I am curious to see what they say. I am pulling out all my Osprey books to see if its got anything. The most frequently cited performance numbers are time to climb, not rate of climb. Lamberton's "Fighter Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War" gives 5 min 30 sec to reach 6500 feet; 9 min even to reach 9800 feet; 14 min even to reach 13,100 feet; and 21 min 15 sec to reach 16,400 feet. Absolute ceiling given as 20,000 feet. These are one time only test numbers that no doubt varied a lot from one machine to another. "Your mileage may vary". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+TexMurphy 0 Posted January 22, 2007 Unfortunatly I dont have maany WWI books.. something I do need to stock... The numbers shown by sfabert do make alot of sence... 0-6500 in 5,30 is an avg 1181 feet/min note how identical that is to the http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/n28.htm numbers. Time to alt doesnt linearly convert into climb rate as first part of the climb is a instant climb which is higher then the sustained climb. I will use this information for my ballancing. From the top of my head I would assume that this would give a sustained climbrate of somewhere around 900 feet/min. Ive attached a new flight model. This one is not based on the numbers postd by sfabert. The sustained climbrate is about 1000 feet/min in this one. Its also got improved elevator authority and reduced drag from controll surfaces. Question about this one is... too uber? I do know that the top speed is a little bit off in this one. So dont mind that. Speed is a piece of cake to get right at the end. Tex N28_data.txt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gr.Viper 131 Posted January 22, 2007 I gave it another run in RB3D. Seems to have maneuverability equal to the one of D.VII: I shoot at them a bit - they put some bullets into me but nothing serious and the fight ended with light collision which left me without the prop. But engine is a major letdown. One immelman is the max the thing is capable of - also ails seem to greatly lose efficiency at lower speeds (roll at the top of immelman is very slow) and work at their top at the speed a bit higher than in level flight. BTW, rudder gives amazing assistance in rolling So in RB3D it seems like a bit underpowered but quite agile. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted January 22, 2007 Well my books were just about the Aces of this or that WWI plane. I was hoping for some more in depth aircraft performance facts. You know what this means, we are going to have to build a real and test it ourselves. This is the only way we can be sure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfabert 0 Posted January 22, 2007 Well my books were just about the Aces of this or that WWI plane. I was hoping for some more in depth aircraft performance facts. You know what this means, we are going to have to build a real and test it ourselves. This is the only way we can be sure. I have a substantial personal library of WWI aviation books, some technical, most historical. Please let me know what info you need, and I can probably dig it out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
