Questions and considerations about the Nieuport 24!

[ricnunes 1]

Greetings,

 

I'm starting this thread based on my observations and doubts about the new Nieuport 24 that came with HitR expansion.

 

I noticed that as opposed to the earlier Nieuport 17 (Lewis) that the Nieuport 24 (Lewis) doesn't have any sights (similar to the Nieuport 11). Is it supposed to be this way (is this realistic)? If yes, what's the (real) reason for this?

If this really happened in real life, than this was a very wierd decision by the RFC since an older aircraft have sights while the newer one doesn't

 

I also noticed that according to the aircraft stats that the Nieuport 24 (Lewis) and the Nieuport 24Bis (Lewis) are basically the same thing with the exception that the Nieuport 24Bis (Lewis) which should be an improved version of the Nieuport 24 (Lewis) is in fact slower (Nieuport 24-Lewis has a top speed of 116mph while the Bis has a top speed of 97mph)!! Is this correct? Is yes, why?

I also noticed that the French versions of the Nieuport 24 and Nieuport 24Bis as opposed to the British ones have the same top speed (116mph)!

 

Sorry for making these questions but the fact is that my knowlege about the Nieuport 24 (actually about the post-Nieuport 17 versions) is a bit limited and that's also the reason why I'm making these questions.

 

Thanks in advance for replies...

[shredward 12]

Hi Ric,

The genealogy of the Noop line was fairly tortured, and not at all linear. Rather than type it all out, I'll quote Bullet from a post he made a while back, which kind of sums things up:

 

"As I understand things, Nieuport at this time was tryng to squeeze blood from a stone. They are the classic examle of trying to doing things quickly and cheaply.

 

Nieuport had been riding their prewar designs, in slightly modified form but with great success, into late-1916. Up until then, they'd had no serious competition for scout contracts, the rest of the Aviation Militaire being mostly pushers of various sorts, or Parasols. Thus, the ante bellum N.10 had been shrunk into tine N.11. Shortly thereafter, slapping a bigger engine on the N.11 airframe produced the N.16. However, that engine was too heavy for N.11 wings to carry with the same agility as before, so they'd slightly stretched the N.11 airframe in all dimensions (while keeping the N.16 engine) to make the N.17.

 

In this paragraph, you must forgive my VERY bad French, because I'm only half-way literate in the Cajun dialetct, which is a VERY BAD approximation of true French. Besides, I'm several fingers of whiskey over the line right now. Suffice to say, about this time, the acronym SPAD re-emerged in French aviation with a differetn meaning. Originally, it had meant Societe' pour l'Avions Deperdussin, but M. Deperdussin had just been jailed for fraud. His company pressed on regardless, however, and now called itself Societe' pour l'Aviation et ces Deriviete's. They produced the SPAD VII, which had much greater speed and no worse firepower than contemporary Nupes, and much more room for further improvements.

 

For the 1st time facing legit competition at short notice, Nieuport tried to prolong the service life of its essentially pre-war design by what amounted to minor aerodynamic refinements and yet further power increases. They redesigned the N.17 with a slightly bigger moter and tried to streamline it. This redesign entailed rounding off all sharp corners on the N.17 airframe, at wings, tail, and fuselage. The total package was the N.24, but the refinements of each component were introduces 1 at a time. As things turned out, the fuselage came first, then the wings, and finally the tail. But the whole thing was designed at once, which resulted in some strange nomenclature.

 

The N.24 fuselage was available 1st, so planes with this and the N.17 wings and tail were N.17bis. The French didn't think this worth the trouble but the RNAS got some and retained the upper wing Lewis. This was trading maneuverability for firepower. The next plane was supposed to have had all the other new parts and be the N.24. However, the new tail was still a problem. Thus, as a stopgap, they built the N.24bis, which had the N.24 fuselage and wings but the N.17 tail. A few months later, the N.24 tail was ready to go and so the complete N.24 finally entered production and squadron service, but the N.24bis came first. Confusing, eh?"

 

 

I will just add that the later a machine was built from a batch, the more chance it had of being up-engined: eg 110>120>130 LeRhone. However, even that was not linear, nor were the results. For instance, the 17bis, with the 130hp Clerget, had the reputation, warranted or not, of being a dog.

Cheers,

shredward

Edited December 20, 2009 by shredward

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Yuppers, BH has it nailed quite close there. You could paraphrase Sir Walter Scott's "Marmion" when it comes to the French efforts with the Nieup series in WWI.

 

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when improved performance we 'tempt achieve."

 

 

.

[ricnunes 1]

Very interesting post shredward, thanks for your reply!

 

So the N24Bis came first than the N24 "baseline", very interesting inded! I didn't know this and with your post I certainly learned more about about the WWI aviation. Once again, thanks for your post!

 

But I still have a couple of questions?

- Why does the French N24Bis is faster (the same as N24) than the British/Lewis N24Bis? (while the British/Lewis N24 has the exact same speed as the French N24 - This according to the OFF aircraft stats)

- Why does the British/Lewis N17 have a gunsight while the British/Lewis N24/N24Bis doesn't have any?

[+Polovski 460]

Not all craft in the field have all options or even the same equipment. Also just because we model something one way doesn't mean the next one along is an "upgrade" very often it really wasn't . See the N11 N16 example above, or try the D.H.5

 

Sometimes sights were removed if they actually made the view worse for example or pilots found they cracked their head on them in a crash etc. Some craft in OFF have field mods, or rare parts whatever as it is deemed fun/useful/interesting whatever,or to stop the modeller from dying of boredom ;)

 

The stats may be wrong, why not fly them all and test - after all what counts is what it does when you fly it ;) ?

 

Given wings, and tail parts and all sorts are swapped, also don't forget one craft that is meant to be exactly the same as another often would have differing performance in climb rate or speed on the field down to manufacturing, engine performance differences, setup etc ..

 

Once you try to explore WWI it's a can-of-worms I tell you ;)

[Bullethead 12]

also don't forget one craft that is meant to be exactly the same as another often would have differing performance in climb rate or speed on the field down to manufacturing, engine performance differences, setup etc ..

 

This is always the case even today, but especially so in in WW1. I've read many times where some planes were built by numerous companies, and some companies made consistently better planes of the same type than others. The planes from 1 factory were usually faster, or stronger, or lighter, or whatever, or some combination, whereas other factories made planes that were slower, heavier, weaker, etc. This even though they were all working from the same drawings. Therefore, the A Flight aces always got the planes from the good factory and the noobs in B Flight always got the planes from the bad factories.

 

On top of this, no 2 pieces of wood of the same dimensions ever weigh the same, or are equally strong. Thus, even amongst planes from the same "good" factory, individual planes were better than others. This is why pilots with enough seniority had personal planes. They'd find one that flew better, due to its unique combination of pieces of wood, and would claim it as their own. RHIP.

 

So to me, if a plane flies within +/- 10 percent of what my books say it could do, I'm happy. After all, who knows which factory it came from?

[Von Paulus 8]

On top of this, no 2 pieces of wood of the same dimensions ever weigh the same, or are equally strong. Thus, even amongst planes from the same "good" factory, individual planes were better than others. This is why pilots with enough seniority had personal planes. They'd find one that flew better, due to its unique combination of pieces of wood, and would claim it as their own. RHIP.

I never thought about that but it surely makes sense. There must have been more tweaking than I could imagine.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Absolutely correct BH. Two other factors that made a huge difference in aircraft performance were the engines and the rigging. Engines varied even more than airframes did in terms of quality and performance. And a rigging crew could make a poorly built plane fly very well, or a well-built plane fly like a very large piece of crap, depending on how well they did their job. And their job must have been 24/7, and as proof of that I offer once again the following rigging charts for the SE5a:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A whole lot of factors affecting the performance of a single aeroplane. No wonder one could fly so much better than the exact same type sitting next to it. You can imagine how attached a pilot must have gotten to his kite after it had proven itself in combat.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

[ricnunes 1]

What you say really makes sense!

 

Also I want to say that what Polovski said with "Sometimes sights were removed if they actually made the view worse" makes sense for airplanes like the Nieuport 24.

 

Thanks for the your replies guys!