Where is the N.28's gunsight?

[Pike Bishop 0]

Dear All,

I usually fly the SE5a but recently I tried a HITR career with a Nieuport28. But there is no gunsight?..so it is a little difficult to hit anything...........What am I missing??

regards,

Pike.

[Olham 164]

Don't know that craft good enough, but by pressing F6 you should come to the sim's gunsight

on each aircraft; leave it by pressing F6 again (two or three times).

 

Pike, are you already on the "OFF Forum Pilots Map"?

If not, please send me a PM with your town and country/state. Thanks!

[Hasse Wind 46]

Not all of those crates have a gunsight. You can just as easily aim with your tracer bullets - in fact it's usually faster to do so in the midst of battle.

[Morris 2]

Dear Pike Bishop,

 

You are missing the target......

 

Joking

 

M

Edited May 5, 2010 by Morris

[Barkhorn1x 14]

However some pilots, familure with their aircraft use a windscreen top or a oil cap or a gauge as a sight

 

Yes, that's pretty much it for WW1 a/c targeting:

 

Dr1 = aim just above the compass (or whatever that thing is in the middle of the dash)

DVII = aim just a bit above the cylinder heads

Pfalz = aim directly on the yellow engine thing in the middle

 

Mind you attitude and that of your target:

- target diving - lead him by firing below him

- target climbing - lead him by firing above

 

...and practice, practice, practice.

[Duce Lewis 3]

Never figured HOW to estimate my target, with any of the upper wing mounted Lewis Guns. I'm just lucky my life never depended on estimating

IIRC there is a setting in the aircraft file for a convergence point about 150 feet/yards?

It's been a long time

But anyway firing at the prescribed distance, the rounds should hit where aimed by the iron sight

 

I never much cared for the upper/lower gun configuration when I flew the Se5

[Duce Lewis 3]

I enjoyed the arraingment on the SE5a, as atleast you have a sight to reference. The one I hated, was the Nieuport 11, and dare I mention the Bristol Scout as that was in a class all it's own

Yeah, Se5 (Viper) has a nice sight

I didn't like was the vertically spaced MG's though

 

If I had been a WWI designer, I've used a thin wall tube, 5 in long, with crosshairs at the end

Placed on the radiator, if you're not looking straight down it, it'll look oval w/ 2 thick walls 180 Deg apart

Non-obstructing and easily lined up

Edited May 6, 2010 by Duce Lewis

[Olham 164]

Good idea.

The gunning with two-gun-fighters is easier, cause after a while you know,

where the two axis of the gun barrels meet - no need of crosshairs.

But with the SPAD VII, I find it tough - only one gun.

I am learning now (thanks TrackIR!) to crouch behind it, so that the crosshair

and the little ball on a pin center together. I have already shot down Albs.

(Which makes my heart bleed, still!)

[Duce Lewis 3]

Good idea.

The gunning with two-gun-fighters is easier, cause after a while you know,

where the two axis of the gun barrels meet - no need of crosshairs.

But with the SPAD VII, I find it tough - only one gun.

I have to disagree on the one gun problem

Se5 Viper only has 1 offset cowl gun

But with it's excellent sight it is no problem to aim

With the upper wing Lewis, it 's a matter of getting the range right

I found the standard Se5 with the Aldis and offfset Ring Sight much more difficult

 

I've rarely flown the Spad VII but I found aiming difficult in the S. XIII

Offset Sight, Low Upper Wing, and a Windshield Post straight ahead

But I've been thinking of a S. XIII or Se5 career in the near future

 

...I have already shot down Albs.

(Which makes my heart bleed, still!)

I can feel your pain!

[Olham 164]

Duce: I've rarely flown the Spad VII but I found aiming difficult in the S. XIII

Offset Sight, Low Upper Wing, and a Windshield Post straight ahead

But I've been thinking of a S. XIII or Se5 career in the near future.

 

Try the SPAD XIII - a very sturdy, strong and fast craft. You can climb or fly away

from any trouble, and the two guns give you devastating fire power.

After a while, you will find it easier to hit something, and if only for the defensive

part, you will feel almost invincible.

A great fighter to enjoy even the dangerous 1918!

[Duce Lewis 3]

Try the SPAD XIII - a very sturdy, strong and fast craft. You can climb or fly away

from any trouble, and the two guns give you devastating fire power.

After a while, you will find it easier to hit something, and if only for the defensive

part, you will feel almost invincible.

A great fighter to enjoy even the dangerous 1918!

I chased an Se5 in a spiraling dive and he was able to out roll my DVII and break back underneath me several times

As I'd remembered the Se5, it didn't have that much roll rate

But maybe they've changed it

 

I also ran into a "HOT" S. XIII Driver

He outflew me in the vertical, using the Spad's power and speed to it's ultimate

Surprisingly, he fought in close with us, not the usually wide climbing circles

I eventually shot him down but was aided greatly by 2 DVII's and an Albatross

I am definately sure the S. XIII's FM has been upgraded

...so I think I'll give her a shot

[Olham 164]

The Pfalz and the SPAD have been much improved to the better with HitR, Duce.

If you want to turn wide, bank softer and use rudder.

If you need to turn tight, bank her hard and use elevator - no rudder then!

I shot down Walter Blume today in my new SPAD XIII (see: Screenshots).

Edited May 8, 2010 by Olham

[DukeIronHand 8]

The lack of a usable gun site in all A/C is a major pet peeve of mine.

 

Certainly, in "real life" all guns have a sighting system.

RB3D even had the ability, as mention by Uncleal, to add your own - even as simple as a small red dot.

 

I have often wondered how easy it would be to add something - not as easy as RB3D I presume.

[DukeIronHand 8]

Well, I am not a WW1 pilot nor do I have stick time in a real WW1 A/C.

 

That being said I still believe every aerial mounted MG had a sight or sighting system.

 

I don't recall a historical account (narrative) from a WW1 pilot who did not make reference to the sights of his MG.

 

And the deflection shot, while clearly critical to aerial success, does not negate the use of a sight.

 

That being said I am sure not all pilots used them in the heat of the moment but I am willing to bet all had sights.

[DukeIronHand 8]

I will not discount some of what you have said but I am afraid we will agree to disagree.

 

S!

[DukeIronHand 8]

That's what make the earth spin on it's axis, different opinions. However when you do find a picture of, or a reference too, the rear sight that you steadfastly say exists, please do post it on this forum

 

It doesn't need any fanfare or a pertinent thread, just a simple "Rear Sight Found" will suffice. Followed of course by the pertinant poop

 

Ah...so we are switching to just the "rear sight" now eh?

 

Already found a diagram for the rear sights on the observers Lewis and Parabellum in the first spot I checked. Someone here post a collection of WW1 books in PDF format.

 

When I get a moment I will check for rear sights for forward mounted MG's - though perhaps the Aldis sight may qualify?

 

Back to bill paying! And after that (hopefully) a nice clear photo otherwise a diagram from a instruction manual may have to suffice.

 

Edited for bad grammar.

Edited May 10, 2010 by DukeIronHand

[Duce Lewis 3]

I think it depended on design philosophy ...usually controlled by the procurment managers

Seems that the Brits and French opted for sights while the Germans made the choice to leave them off

That being said, the Entente Sights almost seem to be an afterthought

Not that well thought out and sometimes of little use

 

DH2 has an excellent sight setip right on the MG

One of this crates few redeeming virtues

 

Se5 has a horrible offset sight or a nice straight on ring sight depending on the model

 

I just had a (very) short Spad 13 career where there's and offset sight arrangement

Ring Sight forward with a single rod with a bead for a Rear Sight

But since it's offset, I never used it ...probably cuz I've been flying German crates for so long

 

German design philosophy seems totally different

I'm thinking (and this is a total guess) they wanted the pilot to focus on the target, not the sights

A good pilot becomes one with his aeroplane and KNOWS where the aiming point is

This makes sense when you consider the human eye and it's limitations

There's no ability to focus close up and long range at the same time

 

OFF is displayed on a 2D Screen so focusing is no problem but sensing that aim point ain't so exact either

Pfalz has some sort of pointed radiator cap and that makes aiming quite a bit easier

 

All in all I think a centered Ring Sight is superior

But Germany wasn't lacking for high scoring Aces either!

[DukeIronHand 8]

There are a boatload of photos on the web showing rear sites for forward firing MG's. Just do a Google search for images (like for LMG 08/15 Spandau) or the Wikipedia page for the Sopwith Triplane (rear wire box sight similar to the early Eindekker sites) or the Wiki for the Sopwith Dolphin showing a fine shot of the Aldis sight.

[DukeIronHand 8]

I care not about the Aldis Sight because that fails to utilize any sight front or rear, and serves mutible guns. On a forum we normally list a link to the picture, or the picture itself

 

rather then tell folks to go Google It

 

Then according to these pictures, the pilots would just fire haphazardly and hope for a hit ( what a way to run a war)

 

PS . . You should inform Polovski about all those missing sights, an in future try to be realistic . . . Do it after Phase IV is released PLEASE

 

Your really confusing me with your use of photos of reduced scale modern kit planes - are they supposed to be supporting your argument?

 

In any case I can see where this debate will go, or is going - no where useful - so I will sign off.

[Crossbones 1]

If the N28 flight model was not so odd I might really get into this discussion. I quit trying to fly it months ago. The N24 FM seems more accurate for the N28 to me. Sorry I am a little off topic but there is no joy in flying this plane.

 

Crossbones

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Tell me what you don't like about the FM of the N28. There may be a way to fix it. More details the better. For instance, I am fairly sure I can reduce its tendency for its wings to break up in a sharp turn while still allowing for damage from a too fast dive. I am currently working on the Albatross series and have had some success with them, although I am still not quite finished. See my FM tweaking thread for details.

[Duce Lewis 3]

Tell me what you don't like about the FM of the N28. There may be a way to fix it. More details the better. For instance, I am fairly sure I can reduce its tendency for its wings to break up in a sharp turn while still allowing for damage from a too fast dive. I am currently working on the Albatross series and have had some success with them, although I am still not quite finished. See my FM tweaking thread for details.

I've had similar feelings to Crossbones

The engine seems quite anemic

It will reach it's max speed in level flight (about 123 mph) but it takes forever to do so

Consequently, it's acceleration in a dogfight is almost non-existant

I always ended up below and far behind Albatross, not a speedster herself

N.28 is very small but with 160 HP, IMO should have very good acceleration

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

It is the heaviest of all of the Nieuport's, isn't it? Most later Albatross had engines with at least 170 hp and were overcompressed and run lean, to boot, so I'm not sure if the N28 would catch up or not. One thing i can look at is the drag. Lowering it a tad may allow the plane to accelerate a little better.

[Duce Lewis 3]

It is the heaviest of all of the Nieuport's, isn't it? Most later Albatross had engines with at least 170 hp and were overcompressed and run lean, to boot, so I'm not sure if the N28 would catch up or not. One thing i can look at is the drag. Lowering it a tad may allow the plane to accelerate a little better.

Here's the specs on the 2 machines (from wikipedia)

DV specs weren't as complete but it had 10 more HP and weighed about the same as the DIII ...yielding .086 HP/lb

DVa, I believe, had additional wing strengthening and was even heavier

 

Nieuport 28

General characteristics

 

• Crew: one, pilot
• Length: 7.8 m (24.4 ft)
• Wingspan: 8.1 m (26 ft 3 in)
• Height: 2.5 m (8 ft 0 in)
• Wing area: 15.8 m² (169 ft²)
• Empty weight: 475 kg (1,227 lb)
• Loaded weight: 560 kg (1,635 lb)
• Powerplant: 1× Gnome 9-N rotary, 102kW (160 hp)

Performance

 

• Maximum speed: 184 km/h (122 mph)
• Range: 349 km (180 miles)
• Service ceiling: 5300 m (17,390 ft)
• Rate of climb: 11.5 min to 3,000 m (9,840 ft)
• Wing loading: 37.9 kg/m² (7.77 lb/ft²)
• Power/mass: 0.15 kW/kg (0.09 hp/lb)

Albatross DIII

General characteristics

 

• Crew: one
• Length: 7.33 m (24 ft 0 in)
• Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
• Height: 2.90 m (9 ft 6 in)
• Wing area: 23.6 m² (254 ft²)
• Empty weight: 695 kg (1,532 lb)
• Loaded weight: 886 kg (1,949 lb)
• Max takeoff weight: 955 kg (2,105 lb)
• Powerplant: 1× Mercedes D.IIIa inline water cooled engine, 127 kW (170 hp)

Performance

 

• Maximum speed: 175 km/h (94 kn, 109 mph) at sea level
• Range: 480 km (261 nmi, 300 mi)
• Service ceiling: 5,500 m (18,044 ft)
• Rate of climb: 4.5 m/s (886ft/min)
• Wing loading: 37.5 kg/m² (7.67 lb/ft²)
• Power/mass: 0.13 kW/kg (0.081 hp/lb)

[Crossbones 1]

What I expected was a more stable and maneuverable plane but the FM does odd things when it gets near a spin. It is like the center of weight moves more towards the tail. And yes the clime is real slow but I don't know if that is realistic or not.

 

Crossbones