Discovered the worst POS aircraft

Just gotta fly to its strengths and avoid the weaknesses.

One day maybe we'll do the Siemens Schuckert D.III perhaps one of the finest aircraft of the war and it's superb but terribly unreliable engine to even it up some mwhahahaa.. and then we can have the D.IV arriving that fixes all that.. but too far late.

Nowi, I also was surprised at how poorly I did in the N28 also.



And just what are its strengths in WOFF UE?

As I understand it, the documentation I've seen indicates the N28 was intended/considered as a machine more about maneuverability than diving - more 'turn and burn', less 'boom and zoom'. The SPADs were, of course, the screaming divers. Some outfits were very happy to get the SPAD replacements, some still preferred the N28. I would imagine this was an extension of the preferred method of fighting.

Interestingly, I'm also given the impression that it was the upper wing that suffered failures, historically - not the lower one as stated above. Leading edge failures in steep dives, IIRC.

I believe lower wing failures were a distinction shared among the V-strut sesquiplanes - like the earlier Noops and Albatros DIII / DV - which the N28 certainly was not. The problem was 'twisting' of the wing at higher speed (dive), owing to the single mount point of the V strut's bottom. I could be wrong, but I believe this was among the reasons the N28 actually had dual struts - it being the first production Nieuport model so equipped.

FWIW, just my $0.02

Going by memory it was not a “wing failure” per se (as in spars and struts) but a “wing fabric failure.”
The speed/stress of a dive (or a sudden pullout) would tear the fabric from the leading edge of the wing leading to loss of lift depending on how much fabric was lost. If too much of the lift surface was gone the wing was, essentially and aerodynamically, gone.
The Nieuport Company eventually figured out the problem and fixed it but by then the Americans had moved on to Spads.

Always enjoy reading these technical debates....thanks for them gents' - reminds me of the best posts on the Aerodrome website. Originally it was thought that the fabric seam on the top wings of the N.28 was too close to the leading edge of the wings...causing fabric tear in steep dives. The latest theory is that too much spacing between ribs connecting with the leading edge spar, on the top wings, would lead to structural damage of the leading edge in steep dives - thereby causing the fabric tear and sometimes the leading edge section to disappear. The 28a variant apparently fixed the problem but showed up too late to be used in the war - although it made for a good stunt plane for barnstorming in the '20s.

Here's some more thorough info. on the N28 top wing problems:

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showpost.php?p=305036&postcount=17

Von S

Going by memory it was not a “wing failure” per se (as in spars and struts) but a “wing fabric failure.”
The speed/stress of a dive (or a sudden pullout) would tear the fabric from the leading edge of the wing leading to loss of lift depending on how much fabric was lost. If too much of the lift surface was gone the wing was, essentially and aerodynamically, gone.
The Nieuport Company eventually figured out the problem and fixed it but by then the Americans had moved on to Spads.

In service, the Nieuport 28 had a good performance, due to the aircraft’s good maneuverability, impressive rate of climb and speed. But the fighter also had several issues. The most well known was the tendency to shed its upper wing fabric if the pilot pulled out of a steep dive too quickly. The problem was not the dive, but the pull out that wrecked the wing. Pilots, such as the ace Harold E. Hartney, noticed that despite the deformed appearance of the failed upper wings, in most cases control of the aircraft was maintained and the machines could land safely.

The upper wing of the Nieuport 28 failed because the wing rib failed in its function of transferring the heavy loads encountered at the leading edge of the wing to the main spar. The portion of the rib forward of the main spar was poorly designed and so structurally weak as to concentrate the shear and bending moment force on the veneer above the wing and the very thin cap strip below. These structures were inadequate to the task. The fix (nailing and gluing a wood strip or batten atop the veneer) adopted after the spate of accidents added nominal strength to the top of the leading edge of the upper wing, but it did not address what was principally lacking in the rib construction. A shear tie is required to securely connect the web to the spar and add the necessary rigidity forward of the main spar to manage the heavy shear and bending forces.Extending the top cap strip forward to the leading edge would have added strength to the entering edge with a minimal weight penalty. Some officers believed that the wing's leading edge stuck out too far forward of the main spar. James Meissner, for one, said this during his appearance before the Congressional Committee in 1919. A postwar caution to airfoil designers held that the leading edge should be as short and rigid as possible. There is some evidence that a secure attachment of the leading edge to the main spar was a more important consideration than the length of the leading edge itself. However, there is no evidence that the Air Service considered these modifications at the time the problems with the Nieuport 28's upper wings occurred.

Poor wartime workmanship and materials were also contributing factors. During the restoration of a Nieuport 28 at the National Air & Space Museum's Paul Garber Facility, we found evidence of carelessly driven nails in examples of original wing ribs that weakened the rib and, also, minimal use of casein glue (a derivative of milk curd) that is not waterproof.

Correct the upper wing was the canvas problem was just following on from the comments above and didn't stop to think. WOTR work has broken my mind - that's my excuse.

...I started to turn with a Fokker, and the fabric on my lower wing started tearing off. I limped back to a forward airfield and landed, thankful to be alive...

"Well, in real life, quite a few pilots wanted to keep their N28's and protested when the French wanted them to move onto the Spad 13..."

I'm sure it was more a case of simply having gotten used to something. There were units during the Second World War that weren't happy to hear that they were giving up their trusted P-47's for the new P-51 Mustangs. It was an untested entity to them. But once in it, and once they realized what this airplane was capable of, they didn't want to go back.

This excellent book will give you a full understanding of the capabilities of the N28... It also gives the full reasons why the American pursuit Sqn's used them, political, economical and industrial reasoning at the time.
Pilot accounts, full reports on why wings failed with detailed photo's and drawings, specifications and performance details in comparison to other types it fought against, plus comparison with the Spad which replaced it.
I bought this book a few years ago, it is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in WWI aviation... in fact a must have...

"Well, in real life, quite a few pilots wanted to keep their N28's and protested when the French wanted them to move onto the Spad 13..."

I'm sure it was more a case of simply having gotten used to something. There were units during the Second World War that weren't happy to hear that they were giving up their trusted P-47's for the new P-51 Mustangs. It was an untested entity to them. But once in it, and once they realized what this airplane was capable of, they didn't want to go back.