Talk:Nieuport 11

Note on replica

The Nieuport 11 is a replica of Michele Allasia aircraft. 80a squadriglia, italian front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.37.119.87 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bebe wings did so break - some Bebes did so mount Hotchkiss guns!

I have good cites for both of these - and a photograph for the first one - give me time to locate these and get them up before reverting please!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally - this may see illogical, but the British Nieuport squadrons DID SO receive S.E.5s rather than Camels (I'll get a cite for that, too.) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If any N.11s had Hotchkisses, it was an extremely rare installation. I would place a great deal of suspicion on any source that claimed they had them. The Lewis was by far the most common weapon used. Some Italian N.11's had modified Fiat-Revelli Modello 1914 machine guns - from Woodman's early aircraft armament. No mention is made of Hotchkiss's on Nieuports, though he does mention Garros' Morane Saulnier L. The clearing gun jams thing is nonsense - British and French and Italian overwing mounts all allowed the weapon to be tipped up to clear and rearm them (a pain but not the reason they were phased out). The biggest problem was the small number of rounds carried.

A Colt was developed from the Hotchkiss that was later to be used on the second batch of Nieuport 28s that were delivered too late for the war. The Hotchkiss wasn't suitable for mounting above the prop because of the tray-type feed mechanism (changed on the Colt) and wasn't suitable for synchronizing because of its irregular rate of fire.

Bloody April was at least partly a result of the Brits still using DH-2s long past their use by date so it wouldn't surprise me if a few N.17s were still hanging around until the SE5a entered service, but keep in mind that the British N.11s were ALL operated by the RNAS, not the RFC (which had none), while the RFC did have a few N.16s (all of which had headrests, as did all N.16s - that is a result of people justifying errors in identification - headrests were an integral part of the fuselage and not readily chnaged). Not sure why the N.17s replacement even needs mentioning. The N.11 and N.16 were replaced by the N.17, 21 and 23 - period.

No N.11s or N.16s were supplied to the Dutch air service either - the Dutch interned an example that in turn was copied, however the copy was rejected as being unflyable, and the list of operators has many that actually operated the N.21 (at least in ones and twos), which was structurally similar to the N.17 but lacked the headrest and used the 80hp LeRhone, and so is often confused for the N.11.NiD.29 (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what happened to the N.11 in Paris at le Bourget - which afaik is original...NiD.29 (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The wing breaking problem WAS a problem with the later scouts, which had lots of power (120+ hp) and weighed more, so could attain much higher dive speeds, which were in turn needed to cause the type of aerodynamic problem encountered. That isn't to say no N.11 ever lost its wings, but that it wasn't from this cause. It seems a problem with one model of Nieuport gets easily conflated to cover ALL models of Nieuport. The problem was that the center of lift was ahead of the spar, and at high speeds, the lift being generated could cause the wing to twist, with the leading edge rising, until it encountered a high speed stall at the tip. This could happen several times if a pilot was particularly blind to what his machine was doing, and if he maintained the dive, eventually this would overwhelm the wing spar itself and the wing would break from the strut. The most important factor though is speed - which the earlier machines like the N.10 and 11 were not capable of attaining. Had the problem been anywhere as serious as has been portrayed in English publications, the Nieuports would have been grounded and replaced very quickly, as did happen to other types that had serious structural problems. Instead they continued to be built as trainers when most of their contemporaries were gone entirely and variants remained in service into the 1930s, which makes the wing loss claim seem highly dubious.NiD.29 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If you've got Woodman you know the French were a little late in developing an interest in the Lewis gun - and as a result they even had to blackmail the Brits to get interim supplies!! They were short of them well into 1916 - hence a few N.11s had Hotchkiss guns until enough Lewis guns were available. I thought that last fact was in Woodman, actually - it's not, but I'm sure I can track down the source I am thinking of. Of course the Hotchkiss was far from satisfactory as an aircraft gun in several respects, no one would have mounted it in preference to the Lewis, assuming enough Lewis guns were available.

Many widely used WW1 aircraft were in one way or another quite dangerous to fly - to argue that "the French wouldn't have used Nieuport fighters so long if they had really had a wing problem" is a bit like saying "the Germans wouldn't have ordered so many D.III and D.V Albatroses if their wings were that liable to failure" or even "the Brits would have never have built so many Camels if they had really been so dangerously tricky to fly". Vee-strut wings fluttered in a steep dive, I'm afraid that is all there was to it. There is a famous photograph (I haven't had time to locate it - it's not, as often happens, where I remember it) - of a bemused French officer who has managed to land a N.11 (very clearly such) with one of the lower wings missing and a mess of loose bracing wires trailing everywhere. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you know the picture I mean!

The French were lucky enough to get a reliable synchronizer (the Alkan) quite early in 1916, at which time the Brits were still struggling with their own early gears, which were "most unreliable". If you look at the French overwing mounts in Woodman you'll notice how many variations there are - a sure sign they had problems. If you've got something half workable you tend to standardise on it (O.K. I admit that's almost on a par with your own deductive reasoning I rubbish above). On the other hand even the early version of the Foster mount did the job fairly well (although there are complaints on record of the quadrant (a much lighter affair than the mount used on the S.E.) twisting under stress). I suspect THAT (a combination of the excellence of the Alkan gear and the Foster mount) is behind the difference between the British and French Nieuport armaments.

You may be right about us having too much about the later Nieuports here, the reason is probably that the original article was built, as you surmise, from British sources that tend to blur all "Nieuport scouts" - this is a continuation of the wartime service attitude to "Nieuport Scouts" they simply never distinguished between them too precisely. RFC Nieuport squadrons typically included several different models on strength at any given time (early on, 11s, 16s and 17s - and, later, 17s, 24s and 27s!!) The RNAS got their Nieuports early, and got rid of them early too - the RFC was the only British service that still had Nieuport fighter squadrons in late 1917.

By all means weed the operators list! I leave them well alone - but they are often full of most doubtful/trivial atributions.

Pheww!! All that got typed in one quick burst. (Just went back and added paragraphing and a bit of clarity!!)

Main thing is that anything we actually put in the article is properly sourced, I suppose! Love discussing things like this with another knowledgable person, by the way! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

re: Hotchkiss: I have nearly every book ever published on Nieuports and I know of a single example with a Hotchkiss (N.589), which I did a profile of years ago here precisely because it was unusual. I would love to see photos of others similarly equipped - or some with the Fiat Revelli, which outside the Woodman book is very rare. The Hotchkiss and Lewis were both used as observer guns (not normally being much use for anything else), and a lot of contemporary observers had Hotchkisses, suggesting that perhaps the small number of Nieuports were given preferential treatment.

re: Dangerous: Thinking of the Brits - had there been a problem with Nieuport wings, which were in British service in one form or another from late 1914 (RNAS N.10) until well into 1919 (N.27s), I would expect an outcry about sending the boys off to die in flimsy French airplanes, debates in parliament (they weren't shy about similar issues), and an investigation would have been conducted. Nieuports would have been withdrawn as fast as possible (recall the bans on pushers and monoplanes, and shutting down the Royal Aircraft Factory). Instead they were very popular with the pilots - something none of the other aircraft with structural problems can boast. Sometimes you use what you have, even when it has major issues, as with the Albatros D.V, but the pilots won't be happy about it and word gets out. Also I should point out that despite their obsolescence and losses during Bloody April, the Nieuports stayed in service (though the existence of large numbers of DH.2s still in service suggests major issues with regard to withdrawing obsolete types). The Morane-Saulnier N/I/V was a near contemporary of the N.11 and it had a very short service life because it was dangerous. The Morane-Saulnier AI was withdrawn to fix structural problems.

I know the picture you mean but it is an N.17, and not an N.11 (with an American pilot whose name escapes me with the French escadrille Lafayette). It was well known (this from an article in Over the Front or Cross and Cockade from years ago) that one didn't power dive a Nieuport, and I think it is telling that two different ace/tacticians suggested that diving away was the worst thing to do in a dogfight, as it ensured that you'd get shot down. It is hard to find much in English to support my position though as all the English authors are too busy bashing the French aircraft, and the French can't be bothered with what the Brits say about their aeroplanes (I don't recall a single mention of it in my French or Italian language books, though perhaps I need to check again). The English wiki gives this theory undue weight, but that unfortunately is a reflection of the bias in English publications. NiD.29 (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it needs to be made clearer that only a very few Nieuports had Hotchkiss guns, and then only while supplies of Lewis guns were building?

I'll have to locate the picture - sure it was an 11 but then my old memory could be faulty - or it may be another picture altogether. My Osprey history of no. 60 squadron actually mentions several instances of their Nieuports' wings failing, although of course they'd be 16s or later, and not directly supporting the idea that 11s also failed. As with the Albatros, the fault was so well known it was more or less taken for granted you dived a vee-strut aeroplane very carefully. I think it was probably more in trying to catch a fleeing enemy than in running away that the problems arose, as you said - diving wasn't usually an option when you were trying to escape a dogfight. When you're looking at the flimsy nature of early aircraft you have to remember that they were none of them exactly what you'd call indestructible - even the notoriously "strongly built" S.E.5 had problems early on - an S.E. could be power dived at well over 200 mph at which speed pulling out had to be done VERY carefully indeed. No one thought twice about wings failing at that kind of speed because it was so extreme, of course. It very well be may be that the whole v-strut weakness thing has been exaggerated in British sources and under-stated in French ones - but actual recorded historical instances of it are frequent enough that it can't really be denied.

You probably already know that the anti-Royal Aircraft Factory "movement" had practically nothing to do with anything connected with actual aeroplanes, it was pretty much entirely politico/commercial. The R.A.F. types are all "much maligned", as the saying is - basically because C. G. Grey was so fanatically anti-socialist that he rubbished EVERYTHING that the factory did (from well before the war, in fact well before the "Factory" built an aeroplane), just because the Factory was government run. For years most people in aviation considered his obvious exaggerations rather funny - until the Fokker scourge campaign was started by Noel Pemberton Billing, and people started to imagine that there might be something in what Grey had been saying for all those years. Billing himself was of course mad as a hatter (much crzier than Grey) - but in any case his main bitch was that R.A.F products were given preference over the "aeroplanes" (if that's quite the right word") he designed himself - i.e. the very early Supermarine types (just look some of them up!!). Very high casualty rates in RFC squadrons operating other types were (and often still are) often downplayed, even when these were much higher than the concurrent losses in (say) B.E.2e squadrons. Just answering your "they would have if" arguments here.

Moranes of all types (at least up to the end of 1916) were horribly dangerous to fly - the extreme fore and aft instability/sensitivity combined with their very poor lateral control made them death traps. (Read Saggitarius Rising.) Same went for the various Morane copies, including the Fokker and Pfalz "E" types. The version of the Morane "N" with a more powerful engine was so dangerous the French only built them for the Brits on condition it was understood they (the French) weren't going to test fly them, and that they took no responsibility for any casualties the Brits suffered if they tried to do so! But at the time there was a very strong prejudice in favour of French types. French aeroplane had the same kind of reputation as French wines - the idea was that they were somehow inherently better (unless, obviously, they were hopelessly out of date). And, just quietly, there was some truth in the idea, anyway.

Must point out that this is NOT a forum - and we need to bring this down to what we can agree about that will improve the article!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sesquiplane fragility

The tendency of a sesquiplane lower wing to flutter and twist (and in extreme cases crack and snap off) is actually aerodynamic as much as structural - the lower wing has a very high aspect ratio which leaves it open to twisting forces. The statement that Nieuport "scouts" in general suffered wing damage, and even occasional wing failure from this cause is actually cited here (although we perhaps rely too heavily on Fitzsimmons, and he is an "old" source) and failing a new source (preferably a "better" one) that actually states the 11 was immune to the problem (at least compared with (say) the 17, we really CAN'T change the sense of what he said. A reference needs to verify the information given - and if it is substantially different we have problems. I know you have a strong opinion on this one, but we do need a published source that agrees with you. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The aerodynamic problem depends on speeds greater than normally attainable by the N.10 and 11 - the centre of lift is ahead of the torsional centre of the wing (and wing spar), causing the wing to twist until it goes through a high speed stall, then untwisting back to a neutral position before twisting back to a stall - repeat until failure.

The problem with the source is that it indiscriminately lumps all the Nieuport scouts together, when the reasons for the failures wouldn't have affected them all to the same degree, since it was dependent on speeds rarely achieved with the earlier scouts. I think it should only be included if it specifically mentioned the N.11 (and not Nieuport scouts in general). I don't think any source can say a particular type was immune - hard to prove a non-event which would require more statistical data than has survived. (onus probandi)

I am planning to go through my sources when I have a moment free and reference the statements. That said, I have only a single photo and have never seen a reference beyond my own now defunct website, that even suggests that ANY N.11s used the Hotchkiss, and I only have 1 photo of a single example. I'd like to check the claim on the page that it is in "The Worlds Greatest Aircraft" to see if it even mentions it - not that I would consider such a work as anything other than kindling for the fireplace as most such works are short on research and long on errors, but I am wondering if it was even there at all.

I recently found a shot of another N.11 with a Colt/Chauchat mg. Despite the shortages of Lewis mgs, I think, especially given the frequency in which the Lewis appears even on the N.10 that any shortages were likely to affect other aircraft types far more than the N.11. Certainly it was a common weapon on the MoS.N and L - but they were almost a year earlier.NiD.29 (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

By all means check out the source if you can find a copy - but beware of classing it as only fit for lighting the fire with before you have done so. If we concede that "Nieuport scouts" in general had the weakness then we need to mention it. (Obviously it is at least that important.) We also need to mention it here, since the 11 is the original "vee-strut fighter". Even if getting hold of a copy of the source (I don't think I have heard of it in any other context) reveals that it is NOT "reliable" in the Wiki sense - practically every (non-French) source I have come across DOES mention the vee-strut weakness, including actual instances of the serial numbers of aircraft and the names of pilots who suffered as a consequence. For that matter my only "French" source doesn't attempt to refute the fact, it simply doesn't mention it - like its potted history of the Nieuport company doesn't mention the existence of Schneider - from his other work plainly a genius, and among other things the designer of the early Nieuport monoplanes! 'Nuff said. Prima facie, or until we can find a source (not our own logical deductions, however feasible they may seem) that specifically states something like "due to its lower speed, even in a power dive, the 11 was (largely?) immune to the vee-strut weakness", then we are stuck. It would have been a very brave soul who attempted to power dive any kind of two seat Nieuport so I think we can leave the 10, 12 and 20 out of the question! This may be frustrating - but it is a necessary constraint on an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". WP:OR and all that. It would be different if we were writing a book (or web-site!) of our own, where a bit of judicious speculation and deduction would be perfectly legitimate.

About the use of machine guns other than the obviously much superior Lewis on some early 11s - I was under the misapprehension that Woodman mentions this (he doesn't, either way), but I believe it does rate a bare mention in some other sources. It is by no means unlikely (better not say more, as I have closed that one for myself!). As for seeing lots of pictures of 10s with Lewis guns, I've seen at least one I can remember offhand with a Hotchkiss. Remember that in early 1916 the French (under pressure from the eindeckers) were raising new fighter squadrons as fast as resources permitted - when every new fighter needs a machine gun and you haven't enough of your preferred kind...

Your obvious affinity for, and broad knowledge of, the Nieuport fighters leads me to mention that ALL the "Nieuport scout" articles (with the exception of the one on the 28, a special case in several respects) are all thin, poorly referenced, and in other ways badly in need of work. I am not quite keen enough myself to do the necessary book-buying to put myself in a position to fix this (as I did, for instance, with the Fokker scourge and Synchronization gear articles - might I suggest this might be a project you could really get your teeth into? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just need the time, and need to look through everything differently than before, with an eye for creating references rather than trying to build a bigger picture. I disagree about Schneider tho - the monoplanes preceded him and he continued with them long after they were obsolete (even at LVG), without any real improvements, though he was involved with the the Nieuport-Dunne, which provided a lot of sophisticated knowledge about aerodynamics later used to good effect in the scouts). I don't have a problem with mentioning their use, just that photos are very scarce, suggesting it was an unusual, even experimental installation.NiD.29 (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"Creating references" and building a larger picture" are far from mutually incompatible, in fact they go together very nicely. A trick I use sometimes is to build "my" perfect version of an article (or even just a section) in my sandbox, pepper it with as many references I can find (occasionally even change it where the references say something else!) and then cut 'n paste the whole keboodle back into the "main-line" article. Leave spoil-sports like me stunned, in fact! And I mean what I say about the other Nieuport articles - they (badly) need someone as keen and knowledgeable as you about the subject to get stuck into them. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting better at that aspect - btw - check out - A SPAD with a minor problem... - and a Nieuport 23 with a similar problem. NiD.29 (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Like the pikkies - since ALL WWI aeroplanes were more or less breakable if you really slammed them about, especially pulling out of a steep power dive too suddenly, perhaps the odd picture of one minus a wing or two doesn't really prove that much. The SPAD and the S.E.5 both had a reputation for "great strength" - which probably only meant they got dived faster and pulled out harder - the typical fighter pilot of the time being what he was. Sopwith types generally (up to the Dolphin and Snipe, at least), Nieuports, Fokker fighters up to and including the triplane, Albatros D.III and V. - and others of course - all had a reputation for being breakable, and were probably flown a lot more carefully as a result. While this sort of "synthesised general knowledge" is very handy at times, it does have to be "kept in the background" when we are working on encyclopedia articles. "Probably" - when the the probability is based on our own logic, is really speculation (however feasible it looks). More a matter of assessing statements made by (reliable) sources - I think it is quite legitimate to give superior weight to a source that makes sense, in light of what we "know". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

what year for category

was this plane first flown in 1915 or 1916? Treshcen (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

1915. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)