Talk:Nieuport 28

Survivors and/or replicas?
What about a section on Survivors and/or replicas? There is a replica in the National Museum of the USAF, another at the Army Aviation Museum. There is a flying replica at the Great War Flying Museum. Doubtless there are others.--Plane nutz (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great idea - in fact why don't you add a section yourself? The items you mention would be just great for starters. DO a bit of research first to ensure you get all the details correct. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Two guns or one?
The idea of designing a new fighter in late 1917 with a single machine gun seems incredible - is there a reliable source that claims this? One gun was mounted off to one side because the top of the fuselage (and thus the gap between the centre section struts) was too narrow for both guns to be mounted in what was generally believed to be the best place (directly in front of the pilot's face). In the absense of any ability to mind read the designers, or, so far as I can tell, any contemporary documentation of this question I have just left it ambiguous - all production machines had provision for two guns (although some American pilots flew "28s" with a single gun, either because of a shortange of guns, or to wring a little extra performance out of the type - so lets just say that. It may well be that the very narrow gap between the top wing and the fuselage on at least one prototype was increased to facilitate the installation of at least one "directly sightable" gun - but since this was just one of several different wing arrangements that were experimented with during development I don't think we can assume this - nor would I trust a modern "glossy" aviation book that made the claim unless there were very strong reasons for doing so. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Use by Squadrons
Small correction: 103rd Aero did not use the type, this is probably being confused with the 147th Aero which actually did. The 147the Aero Squadron was the 4th unit in the 1st Pursuit Group, which the other Nieuport 28 users were a part of (94th, 95th, and 27th Aero Squadrons). The 103rd Aero was the ex-Lafayette Escadrille and used SPAD's from what I recall, never using the Nieuport 28. -Scott S.


 * Our sources all give the four squadrons listed in the original text - the Nieuport was considered interim equipment from the beginning - none of the squadrons operated Nieuports for longer than a matter of a few weeks - all being re-equipped with SPADs quite promptly. It is very possible that some of them didn't even get to complete any actual operations on the Nieuport at all before they got SPADs. None the less, we have to go on what our sources say - if you have an authoritative source and can quote "chapter and verse" we may well revisit this one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Drastic "correction" of history
Additional detail like this is actually just what we can always use - but it really does need to be referenced. Could we have a reference or two? The following statements, in particular seem (at first blush anyway) to be highly unlikely and/or out of synch with "well known facts". (Yes I know, "well-known" doesn't always equal "correct", alas).

1. Later supplementary order (when was this placed? and was it cancelled at war's end?). All other sources say that the initial 300 or so were originally ordered by the French, who decided they didn't really want them after all, and passed virtually all of them to the Americans as an interim substitute for SPAD orders that could not at first be met due to engine shortages.

2. Performance. Published figures show respectable but far from outstanding (in fact pretty mediocre) speed and climb, especially when compared with other fighters in use in the second half of 1918. Published performance figures are NOT always right or complete - but do you have well-cited figures giving the higher rates of speed and climb implied in your revised text? (Or perhaps more complete figures showing that the maximum speed usually given was (say) at a higher altitude? 122 mph at (say) 10,000 or even 15,000 feet is much more creditable than at sea level, which is where bare maximum speed figures are generally ussumed to be taken from.)

3. "Expendable" naval scouts. This was actually a Royal Navy practice adopted (or at least experimented with) by various other navies. Later small seaplanes were of course designed for this service. Landplane "scouts" used by the British included Sopwith Pup and Camel single seaters. If they were released too far from land to make landfall, they were expected to return to the mothership and ditch nearby so the crew (who were most definitely weren't "expendable") could be picked up. The aircraft concerned were fitted with hydrovanes and flotation devices to facilitate ditching, and enable salvage - although the airframes were often write-offs the engines (aeroengines of the period typically cost a good deal more than the airframes they were mounted in!) were usually OK after a good overhaul. According to other sources this was NOT tried in the US Navy until after the war - and the experiments involved Hanriots rather than Nieuports. Not that this is totally incompatible with your account, just we need to know where you found it!

4. All our sources seem to imply that the American "pursuit" pilots were quite keen to get SPADS to replace their Nieuports - the idea that anyone regarded it as a "tragedy", but that this has remained unknown ever after, seems on the face of it something that we'd really want to get a very good reference for, at least.

5. "Flying carefully" could indeed be an answer to structural weakness - but it was not a popular one. Our sources imply that the answer that was "speedily found" involved improved structural attachment of the wing fabric.

It's such a beautiful little aeroplane I'm sure we'd love for it to have been better than people think it was. Sorry if I seem cynical or negative, just we do need to know (and show) where we're getting our information from. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As a member of League of WWI Aviation Historians, 45 years of reading WWI histories, and with a wall of WWI books; I was quite surprised by the number of inaccuracies on the Nieuport 28 article. For example, it is absolutely incredible and a great diservice to its pilots and service mechanics that the 147th Aero Squadron was left off the list of squadrons that flew the aircraft into combat.   Meanwhile, the 103rd Aero Squadron, which flew SPAD VIIs and XIIIs is unaccountably listed.  The sources cited for the article appear to be either dated or general coffee-table type books.  While wonderful when published, the Harleyford publications are not good sources for the Nieuport 28.  Luckily, there is correct information from good reliable sources that can be provided.  A good source for usage of the aircraft remains Harold Hartney's book - Harold was the commanding officer over the 1st Pursuit Group that flew the Nieuport 28s.  Other good sources on technical data are Davilla's book and the Windsock Data files, which are more current than the older Squadron Publications.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwrnr916 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reworked the section a little - including a number of "remarks" that don't show on the "display" version of the page, but amplify my remaining concerns. By all means use more up-to-date sources (ours ARE a little creaky - many of the books on my aviation shelf I have owned for forty years or more) but do cite them. Actually some of my old citations might be better off replaced with your up-to-date ones. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Vickers Guns
My understanding has always been that the AEF were the ones with the shortage of Vickers guns (in fact of machine guns in general) - due to muddles in the ordering of equipment - and that the (French) manufacturer of the N.28 supplied the aircraft without guns because that's how they did it, the presumption being that the Americans use guns from their own stocks. The reworded sentence seems to imply that the Vickers Gun shortage was a general one that affected Nieuport, so that they didn't have any to supply. This may well be what Treadwell says, but Treadwell is a VERY iffy author, in fact I wouldn't trust him on anything, since I caught him (very clumsily) plagarising Wikipedia! A small point, but we'd better get it right if we can. Think I may be able to work round this one, with good cites, but not now, it's too late. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Instead, I have reworded the paragraph in question with a little masterful ambiguity! Getting TOO specific here would have been bordering on limited relevance, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict
@Buzzsaw Just about everything in one of my edits went, apparently due to this cause - I have reinstated my edits, being careful to preserve yours - if I have inadvertently trodden on your toes - please excuse. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Wing Fabric
Cheesman actually says "Steps were taken to strengthen the wing-fabric of the type 28 and a satisfactory solution had been evolved by July 1918". Our info in this article was actually based on this before the current flurry. This is VERY much more likely than the idea that they'd worked out everything was fine provided you "flew carefully".

We've been discounting this source because it's old, and doesn't go into that much detail - but so far as it goes its generally rather reliable. Frankly I'd be more inclined to accept this than the idea that the solution was "let's fly carefully, fellows". If the wing problem was just a nasty memory by June 1918 because they'd restitched the fabric or something, then it does make sense of the fact(?) that the pilots who'd had the things for a while were glad to see the back of them, while those that had just had them a short while didn't want to change.

Either way - we probably need a better source - what exactly does Guttman say, for instance? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a few points (justifying my latest edits!)
If the Morane A-1 is included in the "Next generation of French fighters" then this probably should also include the N.28! From my own reading of Davilla (which I own) both the Morane and the Nieuport were ordered into production at about the same time, but both (from the French point of view) were destined for the advanced training units. In the event the Morane was trialed briefly at the front by a couple of operational squadrons but DID end up as a trainer, and the 28 went to the Americans while they were waiting for their SPADS. I have let the reference to the Morane stand for a moment, but we need to think about it. Davilla is actually very sketchy when it comes to the 28 - understandable as the work is about FRENCH fighters, and the 28 is (sort of) American. The impression after the most recent edits was that the 28 didn't go into production - it did of course, or the Americans wouldn't have been able to purchase any!). It would have joined the similarly engined Moranes in the advanced trainer role had there been enough spare SPADS for the Yanks to have theirs from the word go.

I also moved the stuff about the prototypes of the 28 that were fitted with things like monocoque fuselages and stationary engines (thus giving rise to the 29) up into the section with the other prototypes of the "28 proper". The 28A is a later development altogether, and a purely American one. I don't think (off-hand - not going to check now) that Davilla even mentions it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Further to the above - I can't see the relevance (notability?) of the Morane to this article especially in the lead and I have re-done that paragraph, also a little more "detailing".--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The SPAD XIII won the 1918 competition and the Morane AI was the runner up/backup, while the Nieuport 28 was just slightly too late to compete but it was evaluated eventually. The Morane ended up being used as a trainer at least in part because it was a failure as a fighter (and after numerous structural failures). The Nieuport's performance was close to that of the XIII (better climb and maneuverability but poorer dive speed and level speed just a couple mph lower) but close wasn't good enough to get into production for the French at that point as it needed to be substantially better to justify the disruption in production. Nieuport built SPAD XIII's (but weren't one of the major producers), just as the Nieuport 28 was built by other companies not previously known for building aircraft (hence some of the issues) - my reference for this is a book on French aircraft production during ww1, published in the 1920s in French but I don't have all the info anymore. It may be the French intended to use them as trainers - I haven't found anything that indicates why aircraft that weren't needed as fighters were even available - perhaps as a test batch (something they sometimes did with new manufacturers) or just in case there was a shortage of Hissos with the failure of the MoS AI?
 * not too worried about where the prototypes went though these were much later than the initial dihedral variants. The 28A may have been developed as much for the French as the Americans - it wasn't a major change though - all just minor detail tweaks to get everything working properly in a design that was likely rushed into production.NiD.29 (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of the most recent batch of edits are either innocuous changing of wording or actual improvements in style, however one or two subtly alter, add to, or detract from the meaning of sentences attributed to sources. In cases like this we really should delete the reference concerned, since it no longer relates to the text (preferably locating a new reference that does, of course). It would be simpler to simply revert to the perfectly good version as we left it - however this would have been throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and in any case I am not inclined to a round of speculative, non-source-based controversy, so I have left things as they now are - but with this protest recorded, at least. Plus, to be positive, a request that the author himself have a look, and correct these lapses (if only to delete the no-longer relevant references), however unlikely of realisation this might be. One point I have altered back - the Fokker D.VII was not in service in mid 1917, when the Nieuport "V" strutters were being "supplanted" - even a link implying that we thought it was really could not be allowed to stand. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Very last set of above
1. Our sources actually give a strong impression that the total number of 28s ordered did NOT include the order for 28As (many of which were cancelled anyway) - I nearly put this in, in fact, but I can't find anything specific enough in the sources. I agree that almost 300 aircraft is [probably far more than the total that was written off, one way or the other, on war service - but in the famous "million dollar bonfire" just after the war a great many aircraft in US service were destroyed rather than bother with "repatriation" - a relatively small number of 28s were "pulled from the flames" to go "home" - we can't even be totally sure that all these were 28As, although this seems logical the military mind is sometimes ('nuff said). The 28A was specifically redesigned to meet complaints about the earlier model, not necessarily as replacements. I agree this is a minor matter (why I wanted it to go into a footnote - and I can't get footnotes to work here either!!)

2. "Re-interpreting" a cited source is very fraught - changing the sense of sourced material is, as I said in my last edit summary, just not on, unless the cite is at least removed - or (much better) replaced with another cite that agrees with the new sense. AND it needs (as should be obvious) to be a better source. The Hamady book is by far the most comprehensive text on the specific subject - it is recent - and frankly I believe it is overall probably more reliable than throw-away lines from works that touch on the 28 rather than treating it at length. "Some" in this context is also VERY ambiguous - do we intend an implication that there was controversy, even in the squadrons where they were quite pleased to see the back of aircraft that had shown a definite tendency to break up in the air and burst into flames on landing? Or are we just saying we have records that "some" complained and others didn't (pretty meaningless, surely).

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC) [Still working on this - if you're there - hold off if possible until I'm done!]
 * Sure - np. The 300 would then have to include a very large number of unused airframes that went into storage first - which seems unlikely if there were shortages of airframes. The sources I have seen have simply said 297 without mention of the later type, so adding a note saying we aren't sure IS adding something that isn't in the refs, unless it is what the new N.28 book says. I have several books specifically on the N.28 including the windsock datafile so it isn't the only one - and that book does not question the number, or suggest it only includes the earlier batch. As for the "some complained" - the quote from the pilots of the other two squadrons clearly indicates that not all of the pilots thought the aircraft was unsound, so making a statement that claims all the pilots though it was a deathtrap is both ludicrous, and unsupportable.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For footnotes or endnotes  should work while gives normal references. Not sure how the template is formatted, and it only increases the page load time as the template then has to be loaded to do the same thing.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well aware of how the footnote SHOULD work - fact is it doesn't - please get this to register as a footnote again, at least. Things like this really need to be checked with the "show preview" button. The attitude of the pilots of the later two squadrons, who got the 28 with the worst problems fixed, is irrelevant when it's quite clear to anyone actually reading the text that we're talking about the first two - who got the "28" as a very new, untried machine with a number of well documented "teething problems"! A Windsock datafile is at the very best a scrappy little source compared with Hamady - a 277 page book, published just seven years ago, about every conceivable aspect of the type's development and service. Suggest you either buy a copy, or get hold of one through you local library, if you want to seriously argue about the 28. Anyway, I've just double checked the reference - and of course it doesn't say "all" - but it does make it clear that after a series of accidents, from which pilots were lucky to escape with their lives, they were as a group decidedly rattled. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem lies with trying to use the same note in two different locations, and embedding a reference within the note - the first location has only minimal connection with the statement, and the statement should be placed inline anyway. I also can't tell if it is just a badly written statement with a convoluted sentence structure, or a direct quote - it needs to be fixed in either case.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Same note in two different locations?" - only one location that I can detect, although like all notes, references etc it can be viewed "in line" by hovering the cursor over the note or ref number, and also echoes in the conventional place at the foot of the article. If you can give it a normal looking format that displays the text of the note clearly, without any red error messages then go for it. In the meantime, with respect, what is important is what the reader sees - and red error message and/or raw wiki formatting code do NOT IMHO form a normal or useful part of this. I actually tried (in vain) to use the same code that has worked fine for me in other articles and must admit myself baffled, I was getting the same kind of red error messages you were in your edits - the current form is a cut'n'paste from an old version of the page that DID display the note correctly, which I slapped in in desperation! On the other hand if you look at the note as it displays on the article page itself it looks pretty good - the reference within the text of the note refers to the source of the actual quoted text (which is clearly just that) - don't understand exactly what the problem is here. Honestly think this is better in a footnote - it seems to me more of a disturbance than an elucidation if it were inline. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC).

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nieuport 28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218004439/http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/Nieuport%2028.htm to http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/Nieuport%2028.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Offset guns!
Were the guns offset because the fuselage was so narrow? So say several source (apologies to the author of Beowulf), but I think it was more likely a result of the geometry of the synchronisation gear. The 28A, which would have used the American Nelson gear, had the guns mounted more conventionally, side be side. Thinking of changing this (or at least adding a note, but need to have my references right or I'll get shot down in flames! WWIReferences (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * An interesting idea - but it needs a good source! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Think that good old "photographic evidence" might cover it. --WWIReferences (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup
Bowers (not to mention some of our other older sources) have become very dated. In fact Bowers is a thin pamphlet (one of the weakest of the early "profile" series) - at best it compares very poorly with Hamady (for example), which is a meticulously researched 276 page book, published in 2008. I mention this in mitigation of my recent rather severe editing of this article. As mentioned in the edit summary - a good many recent "Bowers-inspired" edits duplicated (or are flatly contradicted by) Hamady or other late sources - some others fail "due-weight", one or two are two I have tried hard to confirm by a later source without success and must remain doubtful. There is a sensible size for an encyclopedia article about an aeroplane - especially a rather minor type - and this one pushes it already.

Having said this - I have tried very hard to include any genuine "added details" from the obviously painstaking and well-meant edits that brought this on - especially in cases where I was able to confirm the information in a later source. Many things I have reworded or reorganised rather than deleting - so that the new information is still there - if in different words, and in another place. I welcome comment, preferably here in the first instance, about anything that is no longer there that anyone feels should be reinstated. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Good work. While I agree that the old profile booklet is severely dated, I found a lot of errors in the Hamady book that should have been caught long before publication - not least is his repeated use of A1 instead of the correct AI for the Morane competitor, a fairly basic error that although peripheral to the 28 itself, was nonetheless disturbing. Excellent coverage on the post-war use unrivalled elsewhere though, and lots of new material not available elsewhere.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have refrained from comment for a week deliberately. There appears to have much such an eagerness to put the article back to a prior state that rudimentary errors have been reinserted in the process e.g a sentence that ends in a comma rather than a full-stop; unnecessary double-spacing mid-sentence in the lead. I've lost the will and given up in the face of an apparent WP:OWN instance, it's not worth the trouble or effort to continue editing here, and I've already been derided as having made "determined efforts to impose his/her will" - I don't think I made any particular effort to resist the re-imposing of the status quo, other than pointing out that the alleged 'repetition' of mentioning the 23 was infact the only mention in the article(!) The Bad Faith is simply disheartening. I'll leave it in its state then, as clearly there are those hostile to me being involved and are determined to have things exactly as they are. Kyteto (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have (just now) taken the time to go through the article off-line to detect any remaining "bad" punctuation, spacing etc. - in the process I did detect some (old) instances of inconsistant spelling, (I take it this article should be in U.S. English, since the main interest is after all the use of the aircraft in question by the first American fighter squadrons?) and other minor issues. If any errors of this kind remain could you point them out? As for the feeling of frustration when consensus goes against one - believe me, it has happened to me too. I respect and admire your determination to move on - in fact this is very often all you can do. Try not to be disheartened. It does sometimes seem that people are becoming "hostile" and then a week or so goes by and you end up getting together constructively (usually on a totally unrelated question). To be fair, I must say that I did try very hard indeed not to lose anything important in your edits - although in some cases I have had to reword and re-arrange things into context with what was already there. ANYWAY! Very best wishes. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Floatation -> flotation
If "flotation" looks right and "floatation" looks wrong then you're probably right.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/84218/is-it-flotation-or-floatation

Although "floatation" is rare, if not strictly incorrect, in both standard and U.S. English it is apparently much more common in Scotland(!) think there is a strong case for keeping the "most usual" spelling - especially when it is not subject to a British/US difference, and the difference in use seems to be about 1:100. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)