Replica Sopwith Camel Construction Process

[Sgt Pepper]

What about the increased HP of the modern power plant. How do you think it is going to change the handling/flight charastics? Will it put loads on the wing structure that are outside of the original design (I am assuming the wing design is as per the original?)
happy holidays. love seeing the progress. keep it coming.
c

[greatwarpilot]

I'm afraid I can't give very detailed answers to the first three questions since I'm not an engineer. However I'm pretty sure the gentleman who is doing the design has taken these things into account.

The wing design is as per the original, yes

As far as the horsepower, you have to keep in mind the reduction gear on the front of the engine. We hope to swing a prop very close in dimensions to an original one, and hopefully in the right RPM range. From what we can tell this shouldn't lead to vastly different performance numbers than the original. Although it'll still be very interesting to see what his thing flies like.

If the horsepower proves to be wildly beyond whets needed or can he easily handled in such a short coupled airplane the idea has been bounced around of pegging the throttle so only a limited amount of it is available. This also is an option, although one I'd rather avoid personally.

One the project is completed and it actually flies I'll happily report on performance details and how it actually flies.

Happy Holidays to you Sgt Pepper, and to everyone else out there on the forum.

Cheers

Edward

[baldeagle]

I'm all for steel tube fuselages, they're easier and faster to build, and in a worst case scenario, more crash worthy. And if you're going to use a different engine, instruments, etc. why be worried about how authentic the structure is. I've worked on both sides, and it is fun doing a wood and wire fuselage, especially if somebody else is paying you to do it. My Nieuport 28 project has a steel tube fuselage, and I'm using a rotary engine, but I went with the steel tube structure for the reasons above. If the weight and aerodynamics of the 'plane are close to the original, it'll fly close to what the real one flew like. I always thought that the Warren truss style fuselage should be lighter than the usual Pratt truss most builders use (just replacing the wood members with steel tube) but your Camel is the first time I've seen it in practice.

[hank jarrett]

I'm also an Aero Engineer and would really like to see your stress analysis. I don't get to do a lot of that kind of analysis any more (doing Risk analysis and safety engineering now but started in structures). Would your engineer be interested in talking off group?
Hank Jarrett

[jumpinjan]

Hank,
How quickly could you do an analysis (and possibly optimize tubing size & wall thickness) of a custom steel tube fuselage if I could provide the data in a form that you specify? Do you have tools available to automate the analysis like NASTRAN? That's the last one that I used back in 1978.

[greatwarpilot]

Originally Posted by hank jarrett

I'm also an Aero Engineer and would really like to see your stress analysis. I don't get to do a lot of that kind of analysis any more (doing Risk analysis and safety engineering now but started in structures). Would your engineer be interested in talking off group?
Hank Jarrett

I'll have to ask him Hank. Won't be seeing him until the new year likely, but I'll run it past him when I next run into him.

Baldeagle - I have to agree that if you're already going with modern instruments and a more modern engine then being a stickler for the original construction doesn't make the most sense.

Our full scale SE5 is also steel framed, as is our N28 and the Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter. It just seems to be the way things are done around this museum. Still though it'd be nice to have one or two aircraft built as they originally were. The option that is often discussed is a Pup with a rotary. That'd be great to have, but in the mean time the steel versions are still a pleasure to fly (and hopefully the Camel will be also).

By the way, how far along is your N28 project?

[baldeagle]

I have to say that the Great War Flying Museum has accomplished great stuff building and flying all of those replicas, not many people or groups could organise something like that and keep it running and growing.

My Nieuport is on temporary hiatus while I search for a new workshop, the old one got sold out from under me. Fuselage is welded up, also tails and landing gear. 160 Gnome is rebuilt and almost ready to run on a stand. I have the wood for the wing spars, but haven't done anything on them yet, and I've collected a set of original instruments, including tach, dash clock, compass, and oil pulsator, but am still looking for a WW1 French altimeter. Also, I bought a repro Vickers on eBay that is stamped "Warner Brothers #4", and according to the seller was probably used for some of the 1930s movies, as it is made out of cast aluminum and steel, not like more recent movie guns. I wish it could talk. I'm doing Doug Campbell's machine as it was on April 14, 1918 when he scored his first victory, only equipped with one gun, and still with French roundels on the wings. I met Doug several times while a kid at Old Rhinebeck, and a couple of years ago I visited the site of his victory on the old site of Gengoult Aerodrome, now an industrial park. I meant to bring a vial of dirt back from there to dump into the belly of the Nieuport when it's done, but was in a rush and forgot. Have to go back I guess.

[greatwarpilot]

Thanks for the kind words about the museum baldeagle. Personally I've only been with the outfit for a few years, but it certainly is an impressive collection. I've been having a great time there not only flying, but learning about how to work on these old birds. In particular I'm enjoying the world of fabric and paint, as you can see from the DR1 rebuild thread.

Sounds like your Nieuport is going to be quite the beauty. I'd love to see it one of these days if I happen to take a drip down to your neck of the woods.

As far as the original instruments go how have you assessed their servicibility and if they need work do you do it yourself or send them out to be worked on?

[RFC Pilot]

Originally Posted by baldeagle

I have to say that the Great War Flying Museum has accomplished great stuff building and flying all of those replicas, not many people or groups could organise something like that and keep it running and growing.

Thanks.

It is a labour of love, more so in a volunteer organization. The museum has been around for 35 years now, and has slowly increased the number of aircraft, from one to seven, with only one of them no longer flying (a Nieuport 17).

It is nice to see the look of disbelief when you explain how the machines are made and what the pilots of the time went through.

[baldeagle]

GWP,
There's a guy in Oakland, CA named Dave Rogers, and I send all my instruments that need rebuilding to him. He just left the company he worked for and went out on his own, and I don't have his phone number handy, but it was published in EAA "Vintage Airplane" magazine last year in the article about the Grand Champion Curtiss Jenny of Frank Schelling. If I can find it I'll post it. As for the Nieuport, the only instrument I'm worried about is the tachometer, a clockwork Jaeger of appropriate vintage, hopefully Dave can do it, I know he's done others. Otherwise I might have to turn to somebody in Europe. The clock and compass aren't too important, the clock works and could probably be fixed by a good clock repair person if it didn't, and the compass needs a new card (or re-doing of the old one), but other than that I'll fix it up myself. I'm not going to make too many cross countries behind the Gnome. The altimeter also won't be too important, as I plan to hide a modern altimeter next to the seat where it can be covered by a wooden flap, so that I can look at it in flight during airshows when I might want to know exactly how high I am. Also, I'm thinking about hiding a modern airspeed indicator in a similar way, mainly for when I check out other pilots in it, and also to please Mr. FAA.