Sopwith Baby Project - Page 29

Joe Perkel · 31 May 2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick

Hi Joe,
For what it's worth here's the similar Joint box fitting on the Snipe. With this it slides over the Spar box and so the spar stops short of the joint rod hole. The other difference is that it has tube locators welded to the joint rod hole so that it has a length of tube between both spars. This makes sliding the joint rod straight in and out much easier as once the wings are covered I imagine locating the holes with the rod could be interesting.
Maybe this mod is as a result of previous type experience.

Cheers, Nick

Nick,

The 1 7/8" width must mean the forward spar, so interesting also to note the alignment of the forks on both yours and mine. Notice that the bolt holes align with the centerline of the spar but, the aft box forks do not. They seem to pass through, below centerline.

Not going to fret over that now since I realize that this will likely make more sense as the CAD model will reveal things not now apparent as time goes along. Have to remind myself to look at the Strutter also to see what was done there. I see the 2 deg inclination on yours here as well.

Will receive a bunch of fittings drawings of Sopwith standard fittings from WWI aero shortly and will let you know what it consists of.

Picked up a copy of that book as well. I was relying on the pdf file but a hard copy would be nice. Supposedly got a "collectible" version, will see,..last time I ended up with a reprint of another period text.

Thanks Nick!

Joe Perkel · 31 May 2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brisfitworks

10 acres is just for today!
Did 2-1/2hrs of mowing on Tuesday and it was -1C
Had my big winter coveralls (imagine WW1 Sidcot suit) and big moosehide guantlets and still was chilled to the bone when finished!

To see the "other 10acres" go to

43 58' 51.08"N
80 05' 37.85"W

With Google Earth

Sorry, off topic

(but you mentioned it ;-)

Bill,

First time using google earth, I figure about time! Spent about 30 minutes playing with it, amazing stuff really! Clever little critters we humans, how about that Phoenix lander on Mars, love the descent shot from the orbiting eye. MVR was shot down only 43 years before I came along, someone pinch me please!

If I did this right, I placed the cursor on my future hangar location 27 23' 47.80"N 81 29' 04.63"W
You are nearly due north of my assembly location. I'll measure the distance when I can figure it out.

I figure if I can approach from the NW down that runway, I can unload my two 65 lb H.E.R.L's on that cluster of buildings and duck below that tree line to the SE on my way out before you get off a shot!

Very, very nice Bill!

Nick · 1 June 2008, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Perkel

Nick,

The 1 7/8" width must mean the forward spar, so interesting also to note the alignment of the forks on both yours and mine. Notice that the bolt holes align with the centerline of the spar but, the aft box forks do not. They seem to pass through, below centerline.

Not going to fret over that now since I realize that this will likely make more sense as the CAD model will reveal things not now apparent as time goes along. Have to remind myself to look at the Strutter also to see what was done there. I see the 2 deg inclination on yours here as well.

Will receive a bunch of fittings drawings of Sopwith standard fittings from WWI aero shortly and will let you know what it consists of.

Joe,
That's actually the rear spar joint box and the front one is 1 23/32" width. Both have the same 2 degree incline. Also they both align the bolts with the centerline.

The Sopwith Standard fittings are all the SL part number pieces which were used on many different Sopwith aircraft. Instead of redrawing them for each type they just specified the part number. Parts such as the wiring lugs (closed or open) and the fuselage clips, Aileron pulleys, guards, hinges, U-clips, distance tubes, filler caps and bases, etc etc.

Cheers, Nick

Joe Perkel · 1 June 2008, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick

Joe,
That's actually the rear spar joint box and the front one is 1 23/32" width. Both have the same 2 degree incline. Also they both align the bolts with the centerline.

The Sopwith Standard fittings are all the SL part number pieces which were used on many different Sopwith aircraft. Instead of redrawing them for each type they just specified the part number. Parts such as the wiring lugs (closed or open) and the fuselage clips, Aileron pulleys, guards, hinges, U-clips, distance tubes, filler caps and bases, etc etc.

Cheers, Nick

Nick,

1 23/32", I still have to get used to this way of building aircraft, not quite there yet! I look at the Snipe and I see a really stout aircraft so as Koloman and Bill stated on another thread, I need to "trust in their engineering."

My aft spar is 2 1/8" on an aircraft that came much earlier. The Strutter has a thiner aft spar, can't recall offhand, but it looks like things got "lighter" as Sopwith went along.

For example, the drift struts on the Baby were 1 1/4" tapered to 1" square and solid at the ends. The Pup, tapered to 3/4" and routed in an "X" shape. Upper wing aft spars solid on the Baby and lightened on the Pup. Lower center section on Baby, not on Pup. Just to name what I've noticed so far.

Of course as for above, I can't tell if those differences my take into account sudden accelerations (changes in inertia) for bouncing on waves, so very very timid about mucking with those kinds of details.

Or did someone say somewhere along the line regarding Pup, "we need to lighten up a lot if we intend to defeat the hun with 80 hp!"

Will look closely at what came along later for "confirmation" of design improvements for hints on what I can and can not use.

Thanks for sharing Nick!

Joe Perkel · 2 June 2008, 12:07 PM

Have been looking a bit closer at Steve Culp's Pup replica and also had several very productive and informative exchanges with him. He's extremely knowledgeable and obviously, has extensive practical experience.

Take a peek at the performance specifications on the Pup, the speeds don't interest me as much as the rate of climb does. Aircraft Specifications

Steve's focus is performance and turns a 3 blade prop on an M14 radial with a modified non-original airfoil, it is after all a "flying machine" isn't it?

Very, very interesting,...isnt it?!

womenfly2 · 2 June 2008, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Perkel

Have been looking a bit closer at Steve Culp's Pup replica and also had several very productive and informative exchanges with him.

A replica is a copy that is relatively indistinguishable from the original. Replicas are often used for historical purposes, such as being placed in a museum.

One definition of "replica" has emerged that defines one as a copy of an original object, that can only be made by the original company (or corporate descendant) of the firm that made the original object-any other sort of copy of an original object would be called a "reproduction" instead.

Steve Culp's Pup is awesome but a far cry from a Sopwith Pup "replica".

Now Koloman's Albatross is a true "replica".

Just my to 2-cent,
WF2

" ... be very careful on giving credit were credit is not due, it takes way from the purist."

... am I in trouble on this! Okay let me hear it, I'll just .....

Joe Perkel · 2 June 2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by womenfly2

A replica is a copy that is relatively indistinguishable from the original. Replicas are often used for historical purposes, such as being placed in a museum.

One definition of "replica" has emerged that defines one as a copy of an original object, that can only be made by the original company (or corporate descendant) of the firm that made the original object-any other sort of copy of an original object would be called a "reproduction" instead.

Steve Culp's Pup is awesome but a far cry from a Sopwith Pup "replica".

Now Koloman's Albatross is a true "replica".

Just my to 2-cent,

WF2

" ... be very careful on giving credit were credit is not due, it takes way from the purist."

... am I in trouble on this! Okay let me hear it, I'll just .....

WF2,

You are correct of course, except the terms are reversed.

Nearly decided on new float internals, (commissioned Muk Tuk floats in Canada last month).

Between those mods and a likely steel tube now, I may very well have to update my website to "Replica".

As a result of Steve's influence have already change my home page to read,

"....and power is to be supplied by an appropriately matched radial engine / propeller combination...."

.....it's that important! My inability to duplicate the 1200 rpm 104" disk is that problematic dragging those big feet into the air!

Thanks WF2!

womenfly2 · 2 June 2008, 04:21 PM

Hi Joe,

So I have the terms reversed. So Koloman's Alb would be a reproduction and not a replica? correct?

I love your thread and build ... is not solid modeling the best thing since sliced bread!

I am a mechanical engineer and use SolidWorks with Cosmos Finite Analysis package in work daily. Its so cool!

A question: are your sheet metal parts able to be flattened using your modeling program?

WF2

Joe Perkel · 2 June 2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by womenfly2

Hi Joe,

So I have the terms reversed. So Koloman's Alb would be a reproduction and not a replica? correct?

I love your thread and build ... is not solid modeling the best thing since sliced bread!

I am a mechanical engineer and use SolidWorks with Cosmos Finite Analysis package in work daily. Its so cool!

A question: are your sheet metal parts able to be flattened using your modeling program?

WF2

WF2,

Depends on which dictionary you look in. Also, there seems to be debate among the antique furniture community. Art work also, seems to be confusing in this area.

It would seem that you were correct and (I) reversed the terms as per Websters....reproduction - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Another, dictionary.com seems to conflict the above. I would go with Websters then and say that you had it right in the first place.

As to your question yes, I have great admiration for the people who are able to write the code for this type of software, amazing stuff!

Rhino has an "unroll develop-able surface" command that will flatten a 3D image if the surfaces are in fact develop-able. If not, you get an error message.

I don't have FEA, but I do have a tremendous marine specific design capability with Rhinomarine. Too many interests, too little time!

Joe Perkel · 6 June 2008, 09:37 AM

I have never seen up close, a folding wing mechanism. I know that Sopwith had a two seat (tandem) float plane called the "Sopwith Folder." This one is not on the WWI Aero catalog list.

Two questions then present themselves.

1- What generally would be required on these type aircraft for a folding mechanism?

2- Source for drawings?

Thanks!