Sopwith Baby Project

[SCMc]

Hi Joe,

Based on the photo and the numbers provided, I would say that the outside diameter of the bend is about 0.1 in. This would make outside radius 0.05 in. and the inside radius 0.025 in. (the same as the thickness of the material). I don't guarantee these numbers to be exact, but they should be in the ballpark.

Steve

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by SCMc

Hi Joe,

Based on the photo and the numbers provided, I would say that the outside diameter of the bend is about 0.1 in. This would make outside radius 0.05 in. and the inside radius 0.025 in. (the same as the thickness of the material). I don't guarantee these numbers to be exact, but they should be in the ballpark.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Thank you for that, I forgot to account for material thickness.

I reviewed the Redfern drawings today, and realized that his 3/8" x 5/8" oval tubing, is a brilliant and more authentic solution. This I can replicate if necessary.

As Ulpilot said, "one small project" at a time. It's been so long since I reviewed the airfoil details, that I had forgotten stuff.

Thanks again!

[Joe Perkel]

Last night, I received an early Christmas present from a gentleman in The Netherlands. Needless to say, that I am absolutely thrilled with this image!

Apparently, It is a post war aircraft in Dutch hands, and this image is no doubt a photo documentation of the structure.

I have already caught several interpretation errors on my part, and some nagging questions were also answered.

I have been asked on occasion, "Why the web-site, with nothing yet built?" ...........This is why.

Happy Holiday's Everyone!!

[Nick]

That's a great picture Joe, thanks for sharing it.
Always exciting to get one you haven't seen before.
You just can't have too many of these old photos, which are an enormous help with the detective work.

Have a great Christmas, and all the best for the New Year.

Cheers, Nick

[David Paule]

First, I want to wish every one here a wonderful holiday season and a great 2009.

Second, there's probably more pictures in that set....

[RobW]

Originally Posted by Joe Perkel

I have already caught several interpretation errors on my part, and some nagging questions were also answered.

Joe,
Tell us about some of your discoveries and mis-interpretations...

rob

[Joe Perkel]

Joe,
Tell us about some of your discoveries and mis-interpretations...

rob

Hi Rob,

I just finished my Santa duties, and the much appreciated cookies!

Two questions were immediately answered with the picture, one regarding wing leading edge structure, and the other fuselage members.

The builders of the San Diego Pup either made the same mistake I did on the riblets, or followed a later design change by Sopwith. I seem to remember the same notation on the Pup drawings of "Top Only" as was made on the Baby drawings, if so, then it's a misinterpretation on their part as well. I will have to review those drawings.

But, I could not decide if this meant "top" camber, or top wing only. The San Diego Pup, further confused me on this, and I went with what they did. Now, I've made the change back.

I also have conflicting versions of fuselage drawings showing lightening on the longerons. Here in this photo, it's clearly done on the cross members. Too bad the tail float was removed in this picture! I will zoom in and cross reference this image, the drawings, and the San Diego Pup as other areas and or issues present.

Clearly, a great reference to have, I am lucky to have it!










Merry Christmas!

[drrivah]

Hi Joe:
How are the riblets done on Camel and Strutter leading edge?

-pete

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by drrivah

Hi Joe:
How are the riblets done on Camel and Strutter leading edge?

-pete

Hi Pete,

I can't speak to what was done on the Camel, but the riblets on the Strutter apparently were these "top camber" only riblets also. Here are a couple of wing images of the original restoration in France.

Notice also on the Dutch documentation photo of the Baby, that the aft spars on the top wings are solid, whereas the bottom ones are routed. A detail also specifically noted on my drawings, and an interesting design consideration that escapes me at the moment.

[drrivah]

Joe:
My archivist just back with results below:

Pup: Source-Original Plans
Spars routed, all four
Riblets Top Camber only, both planes

Camel: Source-Tallman Camel (original airframe)
Spars not routed (top fwd, aft; bottom fwd-aft not visible in photo)
Riblets Top Camber Only, Lower Plane Only

Pup Upper Plane Tip:


Pup Fwd Upper Spars:



Camel Upper LE and Plane:


Camel Lower LE:


Note Camel full nosewebs (upper) with small lightening hole, and unrouted spars compared with Pup less massing webs and spar routing. OK Nick, so,
what about the original Snipe LEs and spars?

-pete