Sopwith Baby Project

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by rexee

Hi Joe

Check out this site
Retro Thing: Build Your Own Sopwith Pup Biplane

Cheers
Rex

Rex,

A nice plane, but I was referring to an authentic one. I don't think anyone offers a complete one-off authentic WWI replica anywhere in the world,...I could be wrong on this.

You are in town here somewhere, and I know you mentioned expertise in carpentry. If you don't mind, I will need to pick your brain shortly regarding setting up the small component shop. I need to do this right from the outset.

Thanks again Rex!

[Joe Perkel]

David,

As always, thank you for your valued input.

I really like the Baby, but I'm conflicted here on the eve of starting, and may have to relegate it to a secondary status in favor of another Sopwith design. I've always wanted a dedicated shop, and now I'm inches away from getting one. It's a big deal when you live in the city. When I retire to my farm, then I have room but, that's years away.

I think that I have to lose the floats. for now anyway.

Logistics

-Best case scenario for the Baby is a hangar at one of only two public use Seaplane bases in Florida, Lakeland and St. Augustine. Lakeland, is an hours drive from my assembly site, Sebring Regional, is 5 minutes away, Avon Park, 15 minutes. I can hangar at either one of these.

1. Continue with the two-seat Baby and simply ignore the engine issue for the time being.

Precisely my thoughts until now, and tempting to continue, but the question I ask myself now is,...Can I realistically expect to build a second aircraft to an airworthy state? So I had better chose very carefully now. What I can do, is build and store components. If I get efficient at it, I may actually build one to airworthy and another in boxes.

2. Design and test and prove a reduction drive for the R2800 and R3600 engines (someone ought to, why not you?) and use the sales revenue from that to finance your own engine. With a Redrive, the R3600 might suffice.

There is a planetary reduction on this engine which brings the prop to 2,400 rpm. Designing and building one of these is a bit out of my area of expertise. Perhaps Rotec may come up with another ratio in time.

3. Buy an airplane or build a kit airplane, doesn't have to be a WW I plane, that meets your immediate flying needs, and start the Baby on a slower scale than you'd hoped, since maintaining an airplane and flying takes some significant time by itself. Hint, buying one already flying is no more expensive and saves years of work, which I learned the hard way.

WWI era is perfect for me David. I'm going to be a builder for at least the next decade before I need to fly again. Have promised my wife to renew the CFI via F.I.R.C, but not fly recreationally anymore until later down the road. The recent Everglades mid-air put an end to my longstanding "journeyman" argument. So now, I'm turning to my A&P side, and these "crates" are simply perfect for me!

4. Find someone who wants someone to build them an airplane and build them an airplane - their choice, of course - as a part-time job. I worked my way through college doing this and found it to be a congenial way to make a modest living, if you have an understanding and patient customer. It's all the fun of building a plane for yourself, less the choice of options, and usually goes faster. It does delay the Baby project

Thought of this too, but by the time I have the space to assemble, I will be concentrating on my own stuff. This is why the thought of offering a one-off kit, that I could conceivably do within this next decade. Will explore this further. This is a pursuit that holds my interest, and keeps me close to home, all in all a good deal. Now I have to learn how to vaccum bag and crate stuff!

Thanks again David!

[Joe Perkel]

Yes, but you may be surprised at what people would pay. Problem with supplying a kit is not the accuracy of the parts, it is meeting the "51%-rule" to be able to register it as an experimental. People have to do the majority of the construction, and cannot just assemble finished parts (sadly).

And he may be able to do the Pup as a special manufacture (not sure of the proper term) if he can get permission from the current owner of the design rights. Or, build and sell them as your own design (but you risk the liability issues

Glenn "Chip',

You bring up a valid point.

Questions to be answered then.....

1) What does Vans Aircraft and Zenith offer in terms of level of completion and still make the rule?

2) I assume the patents on Sopwith Aircraft are long expired along with the rights of manufacture, but I also assume that the "Name" may be a different story altogether. This has to be verified.

Thanks, I will explore this further.

As for liability. That's what corporate entities are for, to absorb that. Besides, if the precedent set in the experimental industry was in fact horrible, no one would offer anything, Baslee included.

Thanks again!

[David Paule]

As for liability, the idea is that the kit seller probably doesn't have any real money anyway, so it's not worth going after them. Talk to your lawyer to see what works for you. Might be an LLC.

I have seen the study plans for an RV-8 and that's got lots of work left to do, even after the quick-build kit. A friend is building a Monnet Xenos motorglider, and even with matched-hole drilling and precut parts, he's putting in a couple thousand hours.

As a consultant, I've learned that it's usually a good idea to have a client before you start the project. On the other hand, there's some good and obvious reasons not to, chief being that you can make the major decisions yourself, and the buyer can see exactly what he'd be getting.

One Sopwith which seems to have gotten good reviews and which begs for a kit is the Triplane.

When building an airplane, a lot of time is taken up with figuring out layouts, tool set-ups, dragging materials around, that sort of thing. Building a second one as a future kit concurrently won't take twice as long. Maybe another 40% or so. But building a Baby for yourself and a kit Triplane to be crated, well, that's closer to twice as long. Maybe longer, if you get the two mixed up!

Have you seen Replicraft's drawings, by the way?

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by David Paule

Have you seen Replicraft's drawings, by the way?

Oh yea!

I forgot to mention the fact that another factor here is the quality of those drawings! (replicraft). I have 2 Sopwith's from him.

My Baby drawings are a hodgepodge of 2 different aircraft. The Schneider and later Baby. I am missing some detail and would have to extrapolate from the others. Mainly empennage detail, and a fair amount not readable.

(Replicraft_ Strutter and Pup drawings, the only thing missing is the paint, and that he did his best with the color chips!

Will continue the CAD model for the Baby, otherwise it will haunt me. But, come summer, I am going to start cutting the ribs for one of these, and sticking with it until it's all boxed. Question is, which one!

Thanks for the LLC tip, will look at that when the time comes.

[rexee]

Hi Joe

Give me a call anytime... would be glad to lend a hand and help you get your shop set up. PM me if you need my #

rex

[DamianL]

Hi Joe

I chose to do a Sopwith 1-1/2 Strutter because I love the lines of the classic Sopwith fighters but also wanted to be able to share the experience. Whilst the Strutter's lines aren't as well proportioned as the Pup, Tripe or Camel, in my view it offers a good compromise of classic Sopwith Scout pedigree with the functionality of two seats.

Being an Australian, the Strutter is of local interest due to the design involvement of Harry Hawker. It was also flown operationally by Robert Little, the Australian training squadron in the UK used them, & there are photos of one being flown off the turret ramp of the battlecruiser HMAS Australia.

If you decide to build a 1-1/2 Strutter, you have the option of finishing as a post WW1 US Navy aircraft, still having an aircraft which is pretty unique in North America, & filling a void in the US Naval aircraft collection. I think the French built versions were also initially used by the USAS in WW1, until more modern types were made available.

If finished as US Navy aircraft, is there an option for free hangarage at a US Navy base close by, in return for allowing aircraft to be displayed & flown by you at Navy displays?

I believe the Kermit Weeks "Fantasy of Flight" collection have the remains of a Strutter for eventual restoration, maybe this provides the opportunity for information & jig sharing? Would be pretty convenient both being located in Florida (I presume the museum is not too far away).

I'm toying with the idea of building a Sopwith Triplane concurrently with the Strutter. I figured if your going to the trouble of building one, why not build two! Cecil Lewis in Sagitarius Rising describes the Triplane as being his favourite airplane from this period. Was also flown by many successful Australian RNAS pilots, including Robert Little, Australia's ace of aces.

Regards

Damian

[Joe Perkel]

Hi Damian,

What you are seeing here, is the conflict I am having over those two crew positions. The reasoning being, that if I am being forced into a land plane by power and logistical issues, then why not do the dedicated two place aircraft of which I possess spectacular and complete drawings in the first place!

What do you intend to power with? This aircraft also has it's own power plant issue, only without the drag of floats and a lighter than original load, I think it may be serviceable with the R3600. That being said, GWFM powered with the W670 and a modified steel tube frame, worth noting this choice, however this engine I believe is some 85 lbs heavier than the Clerget, and nearly 200 more than the R3600.

Ironically, because of my logistical situation (small shop in the city, assembly site 3 hours away), authentic wooden frame is actually more attractive

Here's what I'm thinking here.....

Both aircraft, the Baby and the Strutter, were upgraded from 110 HP rotaries. This very likely for increased thrust, although possibility concurrent with an availability issue. Still, I read documentation regarding the need for the increase regarding the Baby. The Strutter, for operations had a 60 gal tank,for 4 hours endurance with a military load. Do we need this? I have flown many four place aircraft that were effectively two place with a full fuel load. Using this logic, here are the operational weights for the Strutter...

Empty weight: 1,260 lb (570 kg) Loaded weight: 2,149 lb (975 kg)

That is an 889 (404 kg) useful load, no? Cut this back to 550 or so lbs (250 kg), with two fat balding middle aged crew, 30 gal of fuel, and another 100 lbs less engine, and I believe the Strutter will fly adequately with the R3600 albeit somewhere south of original performance and at higher power settings than perhaps ideal. Perhaps a wait and see what develops as suggested may hopefully bear fruit.

Where the Baby is concerned, I see now that I can't have it both ways, I have to give up the bench for the floats, and if lucky the Baby may claw it's way up at something around 300 fpm with the R3600. Steve Culp predicted lucky to get 200 fpm. I have trouble trying to look the other way when things aren't to my liking, (I'm funny that way). If I put the Baby on land with the Rotec, I could use the bench seat, but lose the uniqueness of the floats, so why bother shoe horning two people uncomfortably into a 36" cockpit?

So that is my dilemma, do I sacrifice the uniqueness of the float plane for the two place land plane or vice versa? Perhaps build both and share one engine, geez,..you can make yourself nuts with this! (Brad, I caught indecision disease again!)

Being an Australian, the Strutter is of local interest due to the design involvement of Harry Hawker. It was also flown operationally by Robert Little, the Australian training squadron in the UK used them, & there are photos of one being flown off the turret ramp of the battle cruiser HMAS Australia.

I love this image of that very plane.

If finished as US Navy aircraft, is there an option for free hangarage at a US Navy base close by, in return for allowing aircraft to be displayed & flown by you at Navy displays?

Very novel suggestion, some C.O. somewhere would have to get involved. NAS Key West, Navy Jax, and Pensacola, are all too far away though. Very clever though!

I believe the Kermit Weeks "Fantasy of Flight" collection have the remains of a Strutter for eventual restoration, maybe this provides the opportunity for information & jig sharing? Would be pretty convenient both being located in Florida (I presume the museum is not too far away).

Like a naughty New Yorker who's never been to the Statue of Liberty, I've never been to Fantasy of Flight. He moved it to Orlando after Hurricane Andrew, so I never made the effort,..yet.

Thanks for the input Damian.

[brinesharks]

Joe,

I remember reading the article about the ill fated SE5a replica that was built by a retired US race car driver(?). The article went on to say that if he had used the hours building by working at McDonalds instead, he would have earned more money than the value of the plane (US$250,000)! So I think building an authentic WW1 replica is probably a low paying exercise per hour. Plus, are there many customers for this sort of thing given the current economic climate?

I've sent you an email on the above topic

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by brinesharks

Joe,

I remember reading the article about the ill fated SE5a replica that was built by a retired US race car driver(?). The article went on to say that if he had used the hours building by working at McDonalds instead, he would have earned more money than the value of the plane (US$250,000)! So I think building an authentic WW1 replica is probably a low paying exercise per hour. Plus, are there many customers for this sort of thing given the current economic climate?

I've sent you an email on the above topic

Bryan,

In all honesty, I'm just lamenting the loss of my engine fund, which I can earn back. Also, the reality that a land plane is more practical usage and storage wise.