Sopwith Baby Project

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by drrivah

Joe-
Saw these at NASM Udvar Hazy this weekend. Not Sopwith, but are period construction (Curtiss NC10B)-may be of interest. NASM left the right side unfinished.

-pete

Pete,

Interesting to see firsthand just how nice the varnished ply looks. Also of interest, the rounded topsides, the step, and spray rails. I cut and pasted (Curtiss NC10B) into a Google search and came up empty? There were a number of Curtiss Hydroplanes, seems it was of great interest to him.

To update on my project status, I can expect now to equip my shop and start cutting when my daughter returns to school after the Summer break. My 10 gal Stetson, is now a bit bigger with the addition of a family plane / trainer for the Sopwith (a J3 on floats) as suggested by a 747 Captain, for its low power / high drag characteristics.

Barring anything nasty, retirement to the assembly site is 11 years away. I will work on the Sopwith components for the next 5-6 years, then switch to the J3 to assemble that first. (This will likely mean I will need a local partner to then power the Sopwith). This takes the pressure off a two place and provides for time building on floats, along with a slew of other benefits.

Thanks for posting that Pete!

[drrivah]

Joe:

Sorry for typo: float is from NASM's Curtiss N-9H.

-pete

[hector]

I have a data plate from a Blackburn built Sopwith Baby & was wondering if anyone can give me a clue as to the history of the Baby it was originally fitted to ?.
It has the number 2061 on it, does this mean it is from N2061 ?.
Can any one shed light on this ?.
Cheer's.
Hector.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by hector

I have a data plate from a Blackburn built Sopwith Baby & was wondering if anyone can give me a clue as to the history of the Baby it was originally fitted to ?.
It has the number 2061 on it, does this mean it is from N2061 ?.
Can any one shed light on this ?.
Cheer's.
Hector.

Hi Bob,
Saw them on ebay recently and it mentioned in the write up that he didn't think N2061 had ben produced. However in Mick Davis's book "Sopwith Aircraft" it lists N2061 as beeing one of 75 that were ordered and produced by Blackburn with 130 HP Clerget engines (N2060 to N2134).

Cheers, Nick

[DamianL]

Hi Joe

I've been reading some old articles in Over The Front, Volume 9, regarding aerial aspects of the Dardanelles/Gallipoli Campaign, and noted the following references to Schneinder operations:

OTF, Volume 9, Number 1, page 13;
"The next to arrive, on 9 April, were two Sopwith Schneider floatplanes, Nos. 1437 and 1438 (100h.p. Gnome Monosoupape). These proved quite useful, although they sustained repeated damage to their inadequate floats when landing or taxiing, keeping repair crews busy."

There is mention of float damage to the other types of aircraft operated by Ark Royal in this article also.

OTF, Volume 9, Number 2, page 154;
"On 17 July Bankes-Price, returning in a Schneider, hit a submerged obstruction on landing and smashed a float. This was replaced, but on running up the engine afterward it caught fire, quickly extinguished without damage. Setting out again, Bankes-Price hit yet another obstruction and wrecked a float, coming to rest near a French destroyer."

It then mentions that later a Short pilot also wrecked a float taking off.

and page 156;
" the two faithful Schneiders, 1445 and 1560, flew what today might be called an intruder mission during the morning. Upon returning No. 1445 (Bankes-Price) capsized, without injury to the pilot."

Also, in the book "Sopwith - The Man And His Aircraft" by Bruce Robertson, Chapter 13 , page 57;
"Approaching Ameland, Zeppelins were sighted and the force reduced speed while Riviera stopped down to hoist out three Schneiders, all recently delivered from the factory. None got off the water. One-by-one, their floats broke off in the choppy sea as their Gnomes strained to lift them from the surface.

These repeated failures did much to create a distrust in the Navy of air operations. Not until 1916 were further attempts made to take Schneiders out with the fleet."

and;
"If the Schneiders were to fail to rise from the sea, then experiments had to be pushed ahead from a steadier surface - a ship's deck."

Chapter 15, page 62, in regard to Sopwith Baby's;
"Meanwhile, the other floatplanes met with disaster. Wallowing in the wake of a destroyer that steamed past, one was overturned and the propellers of four others, smacking into the rising water, broke up."

and page 63;
"During that Summer, Schneider and Baby floatplanes were withdrawn from carriers with only hoisting-out gear and maintained only on carriers with a flying off deck."......... Using wheeled dollies to take off from a fixed deck, with the ship steaming into wind.

The Sopwith book mentions that they were maligned in home waters, but the 1915 vintage machines, which were being replaced in home waters as outclassed and unsuitable, performed better in the Mediterranean.

One gets the impression that the Schneider/Baby floatplanes were extremely fragile and prone to float damage, and were probably unsuited for use from anything but a glass smooth surface.

I guess you intend to fly in protected waters & only in perfect conditions, but have you considered how poorly these early floatplanes performed? One gets the impression that every flight would be a bit of a lottery.

Regards

Damian Latimer

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by DamianL

I guess you intend to fly in protected waters & only in perfect conditions, but have you considered the how poorly these early floatplanes performed? One gets the impression that every flight would be a bit of a lottery.

Regards

Damian Latimer

Damian,

Thank you for posting those passages, one or two I had not seen but, most of them I have in fact read. The above image is the updated version of the floats that originally gave so much trouble in those earlier version Schneider's. You see here a 3" rib spacing vs the original 6" spacing, and a change in the stern profile.

You are quite correct in assuming a much more sedate environment for mine vs these operational military craft. In fact, my long delay in commencement concurrent with continued research has shifted my line of thought from "Sport Plane Usage" and more inclined toward "Show Piece". A good analogy would be a Westminster Show Dog vs say...a Farm Hound. One is pretty and needs much pampering, while the other accompanies its owner trekking through the muck.

I did in fact contract an evaluation and re-design of the float internals, which you can see on my website Floats
This has been ruled out in favor of authenticity and reliance on modern epoxy adhesives (West System)., and the addition of a single hidden layer of light Kevlar fabric in the bottom ply sandwich for puncture resistance.

Incidentally, contrary to belief, a glass smooth surface is not ideal for any float plane. Surface tension becomes a serious issue on takeoff, and landings can be a hazard due to an inability to accurately tell where the surface is.

[DamianL]

Hi Joe

Thought you would have researched it, but is quite alarming to read of the constant failures & problems.

You can't help but marvel & admire the performance of these early aviators.

Military flying was in it's infancy, training left a lot to be desired, floatplane designers learnt about aerodynamics & hydrodynamics as they went, and accident fatalities were a daily hazard.

Getting the floatplane off and back onto the water was a bit of a lottery, engines would catch fire or blow up over enemy territory or land, and to top it off, people would try and shoot at you or shell you! Just trying to fly the airplane would be enough of a problem in itself, without trying to accomplish reconnaissance, bombing, or strafing.

My favourite quotes from the article on the operations of Ark Royal:

"Further, a successful takeoff did not assure a safe return to the water; floats or their struts had a nasty habit of collapsing on touchdown, requiring sometimes lengthy repair.

A second major problem was engine failure, which occurred with frustrating frequency. As I have written elsewhere, Clarke-Hall's "description of the various failures reads like a catalogue of every conceivable trouble to which an internal combustion engine can be subject." As an example of the frequency, Short No.136 made 26 flights between 17 February and 31 May and during that period had 16 engine failures - and this was the plane Clarke-Hall termed his most reliable."

It's amazing that these guys accomplished what they did.

Regards

Damian Latimer

[brinesharks]

Originally Posted by Joe Perkel

...You are quite correct in assuming a much more sedate environment for mine vs these operational military craft. In fact, my long delay in commencement concurrent with continued research has shifted my line of thought from "Sport Plane Usage" and more inclined toward "Show Piece". A good analogy would be a Westminster Show Dog vs say...a Farm Hound. One is pretty and needs much pampering, while the other accompanies its owner trekking through the muck...

Hi Joe - I think this is an important consideration when deciding on how authentic you want your replica. Having a 'close to original' aircraft imposes some support considerations. I fully expect to have to round up wing tip holders and a competent 'hand propper' every time I fly. This is not ideal for a 'Sunday flier' fun machine but the idea of building and flying a reasonably accurate replica really excites me. Anytime I see Nick's work it really encourages me!

I'll be interested to see your progress - a Nieuport VI on floats would go well at Pt Cook's flying boat ramp...

[Joe Perkel]

Anyone knowing the dimensions for, or a reference to A&P No 16 section? I would be most appreciative.

Thanks!

Update on the Baby project.

Sometime ago, I did in fact purchase 100' + of A&P 21 trailing edge from ULPilot, who has been kind enough to hold it in reserve for me. This represents the first real material acquisition for the project, albeit early.

Still delayed in commencement while I continue to live the real life version of the "Money Pit".

....to be continued.

[Joe Perkel]

I have a vested interest in finding out more about this particular aircraft. I found it recently on this French web-site. Ecoles militaires de Cazaux et de Biscarrosse

There are several other images as well, this one on a dolly, hints at a bottom profile distinctly different than that of the Baby....





There was an American Navy variant according to the Bruce (Strutter) datafile, but I believe it was a single seater. The one in these images clearly show the ring mount on the aft cockpit.

Any information, or leads would be greatly appreciated..... thanks!