Sopwith Baby Project

[Joe Perkel]

I'd have thought that the main reason for doing it in CAD in the first place , was in order to take advantage of being able to be able to Lazer/Waterjet cut out parts directly from CAD files ,... including jigs ( and templates if required ) ,and so obviating the need to lay it out the old fashioned way , by hand scribing , cutting and filing etc.,

John,

Yes and No. The question came about after discovering the above method for a Bowers Flybaby. The CAD can be used to virtually build and thus find discrepancies, errors in fit, etc. It had been my intention to use CAD cutting files for a high tech approach, but economic realities are (for the moment anyway), demanding a more perhaps authentic approach. I have now invested $5,200 US, in preparation to cutting this first rib, quickly approaching 1 % of projected total cost.

Thanks for your input, I think that long term dimensional stability of this first template, is of primary importance.

[Maxim08]

Joe,
If the 5,200 usd is 1%, that will be one heck of an expensive project!
10%?
Regarads,
John

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by Maxim08

Joe,
If the 5,200 usd is 1%, that will be one heck of an expensive project!
10%?
Regarads,
John

OOPS, my bad!...don't tell my 1st grader!

[Joe Perkel]

I am now the proud papa of a Sopwith Baby (SS) Master rib template, born of the CAD skills I learned specifically for this project.

2 years 2 months into this project since inception, with many hopeful (soon to start wishes), I have now finally truly arrived at the brink! Those who know of my struggles to get this "Baby" started, can appreciate this!

[David Paule]

Congratulations, Joe.

It sure is pretty!
.

[TSJohnson]

Been reading back through all the posts on Joe's project, some great discussion to be sure. Any thoughts and discussion regarding the relative merits of wood versus steel tube versus aluminum tube and gusset construction methods? Just looking for some of the same great insights I've read in this thread.

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by TSJohnson

Been reading back through all the posts on Joe's project, some great discussion to be sure. Any thoughts and discussion regarding the relative merits of wood versus steel tube versus aluminum tube and gusset construction methods? Just looking for some of the same great insights I've read in this thread.

Tom,

If you've read my thread and some of the excerpts of my web-site journal, you will no doubt note a back-and-forth struggle between modernization and authenticity. Toward the end of my musings, I was leaning back toward authenticity of my own accord, but a conversation with Udo in Germany clinched it in favor of authenticity. He simply put a voice to what I had been feeling regarding the "Special" nature of what a WWI replica can represent. This is strictly a personal thing here with no right / wrong or best. Essentially, I've decided to take my hound to Westminster, so as pure a breed as is acceptable,...is the order of the day.

While Udo may have put a voice to those thoughts, people like Nick Caudwell, John McKenzie, Roger Freeman, Fred Murrin,..et al,..have imprinted spectacular visual images in my mind to go along with those feelings. Notice that I did not include the coordinated efforts of Vintage Aero in NZ, or Memorial Flight in France with those individuals. There is something particularly alluring about a lone man toiling to produce a unique and living work of art.

I've spent the last two years of my life mentally preparing for the physical aspect of this, and now finally, find myself in a position to continue the journey. I suspect it will be a long one. I've spent the last two days off building a Pixie Hollow themed play room for my little girl. You simply can't put a price on that kind of thing. A man has just got to have his priorities in order.

Stay Tuned!

[snj5]

Tom
Great question, and one where each of us picks a spot on the spectrum to build our replica, and they all are replicas - none of them can say they are an original this or that. The interesting analogy is the Ferrari racing car reprductions/re-creation market, with which I am more familiar.

I will just say that how you proceed should be based on how you want to use the plane - as a work of art/museum piece or one you can fly in today's airspace with a level of safety and capability that you are comfortable with.

The fully authentic are indeed lovely, but are risky and expensive to fly, generally restricted to local demo hops. A more authentic wood and linen replica is just not as safe or durable as a metal tube fuselage... engines are another topic.

As some one else said before me, you need to decide why and what. My goal is to provide as accurate, affordable and fun WW1 flying experience that is safe and capable for frequent flying. No offense to our purist folks whom I admire greatly, but I don't want to spend 15 years building it then wrap it up in a ball of kindling one day on a chance puff of wind. I'm hoping to go out most weekends and slip the surly bonds, enjoying aviation and flying in WW1 formations across the country at airshow venues such as Oshkosh, etc.

Anyway - and this is the best part - no matter where on the spectrum you fall I've found the WW1 crowd terrific, extremely helpful and friendly in enabling whatever project you're doing. As long as that spirit is there, whatever you do will be very rewarding.

See you in the air

russ

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by snj5

I will just say that how you proceed should be based on how you want to use the plane - as a work of art/museum piece or one you can fly in today's airspace with a level of safety and capability that you are comfortable with.

russ

Russ,

You are absolutely correct. At some point, I decided that this will live most of it's life as you see above.

I've identified the Wag Aero Sport Cub, as my tooling around plane, but it has to wait for full retirement to start that one.

[snj5]

That is one sexy trailer.

Sooner or later we are going to need a thread on trailers. No kidding.