Sopwith Baby Project

Joe Perkel · 1 March 2010, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hector

Some of the drawings I have for the Schnieder/Baby have a W.O prefix on them, & at the moment I have no idea as to what this means, I don't belive it reffers to War Office as I have not seen it on any other drawings of Sopwith types, only the Schnieder/Baby.

Discovered tonight that W.O. stands for "works order". Confirmed on drawing # 934, G.A. of Fuselage (80HP Scout), dated 9-3-1915.

Now that I looked a little closer, this is the tail skid equipped single seater that must have bombed the Zeppelin sheds at Tondern!

Another little piece in place!

Addendum: Tondern was late in the war, a Shipborne Camel raid. I was apparently referring to another raid on sheds in 1914, pre-dating this drawing.

Now I am throughly confused!

hector · 2 March 2010, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Perkel

Discovered tonight that W.O. stands for "works order". Confirmed on drawing # 934, G.A. of Fuselage (80HP Scout), dated 9-3-1915.

Now that I looked a little closer, this is the tail skid equipped single seater that must have bombed the Zeppelin sheds at Tondern!

Another little piece in place!

Addendum: Tondern was late in the war, a Shipborne Camel raid. I was apparently referring to another raid on sheds in 1914, pre-dating this drawing.

Now I am throughly confused!

Hi Joe
I think I know the raid you mean.
As for W.O standing for Works Order, I am not sure that it does, I originally thought it might be something like that, but as it seems to only be on the Schnieder/Baby drawings & not on any of the others that I have seen, I can only assume that it reffers to these types. as you know, the fuselage drawing you reffer to, is not of either the Schnieder nor the 100hp Clerget Schnieder/Baby as it has a one part fuselage, not the two part fuselages of the Schnieder & Baby, nor is there a W.O in front of the drawing number as there is with the 100hp Schnieder/Baby.
I would most certainly like to be proven wrong about this as it would clear up one more little detail. (Waterplane - Observation ? is my guess but I am probably way off the mark)

.
Cheer's.
Bob.

Joe Perkel · 2 March 2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hector

the fuselage drawing you reffer to, is not of either the Schnieder nor the 100hp Clerget Schnieder/Baby as it has a one part fuselage, not the two part fuselages of the Schnieder & Baby, nor is there a W.O in front of the drawing number as there is with the 100hp Schnieder/Baby.

Bob, That is correct, that drawing is a one-piece fuselage. I do have G.A. of the two piece fuselage which is most definitively one of the seaplane fuselages. Further confirmed by the position of the partially shown float struts. However, the data block is nearly unreadable so I can not see details. I also have detail drawings of the attachment hardware for the split fuselage, which is something that I would likely farm out.

Station positions between this drawing, #934 Scout, and the SS2 differ slightly. Further confirmed by the distance from spar to spar centers. All of which trashes my earlier suppositions of all of these models being the same aircraft traced back to the two-place Tabloid. Clearly, these are variants of the same design, but not identical siblings.

What I have to use then to work up a 3d model and eventual shop drawings, are the stations depicted in the seaplane G.A. drawing, and the fuselage member details drawing for the SS2. This, and that wonderful image provided to me by Dick Funcke, really should do the job.

hector · 3 March 2010, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Perkel

Bob, That is correct, that drawing is a one-piece fuselage. I do have G.A. of the two piece fuselage which is most definitively one of the seaplane fuselages. Further confirmed by the position of the partially shown float struts. However, the data block is nearly unreadable so I can not see details. I also have detail drawings of the attachment hardware for the split fuselage, which is something that I would likely farm out.

Station positions between this drawing, #934 Scout, and the SS2 differ slightly. Further confirmed by the distance from spar to spar centers. All of which trashes my earlier suppositions of all of these models being the same aircraft traced back to the two-place Tabloid. Clearly, these are variants of the same design, but not identical siblings.

What I have to use then to work up a 3d model and eventual shop drawings, are the stations depicted in the seaplane G.A. drawing, and the fuselage member details drawing for the SS2. This, and that wonderful image provided to me by Dick Funcke, really should do the job.

Hi Joe
I guess that you obtaind your Baby/Schnieder drawings from the same place I did "WW1 Aero" ?, my Tabloid drawings however came from a different source.
I agree that it would seem that whilst the Tabloids-Schnieder & Baby appear similar, their fittings & overall layouts differed quite a bit, the fuselage fittings for example look similar but differ in dimensions etc.
Have you asked the person who built the FE2 if he is willing to help you make some of the more difficult parts ?, whilst he & I do not see eye to eye "to say the least" he would seem to be more than capable of making them should he have the time etc.
I think I know the fuselage drawing that you reffer to, I can just about read mine & it would appear to be for the 100hp Clerget Schnieder "early Baby", so it may be worth while checking yours out to see if you can use it to make your Baby repro ?.
I will let you know if I have any luck on the Baby drawings front, when I go to Hendon etc to look through some more Sopwith drawings.
Regards.
Bob.

Joe Perkel · 3 March 2010, 05:58 AM

Quote:

I guess that you obtaind your Baby/Schnieder drawings from the same place I did "WW1 Aero" ?,

Yes, WWI Aero and a few from the R.A.F. museum in G.B.

Quote:

Have you asked the person who built the FE2 if he is willing to help you make some of the more difficult parts ?, whilst he & I do not see eye to eye "to say the least" he would seem to be more than capable of making them should he have the time etc.

John has been more than helpful on a number of occasions now, and is an amazing resource for all. The most valuable lesson I have learned from him, is to not worry so much about the details as they can be adjusted as required utilizing standard proven processes. At the moment, I'm seeing this portion of the project as a rather large jigsaw puzzle where I am at present assembling the edges of that puzzle.

Quote:

I think I know the fuselage drawing that you reffer to, I can just about read mine & it would appear to be for the 100hp Clerget Schnieder "early Baby", so it may be worth while checking yours out to see if you can use it to make your Baby repro ?

Have decided that since that is a confirmed seaplane fuselage, that I will use the dimensions therein and fill in the gaps with details of the other variants.

Quote:

I will let you know if I have any luck on the Baby drawings front, when I go to Hendon etc to look through some more Sopwith drawings.

That would be extremely helpful if you could identify a source, and specific drawings identified. The later Baby fuselage details being one, and from memory, I recall missing the wing strut to spar detail, and the little skid hardware detail on the tail float. All of which I could apply solutions derived elswhere, but would prefer to remain true to form.

Thanks!

hector · 3 March 2010, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Perkel

Yes, WWI Aero and a few from the R.A.F. museum in G.B.

John has been more than helpful on a number of occasions now, and is an amazing resource for all. The most valuable lesson I have learned from him, is to not worry so much about the details as they can be adjusted as required utilizing standard proven processes. At the moment, I'm seeing this portion of the project as a rather large jigsaw puzzle where I am at present assembling the edges of that puzzle.

Have decided that since that is a confirmed seaplane fuselage, that I will use the dimensions therein and fill in the gaps with details of the other variants.

That would be extremely helpful if you could identify a source, and specific drawings identified. The later Baby fuselage details being one, and from memory, I recall missing the wing strut to spar detail, and the little skid hardware detail on the tail float. All of which I could apply solutions derived elswhere, but would prefer to remain true to form.

Thanks!

Hi Joe
Will do.

Bob.

Joe Perkel · 18 March 2010, 08:08 PM

From my web journal today.....

Quote:

March 18, 2010

Two years and five months since project inception with this date marking the long awaited commencement. Although only two hours were logged, construction sawdust was created for the first time representing a positive forward step with tooling (ordinary rib jig), being the subject of attention.

Much has distracted me over these past two years, and although this is admittedly minuscule in physical scope, it is nonetheless an immensely uplifting moment.

Will return to previously determined plan of late night 3D CAD model assembly work interspersed with physical construction efforts as time allows.

As weenie as this may be, it's been one hell of a struggle just to get the shop set-up to get started, there simply has been no time.

It may take me forever, (perhaps another month just to finish this jig), but I'll do what I can when I can!

Maxim08 · 19 March 2010, 09:12 AM

Joe I have both empathy and sympathy.
It took three years of pleading to get planning permission to erect a 500 sq.ft. 'shed' out back. Two years part time labour to build, but herre's what I ended up with:

It is small, 32' x 15 and change for 497 sq.ft.. The double doors are 100" tall and just over 6' wide which allows for rolling the fuse in and out.

So, 5 years to get to a shed and then build.
Here's the interior today.

Fuse hanging, 28' spar table to the right with spar laminations above, rolling work table in the centre and 'lounge' in the front. Oh, yeah, beverages at the back.

Keep at it, Joe. There will be a wing for you to display sooner than you think.

Regarsd,
John

TSJohnson · 19 March 2010, 10:46 AM

Joe, Maxim,

May I offer my hearty congratulations on your progress? I'm sure you are thrilled. Small victories but huge steps forward eh? Well done.

When I started building work tables and arranging my own workshop, such as it is, I was as giddy as a schoolboy. Making a start was indeed thrilling. Seeing ones dreams take shape by ones own hands is a feeling that can't be beaten.

For those of you on the forum who are still dreaming, I urge you to action!

Joe Perkel · 19 March 2010, 03:38 PM

John, That is an aesthetically pleasing shed which I showed to my wife as she is afraid of me building an over-sized eyesore when the time comes. I haven't admitted it yet, but I tend to agree that what I want, and what I need are likely two very different end results. Despite my ambitions, she needn't fear because I don't want the building to overwhelm the house, (I've seen what that looks like!). So your arrangement is something that I will remember. Thank you for the encouragement.

Tom, likewise thank you as well. At some point I expect to accelerate dramatically. There are a few other "ducks" still needing alignment first.