Airdrome Airplanes Sopwith Pup Project

[Bookmaker]

It did seem odd with it having a flat wing. I would think it would handle better with some dihedral.

Looks like you are coming along with the build.

Dale

[RAF56_Ball]

I thought it didn't look quite right as well. even without the dihedral, though, these kits have such an easy going airfoil (mod Clark-'Y') that they are nice as is. With the dihedral, I doubt it will be too stable (i.e. should still roll well).

[TexasGR]

I saw your site, and read the details of your progress. That was blitzkrieg construction! Very impressive.

In looking at the Airdrome Aeroplanes site, it seems all their aircraft have less dihedral than originals. Some even looked like the wings were drooping a little. I would expect that to impact lateral stability.

You mentioned that with the airfoil, the handling was still good. Did they explain the reasoning behind the reduced dihedral?

Once yours is built with the added dihedral, it will be interesting to see how it looks and handles compared to their earlier design.

Have you mounted the Rotec? I'm very interested in how it sounds compared to lower rpm engines. I haven't heard one. I guess the Pup at Holden has a Rotec, so perhaps you won't have anything with which to compare it?

Anyway, I look forward to your next installment on this project.

Take care,
Brian

[Bookmaker]

RAf, I just re-read your last post on May 11 and noted you referred to "should still roll well".

None of the Airdrome planes are certified for aerobatics are they?

Dale

[Nickh]

Glen,

As far as I can tell, the undersides of RFC/RAF Pups were clear doped, although there were some "non-standard" paint schemes applied to various Pups ranging from longitudinal black and white stripes, chequer boards and even some with stars and a moon painted over the standard kakhi.

The Sopwith Company logo appears to have only been applied to clear doped fins or the sides of the clear doped fuselage just forward of the horizontal tail empennage.

Also there were three different types of decals applied to the outsides of the interplane struts. Dependant on the manufacturer they were either Sopwith, Standard Motor Company or Whitehead. I'm not sure about the Beardmore SB 3 (folding wings Pup).

You might have a look for the Air Britain "The Sopwith Pup" ISBN 0 85130 310 2. This is a wonderful resource for photographs of the type . . you'll even find ours in there (page 150 & 272).

I'm involved with the rebuilding of an original 1917 Pup (B1807/G-EAVX) to flying condition here in the U.K..

If you want to pm me I'd be more than happy to share my research with you.

Best of luck with the build,

[RAF56_Ball]

Sorry, between work and the build, have been tied up a lot.

TexasGR, the Pup is the only one that I am sure of that had no dihedral in the initial kit plane, but Robert is correcting this on the Pup shown on the site, and changed the plans. He didn't like the look wtihout it, either, heheheh.
Any plane with a droop look is more likely camera paralax (or whatever those deformities are called) as opposed to real, unless a builder blew it. Nieuports are a fairly flat wing, IIRC, with sweep that can give the appearance of anhedral.

Dale/Bookmaker, as experimentals, what maneuvers the planes are capable of is up to the builder. But acrrobatics are not recommended in these designs. I was referring more to roll sensitivity in general.

Nickh - MEGA thanks for the information!! And I feel honoured by the offer. PM OTW.
IIRC, the odd paint schemes were all in training units, except for one that I just saw a picture of displaying what appeared to be a dragon figure on the right fuselage (only had the one view, so wonder if was bilateral?).

MESSAGE TO ALL - PLEASE NOTE Robert Baslee expressly states NOT FOR AEROBATICS. While the design is stressed for adequate "G's" they are not designed for acro per se. The first thing I observed was no stops for ailerons, rudder or elevator. Any tail side could overwhelm the structure/hinges colapsing them. I don't think that adding them alone would be enough. You get the idea.

For those not convinced, and realizing that when I was a young and "invincible" backseater I did unauthorized maneuvers in 150's, it is tempting.
But this plane is designed as a fun flying normal catagory-like plane. Even the originals were not designed to to "acro" although they could "stunt". Pilots were not trained to do it, they just tried it out. Remember, though, more pilots died of training accidents than died in combat. And unless you took a course designed to teach you full acro WAY beyond simple loops and rolls, but including severely out of control maneuvers and recovery, a person could foolishly risk their life in an inapt craft. Since the owner is the test pilot, he needs to well know and stay within his level of training and skill, as well as the limits of the bird.

Do I think it could safely roll 360? Yes, and probably loop, cuban-8, Split-S and more, but if I wanted to do real acro, I would get a real acro kit so I could do it right, with cleaner performance. And I recommend the same to anyone else. Thanks for listening!

Glenn

[Bookmaker]

Any updates on your project?

[snj5]

Looking forward to updates!

FWIW, I read that the Sopwith and other British planes had streamlined flying wires, then called RAFwires. Would be interesting to see if these were available reasonably.

Hey, might even be worth a knot.

For the side inspection panels, does anyone have a source for the 90 degree turn fasteners?

[Bookmaker]

search for DZUS fasteners

[snj5]

Originally Posted by Bookmaker

search for DZUS fasteners

The reference photos I have of original planes have the "Murphy" style of fastener. I can find them for antique car fabric, but not metal (unless they are the same?).