Camel build

Russ, after you are finished with the Camel project maybe I can entice you with copies of the original blue prints of the SE-5a from the Royal Aircraft Factory that I have. They are beautiful and would make a lovely little airplane to match your Camel. I never learned what outfit designed your Camel replica. Things are getting pretty exciting now and I figure that you will be assembling big pieces soon. They sure look good from what I can see.
Switches

 

Bob- I have seen those drawings and they are indeed works of art. If Russ does not want them, you could probably easily sell them on the Aerodrome Forum to a worthy next caretaker.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Taz, I have looked at photos and drawings of that airplane and always had the feeling that it would be wonderful to fly. What a handsome machine! It has a " come on and fly me" look to it, sort of like the Stearman. If there was a full size replica I can't think of an engine that would be a good replacement for the Hisso. It would most certainly be a geared auto type to fit the space. The Fokker D-7 has the same look of being a nice airplane to fly. Ah, to be younger and richer.
Switches

 

Bob- The SE-5a was a lot like the Fokker DVII. Relatively easy to fly, a stable gun platform, tough as a cockroach, and fast and good diving. The Fokker had one additional advantage, and that was the thick airfoil, which made stall characteristics very benign and made it easy to fly near its limits, even for pilots of mediocre skills. That, the SE-5a did not have with its thin airfoils. The armament was also inferior. Why the Brits seemed to love their pull-down Lewis vs twin Vickers, like those on the Camel, is beyond me. But the SE-5a was in service a full year before the D.VII was introduced, and was still a first rate aircraft when the war ended.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

I agree, Terry, each airplane had good manners in most aspects and I sense that the SE5 made up for the thin aerofoil ( I like that ) with ample wing area and lighter wing loading. One can feel confident that the airplane was built for heavy loads by the additional flying wires at mid span of the upper wings. The Fokker, on the other hand, was tank with its welded steel tube construction heavily built wings. I have read where it could " hang on the prop" due to its fat leading edge, obviously. I could do that with my old L-3 at something under 40MPH (the airspeed indicator didn't read below that) and still do nice turns with it. 4412 aerofoil and Frise ailerons are a good combination. Re British drawings. The British seem to have the knack for drafting and I also marvel at the artful drawings that they did. Also old Boeing drawings of the F4B4 are pieces of art, ink on linen AND without the benefit of fancy templates that we used today. I was a draftsman and technical designer for 25 years and when we switched to computer generated drawings I had a supervisor walk over to me one day and said," Parks, we will miss seeing your drawings." So, another era is passed and the tube reigns.
Switches

 

Bob- Actually, the steel tube fuselages were much lighter than comparable wooden structures, and were wire braced in ternaly for extra strength. They also were much more survivable in a crash than a wooden fuselage, which tended to aplinter. you would not believe how thin the tubing was at the aft end of a Dr.I, E.V, or D.VII fuselage. The DVII also was cantilever, with no bracing wires at all for the wings, and that saved weight and drag, as well. Very simple, except for the wings, which were very complicated, in contrast to the DR.I with constant size ribs on all threee wings.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

I was going to mention that your comment regarding the twin Vickers and over-wing Lewis got me to thinking about how the Brits hung on to the cal.30 guns in their fighters when everyone else had cal.50's or bigger...like the FW190 with 30MM cannons. The eight .50's can do terrible damage when you are in the convergence zone and a P-38 was deadly , having all weapons closely gathered in a dia. of about three feet. My late friend, Larry Blumer, was a P-38 pilot and he said that several of the FW-190's that he shot down simply disintegrated when they were hit with his full arsenal, .50's and 20MM. His airplane was badly damaged when he flew through the wreckage. He mentioned once that he was sorry the war ended because he loved the fight.
Switches

 

i was trying to imagine the electrical system on a period camel....kill button?....what else could they have had then?

 

Things are getting exciting and stuff is coming together. I hope that you can post pics of the assembly process. Speaking of which, I would like to ask a question. Are you going to use the same rigging diagram as the original? And I forgot to ask you if your airplane was a smaller scale "replication".
Switches

 

Dave- It also depended on which engine the Camel had. LeRhônes, Clergets, and AR/BR-1s were similar, but the 160 hp Gnôme 9N also had a switch which changed the firing order on the engine to give the equivalent of 3/4, 1/2, and 1/4 power. The 9N used a very crude fuel injector/sprayer, which could not be throttled like the slide throttle carbs on the other rotaries.

The Gnôme 9N perfomed extremely well and was extremely noisy due to its 2-stroke-like inlet ports. All these rotaries were 4-strokes, however.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Beautiful!

 

Thanks , Russ. It sounds great and I wish that I was working on it too. There is something very special about building your own flying machine and then to feel it come to life when you make that first take off. Then to go through the first maneuvers and realize that " this thing really works!" I know that you will be another RFC Ace .Wonderful.
Switches

 

Russ- You should be fine. Expect it to be very rudder intensive, but flyable. If you are at all nervous, there are a few guys who could take it up first for you, but after all that effort, you probably want to be first.

No crosswinds, though.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

From looking at the aircraft and sensing the CG and general layout of the airplane, I have to agree with Taz. Quick on the rudder and to allow the airplane to tell you when it is ready to launch AND definitely into the wind . That extreme dihedral in the lower wing is cause for careful crosswind technique as well as high CG. I have no doubt that you will do this as well as you have done everything else. As the old saying goes, " Be alert. The world needs more lerts."
Switches

 

beautiful N-28. probably the prettiest airplane in WW1. The Pup has about 4 deg. dihedral but I don't see it on the Aerodrome version. It doesn't even look like a Pup.

 

Russ- Putting a more modern airfoil on replicas like those makes them much more forgiving. Nobody notices except a few weirdos like me and Bob.

Taz
Terry Phillips