Thread Tools
Sep 14, 2016, 02:46 PM
Registered User
Thread OP
Discussion

Sopwith F.1 Camel


This odd bit of , what I believe to be a factory (or other "official") interior elevation, came from a long forgotten book from Campbell, CA Public Library , early 1970's. Thought it might be good starting point for Camel thread. There's some slight image distortion, but correctable with known dimensions, such as chord, gap, and overall length, height, etc.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
May 20, 2019, 12:09 PM
Registered User
The PIPE's Avatar

My Replicraft Sopwith Camel drawings arrived today...


Dear packardpursuit:

The PIPE Here...well, the third (and planned-on "last") set of "investments" in those much sought-after Jim Kiger Replicraft drawings of Allied WW I fighters flown by American pilots from a century ago, arrived today (May 20, 2019)...for the Sopwith F.1 Camel !

It WILL be a while before I can get to them for scanning & Corel Photo-Paint 64-bit-based "stitching-together" of the scanned "panels" for each of its six sheets, to bring those together in their "entirety"...but they ARE here now, so in addition to the W.E. Titus drawings on the Dolphin, two "denizens of the Flying Zoo of Sir T.O.M. Sopwith" have their documentation here at home for eventual transformation into CAD-done model construction drawings.

And there could even be...should the Windows 7 64-bit scanner driver for my HP Scanjet 3C no longer work in Windows 10 X64...a summertime purchase of an even larger-"platen-ed", B-sized 11 x 17" flatbed, USB-connection scanner from the Plustek firm...their A320L color flatbed scanner model...that is very likely going to be taking the HP scanner's place beside my desktop PC, by the time summer's over.

For now, I've got some personal things to get to this week...I'm just glad to have the Replicraft drawings on the Camel.

Yours Sincerely,
The PIPE....!!
May 20, 2019, 09:19 PM
Registered User
Have you looked at VueScan software? They have drivers to let most any scanner work with Win10 ( or linux, depending on version) thru their software. The price is a lot less than a bigger scanner would be. Take a look at https://www.hamrick.com/
May 21, 2019, 09:22 AM
Registered User
The PIPE's Avatar

In fact, I'm ALREADY using it...<;^)) !!


Dear georgeg:

The PIPE Here again - I've been using the fully paid-for and registered version of Hamrick Software's VueScan for a good quartet of years already, and nowadays with Windows 10 X64 as my operating system for my desktop PC, it's worked perfectly with three flatbed scanners - the "SCSI" (I ALWAYS pronounce that acronym as "sek-see") interface HP ScanJet 3C (my own purchase since new) and ScanJet 4C (a gift from my now-late CAD mentor, who passed in late 2017), as well as my first-and-still-only USB-connection one, the letter sized "case-top" scanner in my Epson XP-520 "all-in-one" color inkjet printer.

It's mostly the much more recent "challenge" of continuing to use the Windows 7 64-bit scanner driver for my SCSI card, an Adaptec 29320LPE, that's worked perfectly for a few years now with the ScanJets, with all theWin-10 X64 updates from Microsoft. It wasn't very long ago (about six months, I'd have to guess) before the Adaptec-provided Win-7 64-bit driver seemingly ceased to allow my SCSI card to be able to operate the 4C. As the ScanJet 4C WAS a "gifted-to-yours-truly" scanner, I've NO idea how heavily it had been used since it was new. Since it's now no longer possible to easily get the 4C scanner working...the 3C scanner IS one I've had since I purchased it "brand-new" in 1996, and has more than likely not seen anywhere near as "heavy" a usage level as the 4C very likely did, wherever IT had been before I owned it...I'm simply hoping for some time over the Memorial Day weekend to try the 3C once more, and if it no longer works as well, then there's only a short timeframe that will exist before I will HAVE to get the Plustek A320L, a large-format, B-sized USB interface flatbed scanner that's priced almost the same as my ScanJet 3C was 20+ years ago, with the A320L ITSELF being listed at Hamrick Software's site as being operable with VueScan!

Anyway, thanks for the advice...with the Plustek, that would be "flatbed scanner number FOUR" that I've used with VueScan, with CorelDRAW Graphics Suite X7 (the 64-bit version!) to manage my raster-scans.

Thanks again and Yours Sincerely,
The PIPE....!!
Last edited by The PIPE; May 21, 2019 at 09:33 AM.
Jun 16, 2019, 01:29 AM
N = R* fp ne fl fi f
Azoic's Avatar
If it's going to be a Camel thread, let's get it some wire and canvas Dromedary action.....
Some scale drawings to make your rigging correct. Simple and easy to follow....
I wonder, did the designer's family make wire...?????
A reasonable 3 view and profiles set included aswell.
Links to Windsock Datafiles 06 and 26 and Profile Publications.
And a ZIP of the 3-view files

F1 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/qja1ejrrrn...Camel.zip?dl=0
F1 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/4pm9gsb4rf...%20F1.zip?dl=0
2F1 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/4pm9gsb4rf...%20F1.zip?dl=0
Jun 16, 2019, 11:47 AM
Registered User
Thread OP
Azoic,
Your contribution greatly appreciated. Lots to look at. Since I'm really into the nuts, bolt's and wires, I say THANK YOU!
Jun 16, 2019, 12:41 PM
Registered User
Thread OP
What was the span of the Camel's upper wing (both wings actually)???

According to official rigging notes ( provided by Azoic), the span is given as 26'-11". However, according to Profile Publication 31, and other sources, the span most often given as 28'-0". Now, as I calculate it (only had to take off one of my shoes!) there's a 13" mystery......

IIRC, Ian Stair once mentioned , that according o his research, the official span was sometimes listed at 27'11", but that was measured at the extremities of the upper rear spar. He wondered if the many examples of squared off (cropped looking) aileron tips, drawn by so many, were because of that particular information. He further speculated that a slight rounding, by 1/2" beyond the rear spar, of the aileron tips works quite well at achieving 28' even, for the overall span.

BTW, the color three view from PP#31 shows cropped aileron tips, which IMHO do not distinctively feature in period photos. I personally think Mr. Stair's understanding is correct.
Last edited by packardpursuit; Jun 16, 2019 at 12:47 PM. Reason: add 3-view
Jun 16, 2019, 04:15 PM
N = R* fp ne fl fi f
Azoic's Avatar
Ok....can-o-worms time......
Datafile 6 for the 2F1 with Ian Stairs inked 3-views, with NO DIMENSIONS has a table at the end listing 26'11" for the top wing. This SEEMS to be the concensus in ALL the documentation I can find for the 2F1. It lists the F1 as the same span, but I have documentation that says both dimensions you mentioned.
Datafile 26 for the F1 has the top wing on the 3-view listed as 28' over the wings at the rear spar and 28' 3/4" at the aileron.

The simplest solution I have used with success in the past, was to work on an average of 27 foot for the top wing. It makes 1/4 scale 81inch span. So it scrapes in on the American GIANT scale size (80inch), and MORE than fits giant in F4C in Australia ( it used to be 66 inches for biplane top wingspan, but it might be different now ). Unfortunately, I don't have one to measure to get a definitive answer on span...all I do know is they fly great @ 1/3rd scale, a bit hard to store and transport, but they fly great.....

And just to make your life even more confusing.....the Sopwith Comic, the Camel based Zepplin blowerer upperer, was a HIGHLY modified Camel (F.1/3) designation and it has the SAME wing as the Camel but it's 8.53m span, which in old money works out at 27' 9" span......so pick a number between one and ten......and close your eyes, draw some lines and build to that.....it looks very much like the way Sopwith did business.......
Last edited by Azoic; Jun 16, 2019 at 04:42 PM.
Jun 25, 2019, 04:13 PM
Registered User
Thread OP
OK-
I just had a look at W. Wylam's Camel drawings and he makes a distinction between an F.1 Camel and a 2F.1 Camel. According to him, there are a number of dimensional differences between the two types. Span for latter given as 26'-11" OA. while giving 28'0" for F.1 as 28'. 2F.1 is shown with more diehedral in lower planes and shows narrower gap, at root of lower.

German's measured OA span of their captured example, given as 8570 mm, which AFAICT, works out to 28.116 ft. At this point I'm going to admit that I never knew there was a difference between the F.1 and 2F.1 variants. Would I be wrong in assuming the F.1 was earlier? And that the captured example was, given it's reported span, an F.1?

Was 2F.1 the ground attack version???

Also, according to the 3-view appearing on Guillow's 18" Camel plan, the span is listed as 26'-6" and was/is probably meant to represent a 2F.1?

Anyway, I'm now satisfied that an F.1, THE Camel everyone associates with WWI, Snoopy and Red Baron fame , has a span very near exactly 28'. I'm now off to consolidate my perceptions by re-reading Google and Wiki sources, etc. Any further insight and/or corrections welcome.

Thanks Azoic, for making me dig further.
Jun 25, 2019, 05:03 PM
Registered User
I think the 2F1 was the navalized version intended for operation from the Furious and perhaps the lighters that were sometimes used for maritime aircraft launches.
Jul 02, 2019, 01:38 PM
Registered User
Thread OP
OK (again)
Just got to review the Profile Publication # 31 a bit more closely. It makes specific mention of 2F.1's as being the naval versions, However also mentions that there were known examples of F.1's operating with (what I now currently understand) their slightly smaller winged variant in various lighter (sea-going barge) experiments/trials, etc.

I find it interesting that Wylam appears to have been largely correct about the variants. Will have to re-examine his notes to see if he make an actual historical connection/distinction between the two.
Jul 02, 2019, 05:12 PM
N = R* fp ne fl fi f
Azoic's Avatar
All I know about William Wylam is his drawings were often quoted as the best on a subject. Not because they were better than anyone else's, it was usually because no-one else had done that subject. I have heard it said for years, that some of his dimensions were rather fancyful, and other's just so widly inaccurate that you started on one aircraft and finished with another. I have heard this said about EVERYONE'S drawings on any type over the years, I found out very early on, if your idea's do not accord EXACTLY with the idea's of another giving you information, the source of said information tended to get irate.....as in, "HOW DARE YOU....A LOWLY BEGINNER , YOU DARE QUESTION MY KNOWLEDGE" these are the type of modellers I avoided like the plague. Thankfully, they were few and far between.

The only other thing I can say about Wylam drawings is they do lack a lot of the attention to detail that Ian Stair adds on his line drawings. MOST scratch builds I have been involved with have had both sets of drawings if they were available. As neither can be 100% correct, a coalescence of the sources was the best idea. This coupled with every thing else we can find on a subject BEFORE anything is even drawn. Research, the scale builders best friend......
Jul 03, 2019, 12:44 PM
Registered User
Thread OP
I had understood, and it seems born out by examination, that when Wylam had access to good/reliable information, he could produce some highly accurate efforts. His Stinson and Piper efforts come to mind. Granted, there is little other attention paid to these aircraft, however, they do agree well with photos and published dimensions etc. On the other hand , the majority of his work does not bearsame comparison, very well. Camel comes to mind. Odd discrepancies, mostly having to do with shapes not being quite right, put me off.

Was he bad draftsman? No. His drawing technique and layouts are pretty darn good. He seems to have "enjoyed" a reputation as a aero historian, however his effort in this direction haven't stood the test of time and advancement of general knowledge. Was he a bad man? No. He was a fellow who was called upon to create copy for the modeling press, for over 30 years. I suspect he sometime he had to invent considerable content for his employers. So, IMHO, Air Age Publishing (you know... he guys who $old and re$old his work, over YEARS and DECADES) is more culpable for promulgating bad history, than Wylam ever was.
Jul 03, 2019, 04:04 PM
N = R* fp ne fl fi f
Azoic's Avatar
My comments were NOT directed at W.Wylam in so much as general drawings available. Some are VERY good, some are VERY bad. The name in the corner means LITTLE if the drawings are completely inaccurate. I really don't want to start out making a DR1 and take an S.E.5a off the bench.....and I have seen this happen (sic) with even the BEST of builders, with what were considerd the BEST of drawings. The Wylam's drawings were always very untidy to look at, with hand written information all over them and so many dimensions, it looks like a calculator vomited. For the new player, it can be an overwhelming amount of data to try to wade through for the correct one's. But a competant builder could make a VERY accurate model if they tried.

As I stated above, the best option is to get EVERY drawing you can find, compare, compare, compare and then go from there.
And YES, they still are making money off his work, coin of the realm is coin of the realm...no matter if you earnt it or not.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools