Ares Games
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 59

Thread: BIG NEWS: Sopwith Camel Handling -- MYTH BUSTED!

  1. #1

    Default BIG NEWS: Sopwith Camel Handling -- MYTH BUSTED!

    The April edition of _Flying_ magazine has a column by Peter Garrison, the in-house technical specialist, where he describes pairing up with the owner of a pair of Sopwith Camels (one original, one period-authentic replica -- to be found at The Aeroplane Collection in Paso Robles, CA) to determine, using modern data-collection equipment, the "gyroscopic couple" of the Camel's rotary engine (the tendency of a rotating mass to move at a right-angle to the direction it is being forced to move -- why a Camel would pitch up when turning left, and down when turning right, for instance).

    The important part of the article: "Some of the most striking [graphs] are the time histories of steep turns. The airplane rolled into a 60-degree bank to the left or right in about 2 [and] 1/2 seconds, but the maximum roll rate, reached only momentarily, was about 40 degrees per second to the left and 30 degrees to the right. No surprise there; left roll is torque aided. That the steady-state turn rate was about the same left and right was not surprising either: All airplanes turn at the same rate in coordinated flight at a given speed and bank angle."

    Some other useful data: The recorded climb rate for the Camel was 1,700'/min.

    In simple terms: The rotary's rotation provides almost no influence on the handling of the unit.

    So, now that we have to trash the entire C movement deck -- and probably a bunch of others as well....

  2. #2

    Default

    I thought the right roll would have been torque-aided.
    So basically the camel turns equally as well right or left?
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  3. #3

    Default

    So will all planes with tight turns soon be able to do so in both directions? Nice!

  4. #4

    Question

    That seems to go against all previous knowledge
    I wonder what engines they had fitted to these two Aircraft.
    Also he is stating it favoured the Left turn over the Right but the Rotaries fitted originally rotated to the Right which would have led to a RH bias. Something not quite "kosher" going on here!

    Also if the Camels were that benign how come so many pilots were killed in them, even experienced pilot doing stunts.

  5. #5

    Default

    So we have the reports of pilots that flew the Camel and we have the article of an technician about a restored Camel and a replica.

    Maybe they should test it under combat conditions.

    I have to think on Napoleons hat, that was worth 50.000 men on the battlefiled.

    We can bust this myth easily with an experiment with the hat (from the Deutsches Historisches Museum) vs. 50.000 reenactors, too.
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gully_raker View Post
    ...Also he is stating it favoured the Left turn over the Right but the Rotaries fitted originally rotated to the Right which would have led to a RH bias. Something not quite "kosher" going on here!...
    Something seems Bass ackwards about it !
    And it reads to me that it was only turning into 60 degree turns when monitored (and had a 30% higher roll rate in one direction)

  7. #7

    Default

    I read from this that if you shove the stick hard right, the plane will naturally dive, and thereby accellerate under gravity, so a lot of left rudder needed to maintain height, or at least limit dive, and if you go hard left, the plane will try to climb, which will bleed speed off.
    my flying experience is limited to one 1/2 hour lesson in a 70+ year old Tiger Moth so I am no expert, but I know there are many guys on this forum who have real flight experience, who can perhaps shed more light on this

  8. #8

    Default

    It also occurs to me that replica or original, the governing bodies for aviation are not going to be happy if a civilian pilot operating an aircraft on the civilian register, apply the full rigours of military hard manouvering to airframes designed 98 years ago.

  9. #9

    Default

    Zoeee!

    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gully_raker View Post
    Also if the Camels were that benign how come so many pilots were killed in them, even experienced pilot doing stunts.
    An interesting conundrum... I wonder what gives?

  11. #11

    Default

    I'd like to know what motor was fitted, and whether the weight of 2 MGs and ammo had been added in the right place. Also the rigging has an effect.

    Let's say I'm very sceptical. The asymmetrical roll rate is what I'd expect from a radial or inline due to prop torque alone.

  12. #12

    Dom S's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dom
    Location
    People's Republic of South Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    2,081
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default

    Snap - I suspect the way it's rigged may well have an effect here - whatever the explanation, I certainly don't view this as either "myth" or "busted" - there are far too many first-hand accounts of its handling for a single reconditioned machine a hundred years later to be grounds to bin the lot.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom S View Post
    Snap - I suspect the way it's rigged may well have an effect here - whatever the explanation, I certainly don't view this as either "myth" or "busted" - there are far too many first-hand accounts of its handling for a single reconditioned machine a hundred years later to be grounds to bin the lot.
    I agree. This new information just doesn't seem to track... I wonder if more information will be forthcoming?

  14. #14

    Default

    I'm a doubting Thomas, too. My thoughts are rigging and pilot experience have everything to do with the test results.

    Here's an interesting video that shows the effect of torque on a stationary Camel, I just don't see the effect being any gentler while it's airborne.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3DXEsC4Pq8

  15. #15

    Default

    I am also having trouble with this, partly because of what people have said. Mainly because I don't know what I'd do without those sharp right turns!

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by somaliavet View Post
    I'm a doubting Thomas, too. My thoughts are rigging and pilot experience have everything to do with the test results.

    Here's an interesting video that shows the effect of torque on a stationary Camel, I just don't see the effect being any gentler while it's airborne.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3DXEsC4Pq8
    Did they mount brakes on this one, because I don't see any chocks under the wheels.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  17. #17

    Default

    From the same article: "The Camel's agility as a fighter was due in part to its notoriously weak stability in all axes. Its center of gravity was far aft, particularly with full fuel -- the 30 gallon tank sat behind the pilot[*]. Nevertheless, it must have possessed some longitudinal stability because it had no trim and the pilot had to hold forward stick after takeoff. if it had been neutrally stable or unstable, it would not have sought a preferred pitch attitude.
    "It had a vestigial fixed fin an aerodynamically balanced rudder, and a rather short aft fuselage. As a result it didn't much care which way it pointed."

    [*: Drawings of the Camel, including closeup of relevant section:
    http://www.albentley-drawings.com/wp...with-Camel.jpg
    http://xb7.xanga.com/98ad00170813010.../m71882730.jpg ]

    (Looking at the interior, I'm wondering how many pilots killed in Camel crashes died from taking a 30-gallon fuel tank to the back of the head or torso -- I know this was a problem with post-war airmail aircraft, which is why Charles Lindbergh designed _Spirit of St. Louis_ with the main fuel tank *ahead* of his seat; he'd seen the same design used in mailplanes after a series of fatal squishings.)

    As to the authenticity of the airplanes, from an _Air and Space_ article (also by Mr. Garrison -- at http://www.airspacemag.com/history-o...409154/?no-ist ):

    "The Arangos began their quest for authenticity by replacing the modern engines and propellers of the airplanes they had with original ones, and removing brakes, radios, and all the other gear required by modern airports. They moved the nascent collection to the family ranch near Paso Robles, about midway between Los Angeles and San Francisco, built hangars, dedicated a 2,200-foot stretch of grass to a runway, and scouted the surrounding fields for emergency landing spots. Here, Javier could fly under conditions similar to those for which the airplanes had originally been built: grass fields, and readiness at any moment for an engine failure and a forced landing."
    "Like airplanes, engines can be reproduced to perfection. For several years a Paso Robles machinist, Richard Galli, has been creating for Arango a set of 10 precise copies of an original 110-hp LeRhône. The work generates mountains of metal chips, liberating, for example, a 35-pound crankcase from a 650-pound slug of steel. The manufacture of the required 90 cylinders—an inhumanly tedious task—has been outsourced: They are being hewn out of steel bar stock in New Zealand on computer-controlled machines owned by film director Peter Jackson’s Vintage Aviator Ltd., which reconstructs World War I aircraft."
    "The ability to fly the airplanes, not merely look at them, is crucial to Arango’s effort to gain insight into their evolution. Contemporary reports of their flying qualities are not always intelligible to a modern aviator. He recounts, “One of the British aces, Albert Ball, flew Nieuports and he flew the S.E.5, and he complained that the S.E.5 is slow. I’ve flown both. There’s good data on the speeds. The S.E.5 is a much faster airplane—so what did he mean?” He may have meant that the S.E.5 was less quick on its feet, less responsive, than the Nieuport, but only a pilot familiar with the flying characteristics of both types would know. Similarly, pilots claimed that the Fokker Triplane climbed “like a monkey,” although its rate of climb was actually average. Like other thick-wing Fokkers, however, it could fly in a more nose-high attitude without stalling than the thin-wing Sopwiths and Nieuports, and the appearance of climbing steeply may have convinced other pilots that it was climbing rapidly."

    So, as best I can tell: The authenticity is as near to perfect as can be achieved -- between that, and the far more advanced data-collection methods (as opposed to the voluminous hearsay of the period), I'm more inclined to believe Mr. Garrison and Mr. Arango than any number of "first-hand accounts" combined.

  18. #18

    Default

    Before I could accept this data I would like to see it collaberated with accounts from actual WW1 pilots and ground crew.

  19. #19

    Default

    New info seems completely at odds with what was previously widely accepted. I'm not saying that it's impossible that this new info is genuine... just hard to believe.

  20. #20

    Exclamation

    There are many, many first hand accounts from WW1 pilots about the Camels flying characteristics & all say it would tend to dive in a right hand turn & climb in a left hand turn & due to the weight forward (Guns, engine & pilot plus engine torque) it tended to enter a RH spin quickly which experienced pilots used to advantage. The Camel test pilot Harry Hawker remarked on "the sensitivity of the controls which required a judicious hand especially on take off".
    Also noted in the Osprey Duel series "Camel Vs Fok Dr.I" it is noted. "Naval 4 was reminded of the new Aeroplanes unforgiving nature when Canadian Flt Sub Ltn E. Ellis fatally spun into the ground.
    This seems at odds with the article which claims the Camels centre of Gravity was far aft(?)

    Definitely something amiss here.

  21. #21

    Default

    playing devils advocate somewhat, the DH2 had a reputation as an unstable man killer due to its rotary pusher configuration.
    When Lanoe Hawker became C.O. of 24 sqadron, he proved it was pilot training that was the main issue, not the aircraft.
    So, anecdotal evidence of a bad/dangerous machine proved wrong by a pilot with greater experience.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marechallannes View Post
    So we have the reports of pilots that flew the Camel and we have the article of an technician about a restored Camel and a replica.

    Maybe they should test it under combat conditions.

    I have to think on Napoleons hat, that was worth 50.000 men on the battlefiled.

    We can bust this myth easily with an experiment with the hat (from the Deutsches Historisches Museum) vs. 50.000 reenactors, too.
    As a reenactor of a slightly earlier period, but still using muskets and canon, the only way to really test this is with live amunition, and a real Napoleon. I've live fired a musket, I've seen the damage a 0.75in lead ball can do and you can bugger off if you think I'm going to stand in front of one!!!!!!!


    I know plenty of chaps with a Napoleon complex though
    Last edited by johnbiggles; 03-28-2014 at 02:56. Reason: typo

  23. #23

    Default

    From the article...

    That the steady-state turn rate was about the same left and right was not surprising either: All airplanes turn at the same rate in coordinated flight at a given speed and bank angle."
    Coordinated flight is in NO WAY the same as air combat! During air combat an airplane is pushed against and sometimes beyond it's limits. Flying coordinated is like a sunday walk for any airplane meant for air combat...

    You can easily try this at home. Take a cycling wheel and hold it up at the axis. Give it a spin and then try to turn it to the left or right. Turn it slow and softly first and then give it a short but powerfull push... You'll notice the difference!

  24. #24

    Default

    I'll have to try and re-acquire a link I read lately from an actual pilot of a camel who stated:
    1. The camel had a tendency to climb as it was 'tail heavy (?). You constantly had to correct in flight to maintain level flight.
    2. When turning (can't remember if he stated left or right) the camel had a tendency to go into a spin, a lot of pilots used this to their advantage to get out of a tight situation using it as a controlled spin not an uncontrolled one.

    Neil
    See you on the Dark Side......

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gully_raker View Post
    There are many, many first hand accounts from WW1 pilots about the Camels flying characteristics & all say it would tend to dive in a right hand turn & climb in a left hand turn & due to the weight forward (Guns, engine & pilot plus engine torque) it tended to enter a RH spin quickly which experienced pilots used to advantage. The Camel test pilot Harry Hawker remarked on "the sensitivity of the controls which required a judicious hand especially on take off".
    Also noted in the Osprey Duel series "Camel Vs Fok Dr.I" it is noted. "Naval 4 was reminded of the new Aeroplanes unforgiving nature when Canadian Flt Sub Ltn E. Ellis fatally spun into the ground.
    This seems at odds with the article which claims the Camels centre of Gravity was far aft(?)

    Definitely something amiss here.
    This is what I'm struggling with as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnbiggles View Post
    playing devils advocate somewhat, the DH2 had a reputation as an unstable man killer due to its rotary pusher configuration.
    When Lanoe Hawker became C.O. of 24 sqadron, he proved it was pilot training that was the main issue, not the aircraft.
    So, anecdotal evidence of a bad/dangerous machine proved wrong by a pilot with greater experience.
    I believe that most sources identify novice pilots as particularly susceptible to the Camel's quirks... but I think that would be the case with all aircraft, novices being... well... novices. According to A.G. Lee (in his book No Parachute), 5 of 6 novice RFC pilots tasked with ferrying a flight of B.E.2s (known for its stability, so much so that there were 2 official investigations into potential wrong-doing by Royal Aircraft Factory) cracked up... 1 crashed in transit, 3 crashed on landing, and the 5th went missing. Only Lee managed to land safely.

    It's true that the RFC was sending pilots to the Front with very few hours on the books, and these pilots were bound to make more errors than experienced pilots (regardless of kite), but it's the Camel that gets the notoriety more so than any other Entente aircraft.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnbiggles View Post
    As a reenactor of a slightly earlier period, but still using muskets and canon, the only way to really test this is with live amunition, and a real Napoleon. I've live fired a musket, I've seen the damage a 0.75in lead ball can do and you can bugger off if you think I'm going to stand in front of one!!!!!!!


    I know plenty of chaps with a Napoleon complex though
    Mark Snyder is one of them. I wargamed with the guy when he was in high school.

    PS: He is a Napoleon impersonator.

  27. #27

    Default

    I have rather accept many first hand accounts of aircraft handling then one counter account conducted 100 years later.

    Hawker abilities were similiar to Michael Jordans it can be taught but, how many can master that ability they way they did.

  28. #28

    Default

    I'd be interested if they had ballast equivalent of 2 vickers and 1000 rounds in the right place. The CofG would be a lot further back if not.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Did they mount brakes on this one, because I don't see any chocks under the wheels.
    Karl
    If you look closely, there are metal framework chocks.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast.git View Post
    This is what I'm struggling with as well.



    I believe that most sources identify novice pilots as particularly susceptible to the Camel's quirks... but I think that would be the case with all aircraft, novices being... well... novices. According to A.G. Lee (in his book No Parachute), 5 of 6 novice RFC pilots tasked with ferrying a flight of B.E.2s (known for its stability, so much so that there were 2 official investigations into potential wrong-doing by Royal Aircraft Factory) cracked up... 1 crashed in transit, 3 crashed on landing, and the 5th went missing. Only Lee managed to land safely.

    It's true that the RFC was sending pilots to the Front with very few hours on the books, and these pilots were bound to make more errors than experienced pilots (regardless of kite), but it's the Camel that gets the notoriety more so than any other Entente aircraft.
    Lee felt badly that he did not crash the B.E.2 because it probaly meant the death sentence to those it did.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john snelling View Post
    Lee felt badly that he did not crash the B.E.2 because it probaly meant the death sentence to those it did.
    Stability = Great Platform for Taking Pictures & Artillery Observation
    Stability ≠ Surviving Encounter with Hun Scouts

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomatchef View Post
    Coordinated flight is in NO WAY the same as air combat!
    Not the case -- in fact, it is possible for ACM to be performed with both "coordinated" and "uncoordinated" turns -- all "coordinated" means is "performing the maneuver without skidding outward or slipping inward" (more info at http://flighttraining.aopa.org/stude...lls/turns.html and http://www.downwindmag.com/2009/11/149/ ).

    johnbiggles has nailed down what the real problem was: "Pilots" who were so poorly trained as to be unworthy of the name.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    I can recommend this. To me it seems intuitively obvious, but to see it stated simply like that was good.

    To do a right break, from the usual stick-slightly-left and slightly-forward and rudder-a-touch left of the usual straight and level flight in a Camel, stick hard right, rudder a little right initially then HARD left with rudder and stick all the way back and centred to avoid a spin.

  34. #34

    Default

    Possibly big news in terms of the detailed understanding of the handling of the aircraft. But even if so, not big news in game terms since as Chris indicates the way the pilots flew the aircraft could well have been the root cause of the observed handling characteristics. So, as far as the manoeuvre deck is concerned where the aim is to recreate the observed handling of the aircraft in action, no change is needed one way or the other.

  35. #35

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    Possibly big news in terms of the detailed understanding of the handling of the aircraft. But even if so, not big news in game terms since as Chris indicates the way the pilots flew the aircraft could well have been the root cause of the observed handling characteristics. So, as far as the manoeuvre deck is concerned where the aim is to recreate the observed handling of the aircraft in action, no change is needed one way or the other.
    AMEN to that!

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    Possibly big news in terms of the detailed understanding of the handling of the aircraft. But even if so, not big news in game terms since as Chris indicates the way the pilots flew the aircraft could well have been the root cause of the observed handling characteristics. So, as far as the manoeuvre deck is concerned where the aim is to recreate the observed handling of the aircraft in action, no change is needed one way or the other.
    Except the observed handling is also wrong (do not get me started on the unreliability of "eyewitness testimony") -- what people thought they saw was not what was actually happening.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Except the observed handling is also wrong (do not get me started on the unreliability of "eyewitness testimony") -- what people thought they saw was not what was actually happening.
    Fair point about "eyewitness testimony:" it's notoriously terrible... with a noteworthy exception being "flashbulb memories." But what we've been writing about here doesn't exactly fall into what most people consider "eyewitness testimony." For most people, that term refers to Johnny-on-the-spot witnessing something go down right before their eyes. I don't think this is that.

    Do the recollections of numerous (I have no way of knowing how many, but it's more than a few) pilots who flew these kites fall into the same category? I'm not so certain.

    Albert Ball, I think we can all agree, was more than a novice. His claim that the SE5 was slower than his Nieuport shouldn't be discounted because his memory was faulty (the SE5 is faster than a Nieuport 17). Rather, Ball found his SE5 less responsive. Not so much less fast, but less quick. It was certainly a change from something with which he had found success. The same can be said about the Dr.I's (or the prototype in this case) ability to climb. Voss outmaneuvered 6-8 SEs, many piloted by aces who commented on its amazing rate of climb. Yet we look at climb rates, and the Dr.I wasn't all that special. Were the RFC pilots mis-remembering? I don't think so... what they may have been doing was mis-describing.

    This new research may have something to it, but I'm not comfortable discounting contemporary pilots because we know memory to be suspect.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Did they mount brakes on this one, because I don't see any chocks under the wheels.
    I filmed this video. There are NO brakes on this aircraft.

    In the first part (evening) there are chocks, but they're made out of dark metal rod and so they're quite hard to see in the video - because they're not solid, it does look as though there's nothing there.

    The second part of the video is the Camel preparing to take off for a display. The pilot is waiting for his allocated take off time and is just keeping the engine ticking over before he gives it full throttle to start the take-off roll.

  39. #39

    Default

    This Sopwith Camel seems to have pulled to the right:

  40. #40

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    This Sopwith Camel seems to have pulled to the right:
    So right you are!

  41. #41

  42. #42

    Default

    Well well. I wonder how many hours that pilot had under his belt?
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    Well well. I wonder how many hours that pilot had under his belt?
    Rob.
    Potentially an expensive mistake, regardless...

  44. #44

    Rabbit 3's Avatar Squadron Leader Scotland.
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Robert
    Location
    Lothian
    Sorties Flown
    918
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default

    It occurs to me that a modern replica of a period aircraft, no matter how accurate will probably be `overbuilt` to finer tolerances when compared to a typical original and will most likely be equivelant to one of the better constructed examples of its type.
    Its clear from anecdotal evidence that, while there were plenty of good, well manufactured aircraft in service their were other airframes in squadrons that were sub par at least and death traps at worse.
    Add to that the tendancy for the better aircraft to be assigned to the more experienced pilots and the rookies more likely to be flying `dud` planes then the high casualty lists become a bit more understandable.
    Last edited by Rabbit 3; 04-01-2014 at 05:50.

  45. #45

    Default

    Not to forget that the average pilot in ww1 had much less practice hours before being transferred to the front.
    So what looks for a today's experienced pilot as a not-really-serious peculiarity in handling might have been a lethal thread for rookie pilots back then.

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast.git View Post
    This new research may have something to it, but I'm not comfortable discounting contemporary pilots because we know memory to be suspect.
    You're coming at it from the wrong direction: The problem is not "'memory is suspect' leads to 'accounts being inaccurate'"; the problem is "'quantified, observable data does not match accounts' leads to 'accounts being inaccurate'".

    It's the same as these idiots who insist on forwarding myths like "the Neiman-Marcus cookie recipe" or "Mr. Rogers fought the VC" or any of the other nonsense mentioned in "Weird Al" Yankovic's "Stop Forwarding That Crap To Me" [ http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/weird...tcraptome.html ]: Despite said messages being repeatedly proven false by Actual Data, they keep repeating it for whatever reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    Despite extreme left rudder...
    At that low speed, rudder isn't going to do a thing; as to direction, it could as easily have turned left.

    Some useful video (including, it appears, that same airplane again): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5trygRQaV0#t=48 .

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by somaliavet View Post
    I'm a doubting Thomas, too. My thoughts are rigging and pilot experience have everything to do with the test results.

    Here's an interesting video that shows the effect of torque on a stationary Camel, I just don't see the effect being any gentler while it's airborne.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3DXEsC4Pq8
    Ha! The plane in this clip looks like the one who lost his engine cowl in another clip.

  48. #48

    Question

    Just picked up on an interesting thing in Chris' first post quoting the Magazine.

    " The Left Roll is Torque aided"

    Now that is really weird as normally the Rotary engine fitted to the Camel rotated to the RIGHT.
    Could the engines fitted to these aircraft been modern replicas which had a different rotation?
    This could go a fair way to explaining their results.

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    It's the same as these idiots who insist on forwarding myths like "the Neiman-Marcus cookie recipe" or "Mr. Rogers fought the VC" or any of the other nonsense mentioned in "Weird Al" Yankovic's "Stop Forwarding That Crap To Me" [ http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/weird...tcraptome.html ]: Despite said messages being repeatedly proven false by Actual Data, they keep repeating it for whatever reasons.
    Which is why for my copycat cooking, I only use the scientifically developed and tested Top Secret Recipes--in one of my college classes, we did a blind taste test between genuine Brown & Haley Almond Roca candy and a batch I made of the TSR clone, and NOBODY could tell the difference.

    Years later, I told that story to the CEO of B&H, and he got a big laugh out of it...

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gully_raker View Post
    Just picked up on an interesting thing in Chris' first post quoting the Magazine.

    " The Left Roll is Torque aided"

    Now that is really weird as normally the Rotary engine fitted to the Camel rotated to the RIGHT.
    Simple physics -- "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". In this case: The engine rotates "right" (as seen from the cockpit), thus the rest of the airplane would rotate "left". (It's one of the reasons P-51s are so poular at Reno -- the Merlin rotates right, and the course is all left turns.)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. Sopwith Camel of HOAF
    By Пилот in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-31-2013, 01:54
  2. WSF Sopwith Camel N6377
    By Womble in forum Shapeways Models
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-29-2012, 02:59
  3. LEGO Sopwith Camel
    By toddwf in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-17-2012, 19:34
  4. Zioprudenzio Sopwith Camel
    By Odin_Knight in forum Paper Card Models
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-02-2012, 09:58
  5. Sopwith Camel
    By Oberst Hajj in forum WGF: Historical Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-20-2011, 04:37

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •