Hangar 9 Sopwith Camel

[Terry Whiting]

Timbo,      When in doubt take two paces back, have a glass of your favourite tipple and

re-evaluate. 

 I think if the 'Orme' was on my door step I know where I would rather be.

Ivinghoe is good, but a mere 'goose bump' compared to the Orme  

[Tim Mackey]

Hi Terry - good advice mate...the coffee machine has been in overdrive - alchohol ...I can take it or leave TBH

I like your idea of the brace, and think this is what I shall do - however, I am having a somewhat enforced break from it as I have 2 of my kids staying for a few days, as as I only get to see them a couple of times a year...they are numero uno priority.

Thanks for the idea. I will document the job and you can criticise as I go along

[Terry Whiting]

 Tim

The brace idea I use on my Puppeteer/Strutter make over. The Strutter has so many struts in the upper wing I decided to make both  wings in three sections, with their centre section fixed which also eliminated the fixing and unfixing of the undercarriage. The lower wing cen/sec can be removed as any conventional wing for sevos adjustment, but other that that it stays put.

The braces I built in, and made from 4mm fibreglass sheet , and can not be seen once the wing panels are fitted. The interplane struts have dowles built in, so the only screws required in the model are the brace screws.

At the field I plug in the upper and lower 6mm carbon tubes, lower wing slides on, servo connections made, and landing wires fixed and braces screwed. Top wing panels

slide on, locate interplane dowles, screw in brace screws,and connect flying wires.

Ready for flying 8-10 mins. The flying wires are all working wires.     

[Tim Mackey]

OK have sorted the brace idea for the lower wing fixng - not quite as neat as Terry's

but I figure once its painted it will be hardly noticed.

 

 

Also modded the fixings of the front cabanes by cutting an "inspection hatch hole " into each cheek. The original small blind nuts have been replaced with larger 3 mm jobs, and the socket head bolts which were so darn fiddly to operate have been replaced with regular slot head screws.

 

As can be seen from the quick mock up I did, there is still some serious misalignment of the top wing - all interplanes fixed, and the cabanes, but the L/E at the port wing side is a good inch in front otf the starboard side. I am still working on this problem

 

I now need you brainy guys to suggest a few ideas for quick fixing and releasing of the interplane struts at the field.

The picture below shows the suggested method, but as this involves having to insert / remove 8 tiny screws and locknuts each time...its not practical, and the size of the screws are begging to get lost in the grass too!

 I was thinking of maybe a steel pin ( think of a cut down nail and head ) which would be a snug fit through the bracket, and a car body clip ( as in picture )

 

inserted through a hole in the pin to lock it in place.

The clips would be attached to the fake ( black elastic ) rigging wires which would be permanently attached to the top wing, and this is then stretched down to meet the brackets and the clips attached. This should prevent losing the clips.

Ideally, some sort of "barbed" pin permanently attached to the bottom of the strut would be better, and simply "sprung" into place to attach the strut to the bracket, and "unsprung" to remove... any ideas along those lines? 

Edited By Timbo - Moderator on 29/08/2009 22:49:08

[Sheldon Holy]

Hi Timbo.

 

Build looking good. I seem to be overestimating hangar 9, they have a good reputation but sometimes deliver bad goods...

[Stephen Grigg]

I am surprised at the problems and modifications youve had to make Timbo,is it a bad kit or is it that you are improving the original design

[Tim Mackey]

Hmmm. Not sure what the correrct answer is here, probably a bit of both. I am a bit of a perfectionist so to me, some of the instructions / methods are plain wrong. In fairness, the main issue so far has been the fitting of these darn wings and their associated struts. No matter which way I try to install the cabanes, the top wing will simply not fit correctly, and I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that they have included wrong / faulty items.

Other people ( in the US mainly ) have complained of several other issues also, and I think its right that all the issues that myself and others have found should be mentioned before we go further.

1) These struts ( of mine ) simply dont fit .

2) Tailplane fixing hardware is missing from the contents in many kits.

3  Instructions are incorrect in at least 2 sections of the manual - regarding wing fixing

4) Supplied screws are all imperial threaded, yet no matching allen key is supplied

5) The depth of socket on the socket head screws is poor and results in slipping drivers.

6) The method of fixing wings / spars to the fuselage is flawed and poor.

7) The COG recommended is at least 1/2" too rearward - and is very critical on this bird.

8) The L/G attachment relies on "O" rings which all fail before it leaves the house.

9) Manual corrections published online by Hangar 9 are also incorrect !

 

Addressing these issues requires some fettling, and substitution of materials, and for a kit of this cost is, IMO, un-acceptable. I doubt I would have even got this far i nto the build without the assistance of several online forums.

 

Rigging and de-rigging is going to be difficult and time consuming, so if you ( like me ) cant fit this 61" span bipe in the car fully rigged, expect some hassles at the field every time you want to take her along.

Not a manufacture /design fault as such, but please be aware of it.

 

The model could build into a nice looking aeroplane, and it will hopefully fly well, but as Biplanes are so sensitive to the wing incidences, stagger, and COG this crucial part of the assembly should have been designed, illustarted, and engineered far better.

As things stand, I have now ( after many hours of researching other forums ) got the top wing sitting on the interplane struts, with what is hopefully the correct incidence and stagger ( none of which is mentioned in the manual ) and I must now decide how to re-engineer some cabane struts that will actually fit and support this wing without introducing twist or incorrect incidence etc.

Below is  a few pictures of the situation described, and as can be seen, alignment of the cabanes is way off the pre-fitted fixing threaded inserts in the wing panels.The design of the struts and their fittings in the fuselage- and brittle aluminium tabs prevents any significant alteration to the angles, a tiny bit of tweaking would be possible, but these things are half an inch out on three of them...as well as being too short to reach anyway.

 

General views showing two wings parallel and lined up using just interplanes.

My method of ensuring the stagger is set correctly. ( 3.5" )

This shows the cabanes bolted to the fuse fixings - but NOT to the wing.

 

[Sheldon Holy]

OoooOOhhhHHh.... what a bummer That must be a real little wotsit (if it's Ok to say that...) to take apart... out back together at the field... i can just imagine loosing a nut or bolt in the grass.... Are you going to make new Cabanes...? I suppose that's the only away around it... that is unless you bend them until they touch the wing and make new blocks etc... But then that is more work than making new cabanes in the first place, plus it would look crooked. I know a guy in Canada who has one with a Saito 100()... you get the idea.... It flies great. I'll ask him if he had problems too during the build. Is that red 'thing' car of your's you're only car... surely not! If so, i'm suprised you can fit the hawk in there... let alone this!

 

My new Precedent 1/4 scale stampe should make an interesting task of fitting in the car.

 

Unfortunately it is at my gran's, put away till' xmas......

 

 

[Tim Mackey]

No thats the "summer toy car only "

However my main wheels has only a boot not a hatchback, and the seats dont fold down either

[Terry Whiting]

Timbo,

 

A Puppeteer I used as a water plane, and a D.B. SE5 Scout as a land plane, the interplane struts fittings  were simply by using ball joints. The balls mounted on the wing fixings , the struts ends were remodelled to take the cups.

 

The ends of struts were refashioned to enable the plastic cup to fit snugly, a short brass thread was screwed in to the cup, the strut ends were then drilled  to take that threaded brass , and all was epoxied in. To cover the epoxy, self hadhesive aluminium tape was added to givn the appearance of metalled ends .

 

Never did fail   

[Tim Mackey]

I had another thought about my idea of using locked pins - and thsi also affects your idea of the ball joints, and that is..... do the interplane struts not have to be secured firmly in order to help maintain the wings correct incidence and stagger? I guess theoretically the cabanes should achieve this, but somehow, looking at the problems with mine so far, and the rather flimsy overall setup, I doubt they would

This leaves me thinking that I may just have to struggle at the field and use the supplied screws and locknuts done up nice and tight

[Danny Fenton]

Hi Timbo, I am just restoring a demolished pupeteer for another club member and he has similar issues to you over assembly and disassembly at the field. He has asked me to chop the fuselage in half just behind the cockpit, which I have done. Therefore the wings can remain rigged and attached. I know you have a nice film covering on the dromaderie so you may not want to go this route but it has worked really well on the pupeteer. Just thought i would mention it.

Cheers

Danny

[Tim Mackey]

Hmmm...sounds a bit drastic, but an interesting thought.

I could also leave the rest of the fus off and use it for combat wing action then too!

Not.

[Tim Mackey]

Right back to these bloomin wings and struts.

I think I am there - or at least near as I am likely to ever get it. I spent all day adjusting the length of, and  setting up the interplanes to ensure an even "gap" and stagger across the top wing /bottom wing. Then I fitted the one and only cabane strut that did not attempt to twist the wing out of alignment, and filled in the holes in the remaining three cabane aluminium fixing tabs using my "tecno-weld" aluminium brazing gear.

Heres one with the first hole filled in and fliled off flat.

After cutting and filing away portions of the tabs, bending them,and also adjusting the slots into which they fit down the fus sides, I fitted the struts in place ( NOT bolted to the fus as yet ) and bolted them to the top wing. I then marked a dot  through from the outside of the  captive nuts onto the newly filled metal tabs. I then removed the struts again, and re-drilled the correct sized holes for the fixing screws through the newly formed aluminium fillets. I levelled the fuselage ( laterally...across the beam as it were )

 

....and checked the top wing for level.

First by Mk1 eyeball ( mine is pretty good actually )

 

And then by spirit level

Not absolutely spot on.... but not bad I think ? Yes the wing halves bows up ever so slightly in the middle, but its not as yet permanently glued together at the root

 

I finally checked the stagger again, and its about 1/4 " out at the extreme of span ( 61" ) so again...I can live with that  -after all I am sure in flight, things are going to flex and move at least that much from dead centre anyway.

Now I can mark everything for reference, unbolt everything and secure all the wing tabs and cabanes "permanently". Then I shall be cracking on with the loudspeaker housing and fitting the tail feathers etc.

When the sound system gets returned to me from the photographer, I will be doing some bench testing to familiarise myself with it all.

Phew... what should have taken about 45 minutes to accomplish has taken me several days or more of considerable aggro.

Onwards and hopefully ...upwards

 

Edited By Timbo - Moderator on 01/09/2009 16:31:08

[Tim Mackey]

Well that was a huge waste of time Having thought that I had finally sorted my wing geometry out I assembled and glued the tailplane up, set it level with the levelled top wing ( as per instructiuons as this is flat compared to the lower which has dihedral) and glued it all up. Then I double checked AGAIN that the wings were both staggered, and "gapped" equally along each span. To my dismay, I found that no matter what way I set up the cabanes and interplanes again, there was no way that things were equal. Out of sheer frustration I removed the bottom wing, undid all struts again, and set the fuselage up dead level in both axis ( a two way spirit level was set across the top decking base area of the fuse ). With all jigged flat and level, I placed the top wing onto the cabanes, and with a few packing washers here and there, got IT sitting square and level also across the beam. I then attached 2 X exactly equal lengths of string with a weight at one end, to the top wing in the same place, well outboard on each half panel, and let gravity do the rest.

I then refixed the bottom wing ( 2 halves ) back on the fuse. This is held and jigged for incidence with a large metal main spar, which is glued into one panel tube that is already fixed permanently in place at the factory...at a preset dihedral angle.

The other panel has a corresponding tube onto which the panel then slides. The spar fits right through a preset and factory fixed G/F tube across the fus.

Two smaller metal tubes - ( permanently fixed at the factory ) towards the rear of the root set the incidence.

 

With no interplanes yet attached, I figured that this should result in the two strings touching the lower panels in the same place and at the same length.

Horrors ! - they were around 3/4" of an inch different...somehow the dihedral angle of one panel is way out from its partner.

To confirm the theory, I removed the lower wings, joined them with the spar, and set the spar centre section level,  across a levelled and flat surface. I then used a set square to check the measurements at two fixed points...one on each panel. Sure enough one panel sits 20 mm higher than the other, when the main spar joiner is exactly level across the board.

You can tell there is something wrong, just by eyeballing it TBH - a couple of the photos are not as sharp as they could be ...but you get the idea .

Now I need an answer as to how to work around it, and pray that the tailplane will not end up too far off compared to the wings. I didnt check the geometry of the lower wing panels until now, as I obviously expected the factory fitted dihedral tubes etc to be correct..I also dont see an easy way to rectify this - but then again, I am blinded by frustration and anger currently. I am contemplating ignoring the fuselage levels, and just fixing the lower wings in place, and then "rotating everything" to end up with an equal distance of wing tip to floor as it were... and then setting the top wing to be even with that.... IYSWIM. My worry then is that the tailplane will be way off to the wing. Arrgh!

Hangar 9 are off my list of desirable ARTFs

 

 

You can see even in this shot below, that the R/H panel is way higher than the left.

 

 

This last rather blurry shot shows me using the set square to confirm the measurements - a full 20mm higher on the righ panel at the point shown by the position of the square...even worse of course at the tips.

[ken anderson.]

timbo-looks like the wing is ok-think your house is not level(joke)...do you not think the camel should be sent back to where it came from for your dosh back-seems as if it's not fit for the purpose etc..............

 

       ken anderson.........

[Tim Mackey]

'Fraid its past that stage Ken. Its part of a magazine review, and besides, I have had it for almost 3 years, but never started until recently for various reasons, AND have already done the other mods as detailed earlier.

I have emailed a contact in Horizon Hobbies, and await his comments....although hold out little hope.

Edited By Timbo - Moderator on 06/09/2009 18:12:40

[Danny Fenton]

Timbo, I would rip the covering off mate and allow yourself access to sort this. The models I have had trouble with are the ones I have not had a hand in building, whether thats ARTF or somebody else has built it. In the end I have always had to strip it back and do it again I am afraid.

 

Hangar 9 are off my list too now.....

[ken anderson.]

looks like an early run of the camel-hope the later ones are sorted timbo-never mind your in the same boat as me(retired)so when all the lads join the rat race tommorow we'll have all the time in the world to put things right..............just read your post re:-your spitfire....now that is impressive....well done....

 

    ken anderson..........

[Tim Mackey]

Hi Danny - you are so right mate.Give me a good plan and some wood, or a plan pack type model like the good ol Chriss Foss stuff anyday.... built many over the years - every one a good un - and my record is a complete Acrowot finished and maidened over 36 hours.

ARTF ? As an old clubmate used to say... Almost Ready To Fail

 

I will await and see what HH have to say first, but I am thinking you may be right.

The next stupid problem will then be trying to match up and source their particular covering - these sort of things become a real pain when one no longer has a decent model shop outside a hundred mile round trip.

[Danny Fenton]

I wouldn't try and match it, rip it all off and then you can do what you like. I must say I am not too keen on the gloss finish anyway.

 

Keep your chin up, it will be a winner in the end. Acrowot in 36 hours eh?   Mmmm a challenge me thinks, single handed I assume not a team effort??

 

Maybe that should be the task at next years GMAC electric do, teams arrive on Friday afternoon and fly just before the raffle is drawn on Sunday, winning team gets to share a sticky bun  But they cannot build during flying session........ good use for our nice big club marquee......

 

 

Cheers

Danny

[ken anderson.]

36 hour's-we had a new member a few years ago-who in his enthusiasm-had been up all night building a wot 4-he asked several people if they would test fly it-all refused-pointing out that the glue and all the rest wouldn't have had time to go off.......he eventually found someone who tried it out-it lasted about two/three day's before he wrote it off...then off to get another and another.after about 6 months we never seen him again.............come to think back he looked like a young timbo??.........

 

           ken anderson...... 

Edited By ken anderson. on 06/09/2009 20:02:01

[andy watson]

You might want a few extra batteries Timbo- you are a bit out on the speed:

 

Performance Data of the Sopwith Camel
Type	fighter
Engine	130 hp Clerget
Wing Span	28 ft (8.53 m)
Length	18 ft 9 in (5.72 m)
Height	8 ft 6 in (2.59 m)
Maximum Speed	115 mph (185 kph)
Maximum Height	19,000 ft (5,774 m)
Endurance	2 hours 30 minutes
Armament	2 machine-guns

[Dusty]

Tim I understand the frustration, these camels are not cheap by ARTF standards! If you strip the glossy covering, do you surgery and then old school covering and paint it with a matt finnish, you wouldnt even know it was a artf? my 2p, dont loose hope

[Tim Mackey]

Thanks  Andy.. I have revised the power, and decided, that because it still balanced ( on mock up ) tail heavy, to add another pair of cells making her a 12 cell model. ( 6s 2p )

I have amended my initial posts to suit

Right , back to the wings. I have bitten the bullet and hacked off  some covering as I cant afford the time to wait for a response from HH as this is part of a review for the mag of the sound system being fitted.

I doubt HH would have come up with much help anyway

Interesting.... The tube into which the main metal spar rod fits is a rolled fibreglass tube, poorly glued into place through a couple of ribs and supporting blocks. However, it does not protude far into the wing, and worst of all, after I managed to remove the spar which was glued in place inside the tube, it was obvious that the f/g tube was poorly made.

Hardly any resin, and very thin...it easily broke away as I tried to release it from the spars 

You can see the tube in the pictures below, including the unrolled tube section which simply broke away with a little effort - you can see how dry it is ...hardly any resin impregnated it at all...they may have well just used a paper tube!

 

My plan is now to make up a replacement tube -I shall wrap some cling film around the spar, then roll some FG matting tightly around it, layering with resin, and build up the thickness and strength accordingly.

I will then ream out oversize the holes in the ribs that this original tube fitted in, but make the innermost hole elongated to allow the new tube to protrude at a different angle, resulting in less dihedral...to match the good wing. 

Then, I shall glue the good wing to the spar and set it all up on the level again,and take measurements of the dihedral on that wing. Then I will slip the new tube over the spar, apply some epoxy to the outer surface of the tube and fix in place with some magic tape to hold it temporarily. Then the repaired wing will be slid onto the spar tube and propped up and held at the correct angle of dihedral to match the other panel.

This should, hopefully, then result in a matched pair of wing panels with equal dihedral with reference to a level positioned spar. Reparing the covering should be relatively painless, as I chose to go in from below, and its a grey coloured film, and I have some monkote that is a close match...and its underneath after all.

Comments ?

Edited By Timbo - Moderator on 06/09/2009 23:47:16