Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
10-14-2006, 08:45 AM
#52
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: , IN
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
Mike,
Thanks. If I get my prop from Master Airscrew before the snow comes and can fly the plane I'll report how it flies. I just won't fly it with a plastic prop or one that looks like it was swiped from a Piper Cub.
Regards,
Fred
Thanks. If I get my prop from Master Airscrew before the snow comes and can fly the plane I'll report how it flies. I just won't fly it with a plastic prop or one that looks like it was swiped from a Piper Cub.
Regards,
Fred
10-14-2006, 07:27 PM
#54
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: , NC
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
For those who may be interested, I've found a bit of history on the Sopwith Camel by Hanger 9. This particular model, F2137 was piloted by Donald MacLaren. Here are some links that I have found which provide some history on MacLaren:
http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/w1/tc/tmc32camel.htm
http://www.rapcan.ca/emailnews/links...en-article.htm
http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/canada/maclaren.php
I hope that you find this useful.
http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/w1/tc/tmc32camel.htm
http://www.rapcan.ca/emailnews/links...en-article.htm
http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/canada/maclaren.php
I hope that you find this useful.
10-15-2006, 08:13 PM
#55
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
Time to attach the wings.
The top wing halves are epoxied together
The bottom wing slides onto a tube and holes are drilled and tapped. Then the top wing is mounted. At the same time, they suggest doing the flying wires.
The instructions on page 28 talk about a long and short end strut, but they say to put the short strut on the LE AND the TE side. I found that the short one needs to go in front.
The top wing halves are epoxied together
The bottom wing slides onto a tube and holes are drilled and tapped. Then the top wing is mounted. At the same time, they suggest doing the flying wires.
The instructions on page 28 talk about a long and short end strut, but they say to put the short strut on the LE AND the TE side. I found that the short one needs to go in front.
10-17-2006, 11:56 AM
#56
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: bakersfield, CA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
I BOUGHT THE CAMEL 3-WEEKS AGO TOOK IT OUT LAST SUNDAY THE 15TH . WITH A SAITO-FA91 ONE THING I LEARNED WAS BE SURE TO SECURE THE WING WIRES [ THREAD LOCK OR EPOXY I SUPPOSE] AND THE OTHER IS BE SURE TO ADD PLENTY OF LED TO THE NOSE. YES I DID BALANCE IT AS PER DIRECTIONS BUT IT WAS STILL A HAND FULL FOR ME ANYWAY. I'LL GO OUT AGAIN THIS WEEKEND WITH MORE LED AND TAKE ANOTHER CRACK AT IT. IT LOOKS GREAT IN THE AIR. ARIZONAMODELS.COM HAS SOME NICE LOOKING SPOKE WHEELS I'D LIKE TO PUT ON IT A LITTLE SPINDY THOUGH. IN MY OPINION THIS MODEL IS A PEACH FOR THE MONEY.
10-17-2006, 02:22 PM
#58
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
I finally ran into the problem that everyone else was having - Missing brackets
I just got some electrical connectors and bolted them in place. Then I soldered some 1/32" wire between them.
And would you believe I still had to add 2oz of lead to the nose to get it to balance? And at that, the CG still doesn't look perfect, but I'll try it there for starters
I just got some electrical connectors and bolted them in place. Then I soldered some 1/32" wire between them.
And would you believe I still had to add 2oz of lead to the nose to get it to balance? And at that, the CG still doesn't look perfect, but I'll try it there for starters
10-17-2006, 10:55 PM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Malaysia, MALAYSIA
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
you still need 4oz! with G20? What is that hunk of lead weight like from H9?
I can tell you one thing though, you will love this engine power. Its a lot more stronger than 91 2c glow. I say in the upper range of 120 4c glow..... while sipping fuel ever so miserly!
I can tell you one thing though, you will love this engine power. Its a lot more stronger than 91 2c glow. I say in the upper range of 120 4c glow..... while sipping fuel ever so miserly!
10-18-2006, 12:26 AM
#60
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Jacksonville,
FL
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
ORIGINAL: MinnFlyer
Got the tail feathers in place, and the radio installed. No problems anywhere
Got the tail feathers in place, and the radio installed. No problems anywhere
One thing I thought worth mentioning, in the photo showing the elevator horn installation, the horn on the right in the picture is a little crooked. The angle it makes with the pushrod clevis is probably going to pop that clevis open in flight sooner or later. You may want to either straighten the horn or make sure you use a piece of fuel tube over the clevis to hold it closed.
Rick
10-18-2006, 07:43 AM
#62
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
Magna, My mistake, sort of... I added 2 oz, not 4. However, I did the maiden flight last night. First flight was scary to say the least - It was still a little tail-heavy, but I got it down in one piece.
I added another two ounces, so NOW I have a total of 4oz in the nose and that seems to have done the trick. I also used an 18x6 Pro Zinger prop on the maiden, but it was too much pull. After adding the extra weight, I propped down to an APC 16x4w. I also added some 1/16" shims to the top of the engine to give it a little down thrust.
This is still a lot of engine for this plane. I think it would fly very scale with something in the 50 4-stroke range, however, I was glad I had the extra power on at least one of the take-offs [X(]
As for flying, it took me a little while to get used to it. I'm used to "Point-and-go" airplanes, where they go wherever you point them. But the Camel is a true "Aeroplane". More throttle means more altitude, less throttle and it descends. And due to the HUGE wing and tiny fuse, coordinated turns were often needed - not every time, but there were definitely a few times (Especially going down-wind) when it just didn't want to swing the tail around.
After the first pass of the field, I wasn't too pleased. I thought, "This thing just doesn't go where it should". But then I realized, "This is flying in its purest sense"
It's almost like flying a kite with an engine. Add throttle, and watch it climb. Pull the throttle back, and watch how the drag of those big wings slow it down.
My first few landing attempts were almost disastrous. I was starting far too low. It took me about 3 bad landings to get the feel for how high I needed to start, but once I got a handle on it, I was having a ball!
Bring her up high on base leg, turn to final and chop the throttle, then just let the nose drop and let her sink in. A flair at the end produced a nice 3-point landing every time.
One thing I realized is that it does NOT like cross-wing take offs. I didn't even attempt a cross-wind landing.
And BTW, Like Magna said, the G-20 is one SWEET engine. It's more power than this plane needs, but this is the second plane I've used it on, and I just love it!
Also, this is another one of those planes where I say, "Don't be afraid to add weight"
Many people have that notion where they absolutely despise adding dead weight, but believe me, this thing has such a huge wing, you could add a coffee table to it and it would still fly!
I added another two ounces, so NOW I have a total of 4oz in the nose and that seems to have done the trick. I also used an 18x6 Pro Zinger prop on the maiden, but it was too much pull. After adding the extra weight, I propped down to an APC 16x4w. I also added some 1/16" shims to the top of the engine to give it a little down thrust.
This is still a lot of engine for this plane. I think it would fly very scale with something in the 50 4-stroke range, however, I was glad I had the extra power on at least one of the take-offs [X(]
As for flying, it took me a little while to get used to it. I'm used to "Point-and-go" airplanes, where they go wherever you point them. But the Camel is a true "Aeroplane". More throttle means more altitude, less throttle and it descends. And due to the HUGE wing and tiny fuse, coordinated turns were often needed - not every time, but there were definitely a few times (Especially going down-wind) when it just didn't want to swing the tail around.
After the first pass of the field, I wasn't too pleased. I thought, "This thing just doesn't go where it should". But then I realized, "This is flying in its purest sense"
It's almost like flying a kite with an engine. Add throttle, and watch it climb. Pull the throttle back, and watch how the drag of those big wings slow it down.
My first few landing attempts were almost disastrous. I was starting far too low. It took me about 3 bad landings to get the feel for how high I needed to start, but once I got a handle on it, I was having a ball!
Bring her up high on base leg, turn to final and chop the throttle, then just let the nose drop and let her sink in. A flair at the end produced a nice 3-point landing every time.
One thing I realized is that it does NOT like cross-wing take offs. I didn't even attempt a cross-wind landing.
And BTW, Like Magna said, the G-20 is one SWEET engine. It's more power than this plane needs, but this is the second plane I've used it on, and I just love it!
Also, this is another one of those planes where I say, "Don't be afraid to add weight"
Many people have that notion where they absolutely despise adding dead weight, but believe me, this thing has such a huge wing, you could add a coffee table to it and it would still fly!
10-18-2006, 07:25 PM
#64
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
Hard to say. I got about 7 short flights (Several just take off, one circuit, landing) and I didn't refuel it or defuel it (It was cold, I just threw it in the car and went home)
And I don't have to take it apart to get it in the car, so I didn't see the tank.
But I can say this: I have used this engine before, and after flying (what I would consider) a normal flight - where I would expect to have 1/4 or so tank of fuel left, I had more than half of a tank leftover.
So this little engine is very economic
And I don't have to take it apart to get it in the car, so I didn't see the tank.
But I can say this: I have used this engine before, and after flying (what I would consider) a normal flight - where I would expect to have 1/4 or so tank of fuel left, I had more than half of a tank leftover.
So this little engine is very economic
10-19-2006, 12:50 AM
#65
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: , IN
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
Okay guys, here’s the flight report for my Hangar 9 Camel. It was flown last Sunday and I actually wrote this report Sunday evening but for some reason it “timed out†because I either took too long or something glitched. The thing that pissed me off the most is that there was no way to retrieve what I had written and it was rather lengthy. WAY TO GO RC UNIVERSE!
The RC field where I flew it was the Johnson County (Indiana ) Atterbury RC field, which is open to the public, and which is maintained wonderfully by The Johnson County Fliers and the Johnson County Park folks. Everything considered, it has to be one of the nicest fields in the country and its caretakers should be applauded. It has an approximately 800 foot paved strip with an at least 8 acre mowed grass field on the far side of the paved strip. The winds were light and straight down the runway but I opted to go over to the grass for my first flight because (1) I wanted to be as far away from the strip, shelter house and parking lot as possible with this new, and yet untried nortoriously unstable airplane, and (2) narrow geared, twitchy WWI type aircraft do better on grass.
I with the assistance of my friend and crewman, Tom Maroney, I fueled it up and then lit the RCV .91 which initially ran a little rough then settled down into a nice run. I let it run for about ten minutes and noticed that the unsecured flying wire turnbuckles were loosening up from the vibration.I shut it down and secured them with scotch tape and restarted the engine. Though several club members were working on the shelter house no one was at the strip and I mentioned that this was a first flight and I was going to use the grass and fly the plane from the far side of the pavement.
(I later was admonished for a breech of the “CLUB†rules in that I didn’t stand in a pit area square IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT NO ONE ELSE WAS FLYING. When this was brought to my attention I stated that before I flew I had said that I was going to fly from over in the grass and no one said anything. My concern was for the safety of those guys, and their cars, but also my new airplane. When prudent judgement is prevented from functioning by blind obedience to general rules people get hurt and stuff gets broken. I can see that when many people are using a facility rules need to be enforced. But I was there by myself AND NO ONE ELSE WAS USING THE FIELD. I later discovered that the complaining individual is the safety officer for that club and the guy who revealed that to me stated the he quit the club exactly because of his heavy handed, tactless, approach to matters such as the mine. The sad part of it is that if enough people are driven away from the site that kind of posturing the county will deem that there are better uses for the area and another flying site will bite the dust.)
With the engine running smoothly (other than the idle was set too low ) Tom carried it out to the grass and aimed it into the wind. Holding a little back pressure on the elevator I smoothly added power. Some slight rudder input was applied to keep it straight and it lifted off into a very straight but rather steep climb. I added several click of down elevator trim and began my circuits of the field. Response on low rates to all controls was crisp and immediate. I slowed it down and tried my snap roll button and to my surprise a momentary flick of that switch did not result in a complete snap roll but only about a half snap. A complete snap roll required holding the switch down for about a half second. Loops, rolls, snaps, Immelmanns, all were text book and it could have been an advanced trainer instead of a model of the trickiest aircraft of its era. I then turned on the aileron/rudder (50%) mixer and it flew EVEN BETTER.
I the heard an engine fire up in the pits and decided it was time to vacate the field to allow someone else to use it (actually it was the guy who had quit the club because of the “safety Officerâ€). I cut the power to about 15 % ( the most power I used was not more than about 70% as the engine has so much reserve) and began my downwind, base and final approach. As it slowed it gave no indication of tip stalling and was very stable in all axes. Across the threshold I slowed the engine for a flair and when it about 3 feet off the ground the too low idle killed the engine, so I was committed to land. The flair was straight forward with again no tendency to for a tip stall. The touch down was a perfect 3 point landing and the rollout was straight. At the very end of the rollout it went up on the nose but it didn’t go over on its back and nothing was damaged. It is, after all, a Camel and that reaction is very prototypical for narrow gear, short coupled aircraft.
Reactions: As was said It flew like and advanced trainer and was incredibly smooth in all the controls. I think moving all the servos forward from their recommended stations, putting the battery in the weight box above the engine and reducing the diameter of the pushrod wires for smooth controls all added to a very pleasant flying, relatively light aircraft. In setting up the rigging to create washout I think that any potential tip stalling was prevented. Though it’s suppose to fly well without the rigging, mine will never fly without it as the washout is not built in the wings. Hangar 9 can be very proud of their product. It is my 2nd Hangar 9 ARF ( I have a 15 year old Cub) and undoubtedly the finest ARF I have ever flown. My admiration for the RCV .91 just could not be higher. It’s a great running, smooth, powerful engine which completely fits within the cowling and is perfect for the Camel. After all, it IS a British engine.
The RC field where I flew it was the Johnson County (Indiana ) Atterbury RC field, which is open to the public, and which is maintained wonderfully by The Johnson County Fliers and the Johnson County Park folks. Everything considered, it has to be one of the nicest fields in the country and its caretakers should be applauded. It has an approximately 800 foot paved strip with an at least 8 acre mowed grass field on the far side of the paved strip. The winds were light and straight down the runway but I opted to go over to the grass for my first flight because (1) I wanted to be as far away from the strip, shelter house and parking lot as possible with this new, and yet untried nortoriously unstable airplane, and (2) narrow geared, twitchy WWI type aircraft do better on grass.
I with the assistance of my friend and crewman, Tom Maroney, I fueled it up and then lit the RCV .91 which initially ran a little rough then settled down into a nice run. I let it run for about ten minutes and noticed that the unsecured flying wire turnbuckles were loosening up from the vibration.I shut it down and secured them with scotch tape and restarted the engine. Though several club members were working on the shelter house no one was at the strip and I mentioned that this was a first flight and I was going to use the grass and fly the plane from the far side of the pavement.
(I later was admonished for a breech of the “CLUB†rules in that I didn’t stand in a pit area square IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT NO ONE ELSE WAS FLYING. When this was brought to my attention I stated that before I flew I had said that I was going to fly from over in the grass and no one said anything. My concern was for the safety of those guys, and their cars, but also my new airplane. When prudent judgement is prevented from functioning by blind obedience to general rules people get hurt and stuff gets broken. I can see that when many people are using a facility rules need to be enforced. But I was there by myself AND NO ONE ELSE WAS USING THE FIELD. I later discovered that the complaining individual is the safety officer for that club and the guy who revealed that to me stated the he quit the club exactly because of his heavy handed, tactless, approach to matters such as the mine. The sad part of it is that if enough people are driven away from the site that kind of posturing the county will deem that there are better uses for the area and another flying site will bite the dust.)
With the engine running smoothly (other than the idle was set too low ) Tom carried it out to the grass and aimed it into the wind. Holding a little back pressure on the elevator I smoothly added power. Some slight rudder input was applied to keep it straight and it lifted off into a very straight but rather steep climb. I added several click of down elevator trim and began my circuits of the field. Response on low rates to all controls was crisp and immediate. I slowed it down and tried my snap roll button and to my surprise a momentary flick of that switch did not result in a complete snap roll but only about a half snap. A complete snap roll required holding the switch down for about a half second. Loops, rolls, snaps, Immelmanns, all were text book and it could have been an advanced trainer instead of a model of the trickiest aircraft of its era. I then turned on the aileron/rudder (50%) mixer and it flew EVEN BETTER.
I the heard an engine fire up in the pits and decided it was time to vacate the field to allow someone else to use it (actually it was the guy who had quit the club because of the “safety Officerâ€). I cut the power to about 15 % ( the most power I used was not more than about 70% as the engine has so much reserve) and began my downwind, base and final approach. As it slowed it gave no indication of tip stalling and was very stable in all axes. Across the threshold I slowed the engine for a flair and when it about 3 feet off the ground the too low idle killed the engine, so I was committed to land. The flair was straight forward with again no tendency to for a tip stall. The touch down was a perfect 3 point landing and the rollout was straight. At the very end of the rollout it went up on the nose but it didn’t go over on its back and nothing was damaged. It is, after all, a Camel and that reaction is very prototypical for narrow gear, short coupled aircraft.
Reactions: As was said It flew like and advanced trainer and was incredibly smooth in all the controls. I think moving all the servos forward from their recommended stations, putting the battery in the weight box above the engine and reducing the diameter of the pushrod wires for smooth controls all added to a very pleasant flying, relatively light aircraft. In setting up the rigging to create washout I think that any potential tip stalling was prevented. Though it’s suppose to fly well without the rigging, mine will never fly without it as the washout is not built in the wings. Hangar 9 can be very proud of their product. It is my 2nd Hangar 9 ARF ( I have a 15 year old Cub) and undoubtedly the finest ARF I have ever flown. My admiration for the RCV .91 just could not be higher. It’s a great running, smooth, powerful engine which completely fits within the cowling and is perfect for the Camel. After all, it IS a British engine.
10-19-2006, 09:27 PM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Malaysia, MALAYSIA
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
The G20 are very fuel efficient given the power generated. I fly the H9 Showtime with G20 with an 8oz tank. 8 mins flight will aggresive throttle still left 25-30% left in the tank. I used 16x6 prop and its can hover with little punch out.
On the Camel, like Minn, 16x4W or even 17x4w will prolly be a good match given the fat round nose cowl upfront.
BTW, what is the wing area of this camel?
Minnflyer
I may have overlook, what is your all up weight like?
On the Camel, like Minn, 16x4W or even 17x4w will prolly be a good match given the fat round nose cowl upfront.
BTW, what is the wing area of this camel?
Minnflyer
I may have overlook, what is your all up weight like?
10-25-2006, 12:17 AM
#68
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Cape TownWestern Cape, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
Good morning
I'm new to this forum. I could not resist buying this plane last week. I just have one question and would appreciate any feedback.
My purpose with this plane would be to fly very scale, so I'm not too interested in putting a massive power plant up front. I went by the recommendation in the manual (.60 2-stroke or .72 to .82 4-stroke) and decided on the Saito 0.72. The good news is that this motor fits very nicely into the cowl without the need for any cut-outs.
The question that I have is: On H9 website they state .60 2-stroke or .91 4-stroke. This is different from what the manual states. I will run a 14x6 prop. Will my plane fly scale with the .72 Saito?
Thank you in advance!
I'm new to this forum. I could not resist buying this plane last week. I just have one question and would appreciate any feedback.
My purpose with this plane would be to fly very scale, so I'm not too interested in putting a massive power plant up front. I went by the recommendation in the manual (.60 2-stroke or .72 to .82 4-stroke) and decided on the Saito 0.72. The good news is that this motor fits very nicely into the cowl without the need for any cut-outs.
The question that I have is: On H9 website they state .60 2-stroke or .91 4-stroke. This is different from what the manual states. I will run a 14x6 prop. Will my plane fly scale with the .72 Saito?
Thank you in advance!
10-25-2006, 07:25 AM
#69
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
I think this plane would fly scale with as small as a 52 4-stroke. It's like flying a Kite. The wing area is so huge, and the plane is so light, that it really doesn't need much in the way of power.
One thing I will caution you on though is to make SURE it's not tail heavy! Put an anvil, a few old tires and some rocks in the nose if that's what it takes to balance it. Don't be afraid that you're adding "Too much weight" - It can take it.
One thing I will caution you on though is to make SURE it's not tail heavy! Put an anvil, a few old tires and some rocks in the nose if that's what it takes to balance it. Don't be afraid that you're adding "Too much weight" - It can take it.
10-25-2006, 12:47 PM
#70
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Cape TownWestern Cape, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
Thank you for the reply! I feel much more at ease with the whole thing now.
I will make sure that I have a lot of weight up front to get the CG correct. Only the engine (with new mounts) to go in now and I'm all set. Can't wait!
I will make sure that I have a lot of weight up front to get the CG correct. Only the engine (with new mounts) to go in now and I'm all set. Can't wait!
10-25-2006, 03:55 PM
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: beaverton, OR,
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
Just found a volunteer to pilot my H-9 Camel. He used to fly a GP-Military Stearman, but felt he is qualified tp pilot the new Camel. Have to say that H-9 did a pretty good job with this effort. Had no problems with the construction of the plane, it went together well. Only three things I had any issue with. 1). Missing cable tabs for the tail section. (They rectified that) 2). The holes pre-drilled in the fuse for the landing gear straps and tail skid did not match the holes in the retained tabs. 3). The measurements for locating the engine were for one engine...a .61 two stroke (good starting point I guess). Using their measurements located my Saito .91 FS jsut a bit too far fwd, requiring some extra cutting on the dummy engine, and having to make two relief holes for the rocker boxes. Not a real problem because this is, after all a "SPORT SCALE" airplane. Using the included ballast the plane balances at 3 15/16 "aft of leading edge of top wing ( recomended 4") Now if they had only included some good flying weather in the kit I could give a flight report, but I'll have to wait for an unusual clear dry day to find out the "rest of the story" Cliff
10-25-2006, 03:59 PM
#72
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
You think you got it bad? i not only need good weather, but I need someone to fly it while I shoot video - or someone who can shoot video while I fly it - I don't know which is tougher to find.
10-25-2006, 05:20 PM
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: beaverton, OR,
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Hangar-9 Sopwith Camel Build Thread
Well, I think I have those two prolems covered. I have a very qualified WWI Spad pilot that I feel comfortable with while I take photos, or two other folks are able to take either video or still shots. Having read two or three flight reports, I am not anticipating anything unusual for the first flight. I have flown a couple of bipes and know they handle a bit different than a mono plane. Looking fwd to some relaxing flying once the 1st flight jitters go away.