Oh, take that out of the air immediately, it has no business flying anymore. Only !:1 scale reproductions should be flown and not any of these ugly sub-scale ones, god what a waste of materials.
@ChicaWolverina where you talking about? this is an original ww1 plane.. not reproduction.. and what is wrong with flyign a reproduction? you know how happy i could be if i actually have the option to evver fly 1? go troll somehwere else >:C
@pongboy1100 What are you projecting about, you didn't even bother to consider what I told you, instead you are projecting nonsense about things that you know form nothing!
@pisky lowe ok, i can accept that and because a more modern radial engine i suppose it handles far superior and throttle control would be superb. i have always enjoyed botrh the camel and the pup having bulit flying models of both.
I know where a Sopwith Camel is just sitting out in the weather rotting away. Very sad. I'd like to shoot the guy. A World War 1 plane rotting away out in the weather. Unfortunately i don't have the money to save it and its thousands of miles away from me. And its probably not for sale. I wish I could raise enough money just to send the guy to build a tin shed at least over it to protect it from the elements.
@cobrachoppergirl Hard to believe someone with your moniker would even know a Camel to lay eyes on it. Do the vintage aircraft fraternity a huge service and divulge the location of what would surely be a major find. If it is indeed a real Camel. Stranger things have happened, I must admit.
Its gyroscopic forces that causes a Camel to dive when turning right , and climb when turning left ! NOT centrifugal , and NOT torque either ! The heavier the engine , and the faster it goes , then the greater the gyroscopic force .
@lumpy3553 I don't want to seem contentious but yes, torque is in play. Can't you visualize how that mass out front would try to "twist" the fuselage of the airplane opposite the direction of the engines rotation? Again I'm not trying to be a know-it-all because I certainly don't know everything about aviation. I'm quite familiar with gyroscopic forces and the precession of gyro intruments and the need to correct them from time to time.
@SpeedyNeutrino43 . Yes I agree , there is torque present , but its an external force created by the power of the engine , air friction on the prop etc - not by the weight of the engine ( although I conceed a heavy engine may transfer more of this force direct to the airframe ). When at constant speed , the weight of the engine has very little to do with torque , but the gyroscopic forces are still strong .Interesting discussion - thanks
@lumpy3553 Something interesting that you might want to investigate is an effect called P factor......it involves the phenomenon of asymmetric thrust when a wing and propeller is at a high angle of attack such as one encounters when climbing or descending. I struggled to understand this when I was a student pilot because I knew that the FAA designee or check pilot might ask me about this during the oral part of the exam. Fortunately for me he didn't. I had dodged a bullet. whew.
@lumpy3553 Not to belabor the subject but If I could take you for a ride and demonstrate "slow flight" you could see the effects of P factor and torque at Vmc, the slowest speed at which you have control of the aircraft...it requires massive right rudder inputs to control the effects of a counterclockwise rotating propeller at very slow airspeed, around 60 mph in a Cessna 172. Student pilots are required to hold a steady heading, say 090 degrees, which is east, when demonstrating slow flight.
@SpeedyNeutrino43 I have done some basic flight training , including stalls and spin recovery , but I must confess Ive not heard of P factor . Must google it . Its kind of a side topic however , as this force will be present in all single engine aircraft , therefore is not the one that causes a Camel to handle so bad . There is a cool video here on utube called " sopwith Camel and Spitfire in formation " . The guy being interviewed has more hours on a camel than any other person - ever .
@lumpy3553 You're right about the tendencies of that aircraft to either climb or dive in a turn since a gyro tends to resist changes in direction and would produce the effect you mentioned. Torque is present even when flying straight and level and I suppose was compensated for in the Camel by applying some measure of rudder to keep it on course. Thanks for the discussion which caused me to think of things I haven 't considered in many years. Thought provoking.
I've seen a few reproduction WW1 fighters and they all used radial engines instead of rotaries. I suspect that original rotary engines are scarce. As an example the radial engine design was used in many very good WW2 aircraft......the B-17, the P-47, the CH-47 and others including an aircraft that I've flown a good bit, the Stearman biplane trainer made by Boeing.
Actually it WASN'T centrifugal (note the correct spelling) that caused the tricky flight characteristics, it was the tremendous TORQUE caused by all that mass spinning around. I've been a commercial pilot for 24 years and in the ag spraying business. Even the propeller creates torque that must be corrected by rudder use on take off. I fly Grumman Ag Cats with the P & W R-985, 450 hp. engines and I'm quite accustomed to the torque steer on take off.
Sure can be- theres an orginal JN4D over at the Boeing Museum of Flight in Seattle thats had the fabric taken off so people can see how these airplanes were built. The engine is a nightmare to work on- needs overhauling every time its flown thats how unreliable they are. But yeah, it is
No you don't- the centrifical force of the engine caused many crashes and the deaths of many pilots. Its not for either the faint of heart or begining pilots- takes an expert to fly one. Pull the motor, and put in another one? It'd be sweet to fly then
The Sopwith Camel was a notoriously difficult plane to handle with a rotary engine. They probably did the right thing by repowering the aircraft with a radial engine and putting the original rotary engine in storage.
Ok, but think about the costs: Those engines are rare and expensive. To scratch build one is also not cheap. Then you need a good enough pilot to fly it without overturning it and pay him for the risk, and by doing this you also need to go through a crap load of paper-work and insurance bull because now the airplane is not as safe. Not everyone who owns these planes have deep pockets, so there are plenty of considerations. I'm just glad that there is at least one flying :)
I know what you're saying, but it's just a shame they don't get funding from other areas where they should - they have nature reserves, so in some aspects they should have an equal to the history of British aviation.
They have plenty of authentic planes from the era with real rotary engines flying around, and few accidents reported. You're just as likely to crash in a sopwith camel with a radial engine as you are with a rotary engine. Both have a rotating mass spinning one way, so you'll still have the gyroscopic forces from the engine. Without trim tabs, the effect is the same, just not as pronounced.
If rotaries were so expensive to make, you wouldn't see people building new rotaries or fixing old ones.
Out of all the aircraft built from the era how many are still flying? NOT plenty. Your average joe could not fund such a project., these planes are restored by entrepreneurs. The are flown by professionals, so I imagine few crash. Every plane deals with torque, but do Cessnas kill half of their students on takeoff? Making a right turn sends you into the ground, and a left sends you into a stall. The plane I fly does not do that.
The fact that so many pilots were killed learning to fly the Camel might say more about the lack of pilot training in the era than the aircraft they used. There were no two-seat Camels, so pilots soloed the aircraft on their first flight. In addition, in many cases the pilot recruits were fresh transfers from the trenches and had no flight experience at all. Of course, modern pilots used to flying Cessnas might not be prepared to handle the Camel's not-so-forgiving flight characteristics.
An emotional delight - fantastic!
docp1948 1 month ago
Oh, take that out of the air immediately, it has no business flying anymore. Only !:1 scale reproductions should be flown and not any of these ugly sub-scale ones, god what a waste of materials.
ChicaWolverina 2 months ago
@ChicaWolverina where you talking about? this is an original ww1 plane.. not reproduction.. and what is wrong with flyign a reproduction? you know how happy i could be if i actually have the option to evver fly 1? go troll somehwere else >:C
pongboy1100 2 months ago
@pongboy1100 What are you projecting about, you didn't even bother to consider what I told you, instead you are projecting nonsense about things that you know form nothing!
ChicaWolverina 2 months ago
Fantastic! Thanks for posting.
ejlister 4 months ago
what a beauty. dangerous if you didn't know how to fly it, but once mastered, your chances of survival were better than good.
flibideegibbit 4 months ago
Comment removed
paullubliner 8 months ago
great machine!
loreztaken 9 months ago
Very Cool
radiskull1973 9 months ago
An awesome example of a Sopwith Camel with a 160 HP rotary flies in New Zealand at the Masterton and Omaka airshows every year!
OldFokkerPilot 10 months ago
@pisky lowe ok, i can accept that and because a more modern radial engine i suppose it handles far superior and throttle control would be superb. i have always enjoyed botrh the camel and the pup having bulit flying models of both.
datzfast 10 months ago
Super duper!
Susseditout 1 year ago
This is not the only one. I have one on my MS Flight simulator :)
TheBassguitarfreak 1 year ago 2
@TheBassguitarfreak HAHA ROFL! MFS98 FTW!
Warbirdguy1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
... great sound... really restored machine... many thanks for the video....
warbirds-power.de
ColaWhiski 1 year ago
"those popping little firecrackers"
kolbpilot 1 year ago
Where is this Sopwith rotting away??? Is it in the states? UK?
datsunz280 1 year ago
I know where a Sopwith Camel is just sitting out in the weather rotting away. Very sad. I'd like to shoot the guy. A World War 1 plane rotting away out in the weather. Unfortunately i don't have the money to save it and its thousands of miles away from me. And its probably not for sale. I wish I could raise enough money just to send the guy to build a tin shed at least over it to protect it from the elements.
cobrachoppergirl 1 year ago
@cobrachoppergirl Hard to believe someone with your moniker would even know a Camel to lay eyes on it. Do the vintage aircraft fraternity a huge service and divulge the location of what would surely be a major find. If it is indeed a real Camel. Stranger things have happened, I must admit.
schlusselmensch 1 year ago
if the engine is not origional then just GTFO
Bamchucknorris 1 year ago
Well, thank goodness for Sir Peter Jackson and his Flying Circus in New Zealand.
DrLeavingsoon 1 year ago
@DrLeavingsoon lol yeah
TheWhiteOwl23 1 year ago
Sounds like a new engine inside it :\
Darbyjack 1 year ago
It sounds like it has a modern radial in it.
vigcs 1 year ago
if this is the "last" Camel then why was i seeing another flying camel with different markings flying in formation with a Spitfire?
EnterpriseXI 1 year ago
Its gyroscopic forces that causes a Camel to dive when turning right , and climb when turning left ! NOT centrifugal , and NOT torque either ! The heavier the engine , and the faster it goes , then the greater the gyroscopic force .
lumpy3553 1 year ago
@lumpy3553
*Pins a gold star on Lumpy's forehead right in the middle* OK, fine, you got a gold star for the day!
MrTrailltrader 1 year ago
@lumpy3553 I don't want to seem contentious but yes, torque is in play. Can't you visualize how that mass out front would try to "twist" the fuselage of the airplane opposite the direction of the engines rotation? Again I'm not trying to be a know-it-all because I certainly don't know everything about aviation. I'm quite familiar with gyroscopic forces and the precession of gyro intruments and the need to correct them from time to time.
SpeedyNeutrino43 1 year ago
@SpeedyNeutrino43 . Yes I agree , there is torque present , but its an external force created by the power of the engine , air friction on the prop etc - not by the weight of the engine ( although I conceed a heavy engine may transfer more of this force direct to the airframe ). When at constant speed , the weight of the engine has very little to do with torque , but the gyroscopic forces are still strong .Interesting discussion - thanks
lumpy3553 1 year ago
@lumpy3553 Something interesting that you might want to investigate is an effect called P factor......it involves the phenomenon of asymmetric thrust when a wing and propeller is at a high angle of attack such as one encounters when climbing or descending. I struggled to understand this when I was a student pilot because I knew that the FAA designee or check pilot might ask me about this during the oral part of the exam. Fortunately for me he didn't. I had dodged a bullet. whew.
SpeedyNeutrino43 1 year ago
@lumpy3553 Not to belabor the subject but If I could take you for a ride and demonstrate "slow flight" you could see the effects of P factor and torque at Vmc, the slowest speed at which you have control of the aircraft...it requires massive right rudder inputs to control the effects of a counterclockwise rotating propeller at very slow airspeed, around 60 mph in a Cessna 172. Student pilots are required to hold a steady heading, say 090 degrees, which is east, when demonstrating slow flight.
SpeedyNeutrino43 1 year ago
@SpeedyNeutrino43 I have done some basic flight training , including stalls and spin recovery , but I must confess Ive not heard of P factor . Must google it . Its kind of a side topic however , as this force will be present in all single engine aircraft , therefore is not the one that causes a Camel to handle so bad . There is a cool video here on utube called " sopwith Camel and Spitfire in formation " . The guy being interviewed has more hours on a camel than any other person - ever .
lumpy3553 1 year ago
@lumpy3553 it is hard to handle cuz of a rotary engine and most of the weight is at the front
Kopihucky 1 year ago
@lumpy3553 You're right about the tendencies of that aircraft to either climb or dive in a turn since a gyro tends to resist changes in direction and would produce the effect you mentioned. Torque is present even when flying straight and level and I suppose was compensated for in the Camel by applying some measure of rudder to keep it on course. Thanks for the discussion which caused me to think of things I haven 't considered in many years. Thought provoking.
SpeedyNeutrino43 1 year ago
I've seen a few reproduction WW1 fighters and they all used radial engines instead of rotaries. I suspect that original rotary engines are scarce. As an example the radial engine design was used in many very good WW2 aircraft......the B-17, the P-47, the CH-47 and others including an aircraft that I've flown a good bit, the Stearman biplane trainer made by Boeing.
SpeedyNeutrino43 1 year ago
@SpeedyNeutrino43
You are right in their rarity. I saw a Gnome on Ebay for 35,000 about,,,Febuary 2010ish.
MrTrailltrader 1 year ago
Incidentally, add the word "FORCE" after the word "CENTRIFUGAL" Even I make mistakes...lol not often though.
SpeedyNeutrino43 1 year ago
Actually it WASN'T centrifugal (note the correct spelling) that caused the tricky flight characteristics, it was the tremendous TORQUE caused by all that mass spinning around. I've been a commercial pilot for 24 years and in the ag spraying business. Even the propeller creates torque that must be corrected by rudder use on take off. I fly Grumman Ag Cats with the P & W R-985, 450 hp. engines and I'm quite accustomed to the torque steer on take off.
SpeedyNeutrino43 1 year ago
Comment removed
lumpy3553 1 year ago
This Camel has the wrong engine.
SteveD328 1 year ago
This can't be an original can it?
microjetmad 1 year ago
@microjetmad
Sure can be- theres an orginal JN4D over at the Boeing Museum of Flight in Seattle thats had the fabric taken off so people can see how these airplanes were built. The engine is a nightmare to work on- needs overhauling every time its flown thats how unreliable they are. But yeah, it is
MrTrailltrader 1 year ago
the rhinebeck aerodome in new york has 1 sopwith camel and it runs great and flys great!
decoysk 1 year ago
good video thank you!!
wwmb43 1 year ago
Wow you think there would be more than one flying in europe, In Australia i think theres 2 and i think theres 1 or 2 in New Zealand
spitfireMK22 1 year ago
I want a Sopwith Camel
Espresso337 1 year ago 2
@Espresso337
No you don't- the centrifical force of the engine caused many crashes and the deaths of many pilots. Its not for either the faint of heart or begining pilots- takes an expert to fly one. Pull the motor, and put in another one? It'd be sweet to fly then
MrTrailltrader 1 year ago
@MrTrailltrader yeah if the motors that much of a freak i'd get a new one but oh wel guess i don't want one :D
Espresso337 1 year ago
wow. Wow! WOW!!!!!!!!! Thank you so much for putting this on! Amazing!
SpudIllusionPictures 2 years ago
The guys try well though.
Authentic can be a bit difficult .
biggles106 2 years ago
That doesn't sound like a Gnome rotary engine.
jerrymail 2 years ago
on which engine runs this plane? Doesn't sound like the original one that has blip switch and a particular mechanism for throttling.
13Filmrisse 2 years ago
does it still fly now, does anyone know?
phimichael 2 years ago
The Sopwith Camel was a notoriously difficult plane to handle with a rotary engine. They probably did the right thing by repowering the aircraft with a radial engine and putting the original rotary engine in storage.
alterman156 2 years ago
that camel has entirely the wrong engine on it.
SteveD328 2 years ago
Considering its pricelessness I don't think they would attach a real rotary engine and risk losing the plane.
RomanatorII 2 years ago
True, but it's just not the same really.
It's like powering a Spitfire with a Turbo-Prop engine in comparison to age, it doesn't seem right.
The other Sopwith Camel in the video has a fully operating rotary engine...
mrrmancunian 2 years ago
Ok, but think about the costs: Those engines are rare and expensive. To scratch build one is also not cheap. Then you need a good enough pilot to fly it without overturning it and pay him for the risk, and by doing this you also need to go through a crap load of paper-work and insurance bull because now the airplane is not as safe. Not everyone who owns these planes have deep pockets, so there are plenty of considerations. I'm just glad that there is at least one flying :)
RomanatorII 2 years ago
I know what you're saying, but it's just a shame they don't get funding from other areas where they should - they have nature reserves, so in some aspects they should have an equal to the history of British aviation.
But I'm glad they fly too.
mrrmancunian 2 years ago
They have plenty of authentic planes from the era with real rotary engines flying around, and few accidents reported. You're just as likely to crash in a sopwith camel with a radial engine as you are with a rotary engine. Both have a rotating mass spinning one way, so you'll still have the gyroscopic forces from the engine. Without trim tabs, the effect is the same, just not as pronounced.
If rotaries were so expensive to make, you wouldn't see people building new rotaries or fixing old ones.
GGigabiteM 2 years ago
Out of all the aircraft built from the era how many are still flying? NOT plenty. Your average joe could not fund such a project., these planes are restored by entrepreneurs. The are flown by professionals, so I imagine few crash. Every plane deals with torque, but do Cessnas kill half of their students on takeoff? Making a right turn sends you into the ground, and a left sends you into a stall. The plane I fly does not do that.
RomanatorII 2 years ago
The fact that so many pilots were killed learning to fly the Camel might say more about the lack of pilot training in the era than the aircraft they used. There were no two-seat Camels, so pilots soloed the aircraft on their first flight. In addition, in many cases the pilot recruits were fresh transfers from the trenches and had no flight experience at all. Of course, modern pilots used to flying Cessnas might not be prepared to handle the Camel's not-so-forgiving flight characteristics.
singleproppilot 2 years ago
Beautiful. Wish I had been there
jonsvba 2 years ago