KINGSTON UNIVERSITY LONDON

Sopwith Camel Stability Analysis

An Evaluation of the Longitudinal Static Stability
Characteristics of the Sopwith F1. Camel

By
Robert Henderson
Project Supervisor: Mr. John Garcia
BEng Aircraft Engineering

APRIL 2012

(ABSTRACT)
The scope of this report in its current state covers the problem of longitudinal static
stability. For the chosen aircraft, methodologies and results are presented from developed
theories, for the case of the aircraft with controls locked (stick-fixed). Consideration has been
given on how the pitching moment is affected by tail design, as well as how the distribution of
mass affects the aircrafts longitudinal stability.
Data required for the analysis of longitudinal static stability has been gathered from a
number of sources, including the conduct of a weighing procedure in order to determine the
aircrafts centre of gravity and other dimensional data. A scale model of the aircraft was
constructed using balsa wood and experimental data was gained, relating to the aircrafts
pitching moment, from the conduct of a wind tunnel experiment using this model.
The evaluation of the aircrafts longitudinal static stability has been measured by using
two methods to determine the aircrafts static margin. Comparison was made to various values
of the neutral point resulting from contributions of the fuselage and propeller on the
longitudinal stability and a conclusion was drawn on the aircrafts longitudinal static stability,
based on the results of the analysis.

~1~
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank both Dr. Alex Ellin and my supervisor Mr.
John Garcia, who have both provided valuable guidance, advice and support
throughout this project.

I would like to express my gratitude to Steven Green of Brooklands for the assistance
and cooperation he provided in weighing the aircraft at Brooklands. My thanks to Mr.
Dave Haskell, as the weighing procedure would not have been possible without his
cooperation and approval in borrowing the weighing equipment from the aero lab.

Finally, yet importantly, I would like to thank my beloved parents who have supported
and inspired me during my academic life and encouraged me to pursue this degree.

~2~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Scope of Report ............................................................................................ 8

1.2 Longitudinal Static Stability ........................................................................ 8

2 Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 9

3 Conduct of Check Weigh & CG Calculation ......................................................... 10

3.1 Preparations for Weighing.......................................................................... 10

3.1.1 Equipment ......................................................................................... 11

3.1.2 Draining Fuel .................................................................................... 11

3.1.3 Oil ...................................................................................................... 11

3.1.4 Jacking the Aircraft .......................................................................... 12

3.1.5 Levelling the Aircraft ....................................................................... 12

3.2 Method......................................................................................................... 12

3.3 Results .......................................................................................................... 15

3.4 Determining the Centre of Gravity ............................................................ 16

3.5 Effect of CG position on Longitudinal Stability ......................................... 18

4 Construction of Scale Model ................................................................................. 20

4.1 Preparations................................................................................................ 20

4.2 Building the Fuselage Frame ..................................................................... 20

4.3 Building the Wing Frames ......................................................................... 22

4.4 Building the Tail Surfaces .......................................................................... 22

4.5 Covering the Frames .................................................................................. 23

4.6 Assembling the Model ............................................................................... 24

5 Conduct of Wind Tunnel Experiment .................................................................. 25

~3~
 5.1 Preparations................................................................................................ 25

5.2 Method........................................................................................................ 26

5.3 Results ......................................................................................................... 27

6 Analysis .................................................................................................................. 27

6.1 Evaluation of Static margin ....................................................................... 28

6.1.1 Don Stackhouse Method ................................................................ 29

6.1.2 Richard Hiscocks Method .............................................................. 32

6.1.3 Effect of Fuselage on Static Margin.................................................35

6.1.4 Effect of Propeller on Static Margin ............................................... 37

6.2 Analysis of wind tunnel data ..................................................................... 39

6.3 Possible Design Modification .................................................................... 44

7 Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................. 47

Appendix A : Wind Tunnel Data .................................................................................... 48

A.1 Wind Tunnel Data with Tail Attached...................................................... 49

A.2 Wind Tunnel Data without Tail Attached ................................................ 50

A.3 Wind Tunnel Lift Data with Tail Attached ................................................ 51

A.4 Wind Tunnel Lift Data without Tail Attached ......................................... 52

Appendix B : Sopwith F.1 Camel Measurements ............................................................53

References ......................................................................................................................... 54

~4~
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
Figure 3.1.1 - Equipment prepared ...................................................................................... 11

Figure 3.2.1 - Spirit level placed on horizontal axis .......................................................... 12

Figure 3.2.2 Load cell & blocks of wood placed on trestle to level aircraft .................. 13

Figure 3.2.3 - Load Cell Figure 3.2.4 - Load Cell Adaptor ............................................. 13

Figure 3.2.5 - Wooden blocks placed under wheel........................................................... 14

Figure 3.2.6 Scale reader ................................................................................................. 15

Table 3.3.1 - Loaded Weight Data ...................................................................................... 15

Figure 3.4.1 - Aircraft's datum line .................................................................................... 16

Figure 3.5.1 - Static Neutral Points (Kocent-Zieliski, 2011) ............................................. 19

Figure 4.1.1 - Initial Preparations ...................................................................................... 20

Figure 4.2.1 - Frame pinned and fuselage formers cemented at right angles ................. 21

Figure 4.2.2 - Frame with keel parts and fuselage formers cemented ............................. 21

Figure 4.2.3 - Fuselage with side stringers cemented....................................................... 21

Figure 4.3.1 - Top and bottom wing ................................................................................. 22

Figure 4.4.1 - Tail Surfaces and Landing Gear Struts....................................................... 22

Figure 4.5.1 - Covering the Fuselage ................................................................................. 23

Figure 4.5.2 - Covering Wing and Tail Surfaces .............................................................. 23

Figure 4.6.1 - Bottom Wing Cemented to Fuselage ......................................................... 24

Figure 4.6.2 - Final Assembly ........................................................................................... 24

Figure 5.1.1 - Attaching Support Brackets ........................................................................ 25

Figure 5.2.1 - Mounting Model in Wind Tunnel .............................................................. 26

Figure 5.2.2 - Model Mounted in Tunnel with Tail Attached ......................................... 27

Figure 6.1.1 - Sopwith F1. Camel Longitudinal Static Stability Measurements............... 30

~5~
Figure 6.1.2 - Lift Curve Slope (Hiscocks, 1995) ................................................................33

Figure 6.1.3 - Downwash Angle vs. Wing Angle (Hiscocks,1995) ................................... 34

Figure 6.1.4 - Effect of Fuselage or Nacelle on Position of NP (Etkin & Reid, 1996) ...... 36

Figure 6.1.5 - Direct Power Components (Perkins & Hage, 1949) .................................. 38

Figure 6.2.1 - Lift-Curve Slope with Tail Attached .......................................................... 40

Figure 6.2.2 - Lift-Curve Slope without Tail Attached .................................................... 40

Figure 6.2.3 - Pitching Moment Vs. Angle of Attack without Tail Attached ................. 42

Figure 6.2.4 - Pitching Moment Vs. Angle of Attack with Tail Attached ...................... 42

Figure 6.2.5 - Effect of CG Position on Cm Curve (Etkin & Reid, 1996) ......................... 43

Figure 6.3.1 - Sopwith F.1 Camel Cutaway Drawing (Pilot Press Ltd)............................. 45

~6~
1 INTRODUCTION
On the 22nd December, 1916, the first prototype of the Sopwith F.1 Camel, then
introduced as the Sopwith Biplane F.1, had been finished and tested that Christmas by
Harry Hawker at Brooklands, Weybridge in Surrey. Designed by Herbert Smith, of The
Sopwith Aviation Company, the aircraft was nicknamed the Camel due to its high
forward decking, which gave the fuselage its humped appearance. By the end of the Great
War, the Camel was considered to be the most efficient fighting scout of the war, having
shot down more enemies than any other aircraft. The Camel destroyed a total of 1,294
enemy aircraft from the first delivery in the summer of 1917 until the Armistice on
November 11, 1918 (Pudney, 1964).
The success of the Camel, however, only came to those pilots who mastered its
unpredictable behaviour in the air. Although the aircrafts success was mainly due to its
high manoeuvrability, this characteristic came hand in hand with inherent instability.
This was partly due to the gyroscopic effect of the large rotary engine fitted which gave
the aircraft a violent right pull. According to Gibson (2000), left rudder was required for
both left and right turns and the gyroscopic effect caused a departure if full power was
used over the top of a loop at too low an airspeed. Perhaps the most significant reason for
the aircrafts high manoeuvrability and instability was due to the concentration of mass
within the foremost seven feet of the fuselage. The oil tank was located immediately
behind the engine back-plate; the guns mounted directly above. The fuel tank was
located directly behind the pilots wicker seat, which was placed as far forward as
possible.
The fact that the aircraft was said to be unstable, was not seen as a disadvantage, as
its high manoeuvrability allowed instant response from the pilots input to the controls,
enabling full loops to be performed at low speed and flick rolls to be performed without
loss of height. With these characteristics, it was extremely difficult for an enemy to stay
on the tail of a Camel pilot.

~7~
1.1 SCOPE OF REPORT
The aim of this report is to investigate and analyse the design and operational
characteristics of the Sopwith Camel, relating to its static longitudinal stability, and from
the use of analytical and experimental tools, produce results measuring the aircrafts
longitudinal static stability. This will involve an analysis, using developed theories for the
case of the aircraft with controls locked (stick-fixed).
The analysis will involve determining the static margin of the aircraft to provide a
measurement of the aircrafts longitudinal static stability and investigating the moments
about the aircrafts Y axis through the CG (Centre of Gravity) and how they vary with the
aircrafts coefficient of lift.
A check weigh was conducted of a full sized replica of the aircraft and the data
gathered has been used to conduct the analysis and consequently develop an
understanding of the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft. The aerodynamic
characteristics of the aircraft have also been analysed by constructing and testing a balsa
wood scale model to gather experimental data from a wind tunnel experiment.
An investigation has also been made to possible modifications to the design of a
new flying replica of the aircraft, in order to improve stability. This has involved shifting
part of the aircrafts mass in order to vary the centre of gravity and provide sufficiently
positive stability.

1.2 LONGITUDINAL STATIC STABILITY

For aircraft designers to solve the problem of longitudinal static stability,
configuration must be made to the aircraft in a way that allows for automatic restoration
to a given state of equilibrium, should the aircraft pitch up or down due to a disturbance
or pilot input. Longitudinal static stability is a measure of an aircrafts initial pitch
response following a disturbance in angle of attack. If the aircraft does return to
equilibrium following a disturbance, the aircraft is said to be statically stable.
In basic terms, static stability depends on the distance between the aircrafts CG and
the NP (Neutral Point) of the aircraft. The greater this distance is, the greater the
longitudinal stability of the aircraft. This will be discussed and analysed later in the
report.

~8~
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The present research conducted on the topic of longitudinal stability has covered a
number of authors, each providing their own theories and methods of analysis. Each
researched source provides relevant information, but for the purpose of this report it was
necessary to select the methods most relevant to the aircraft analysed.
Richard D. Hiscocks theory in Design of Light Aircraft examines the tail design of
light aircraft, focusing on the point of neutral stability for a wing and the centre of
gravity location with respect to the aerodynamic centre. Hiscocks (1995) states that for
the aeroplane to be stable, the combined effect of wing plus tail must provide a neutral
point behind the most rearward C of G location. Hiscocks provides a method to locate
the neutral point of an aircraft, by first considering the neutral point of the wing alone as
a percentage of chord length, then adding the tail contribution to this percentage to find
the neutral point. The factors involved in his calculation of tail contribution involve the
slope of the wing and tail lift curve, the volume coefficient of the horizontal tail and
consideration is made to the effect of wing downwash on the tail.
In Dynamics of Flight Stability and Control, written by Bernard Etkin and Lloyd Duff
Reid, chapter two investigates primarily, the subject matter of static longitudinal stability
and control. The aspect of the equilibrium state discussed is the pitching moment that
acts on the aircraft when the angle of attack is changed from the equilibrium value by a
vertical gust. The main reference used however, is their method for estimating the effect
of a fuselage or nacelle on the position of the neutral point.
In 1949, Courtland D. Perkins and Robert E. Hage wrote a book titled Airplane
Performance Stability and Control. Their purpose was to present elements of
aerodynamics that relate directly to aeroplane design. Perkins & Hage (1949) point out
that the problems of longitudinal static stability, equilibrium and control can be
developed from the static equation of moments about the Y axis through the aeroplanes
centre of gravity. In their book, they provide calculations for resolving the wing forces
and tail force in order to obtain the summation of moments about the aircrafts centre of
gravity. They provide calculations to analyse the wing contribution, tail contribution
including the effects of wing downwash and the contributions of the fuselage to static

~9~
longitudinal stability. The area of their publication focused on in this report is their
method for estimating the effect of a propeller on the position of the neutral point.
Barnes W. McCormick wrote a book titled Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight
Mechanics, published in 1979. In his section on longitudinal static stability he points out
that a certain amount of elegance is forsaken for the sake of simplicity and clarity. The
derivations he uses relate to a basic aeroplane configuration consisting simply of a wing
and a tail. His explanation of longitudinal stick-fixed static stability includes looking at
the forces and moments acting on a wing tail combination, the pitching moment versus
angle of attack, the neutral point and static margin, calculation of wing aerodynamic
centre and the calculation of downwash at the tail.

3 CONDUCT OF CHECK WEIGH & CG CALCULATION

The following is the procedure that was followed for weighing a replica Sopwith F.1
Camel aircraft based at Brooklands, Weybridge. The check weigh of the aircraft has
enabled the centre of gravity to be determined which will be used in subsequent
calculations during the analysis of the aircrafts longitudinal static stability.
The procedure involved weighing the aircraft at three reaction points using load
cells, followed by measuring the arm of each station weighed. The arm of each station is
the horizontal distance from a predetermined balance datum line to that station, given in
inches. The datum is a reference line that is made to allow the measurement of the
longitudinal position of the stations. The arm of each point was multiplied by the weight
to give its moment. The total moments were then divided by the total aircraft weight to
give the location of the aircrafts centre of gravity in inches.

3.1 PREPARATIONS FOR WEIGHING

This section will outline all the major considerations that were made in preparation
for the weighing procedure. The aircraft was weighed inside a hangar to avoid wind
which would be likely to cause false scale readings. It was also ensured that the aircraft
was clean and free from any trapped water or debris.

~ 10 ~
 3.1.1 Equipment
Roadrunner Load Cell Kit, 5 Tonne Bottle Jack x2, Spirit Level, Trestle, Wooden Blocks,
Load Cell Adaptors x2, Plumb Line, Chalk, Tape Measure, Chocks.

Figure 3.1.1 - Equipment prepared

3.1.2 Draining Fuel

With the aircraft in level attitude, the fuel was drained until the quantity on the fuel
gauge read zero. Any remaining fuel was considered residual and part of the aircrafts
empty weight. Once the procedure was complete, the weight of the fuel and its moment
were added to the empty weight in order to attain the aircrafts loaded weight.

3.1.3 Oil
The engine lubricating oil tank was partially full at the time of weighing and this
weight was subtracted when calculating the aircrafts weight. When calculating the
aircrafts loaded weight, the weight of a full oil tank was determined and added to the
calculation.
~ 11 ~
 3.1.4 Jacking the Aircraft
Extra care needed to be taken during the jacking stages of the procedure. The main
problem to avoid was the aircraft slipping off the jacks. In order to eliminate any risk of
damage to the aircraft during jacking, the clearance of the wheels from the ground was
kept to a minimum by placing blocks of wood under the wheels, as the aircraft was raised
while ensuring the chocks were in place. Both jacks were raised simultaneously to
minimise the risk of the aircraft slipping from the jacks.

3.1.5 Levelling the Aircraft

It had to be ensured that the aircraft was in level attitude before commencing the
weighing procedure. This is to ensure all the components being weighed were the correct
distance from the datum of the aircraft.

3.2 METHOD
Before commencing the weighing of the aircraft, it was necessary for the aircraft to
be levelled using a trestle. A trestle was placed at the aft of the fuselage and a load cell
was put in place between the trestle and a piece of wood. By monitoring a spirit level, the
size of the wood was changed and additional pieces of wood were then added to the
trestle until the aircraft was at the correct level attitude (Fig.3.2.2).

Figure 3.2.1 - Spirit level placed on horizontal axis

~ 12 ~
 Figure 3.2.2 Load cell & blocks of wood placed on trestle to level aircraft

The equipment available was a Roadrunner Load Cell Kit that is designed to be
used with aircraft jacks. Due to the fact that this aircraft has no jacking points, the load
cells were used with bottle jacks that were placed under the axle. An adaptor was used
between the bottle jack and load cell (Fig.3.2.4).

Figure 3.2.3 - Load Cell Figure 3.2.4 - Load Cell Adaptor

The distance between the jacking point on the axle and the ground was 9.5. This
clearance was exceeded by the height of the bottle jack and load cell; therefore it was
necessary to raise the aircraft first to enable the jacks to be placed. This was done by

~ 13 ~
jacking the aircraft under the axles and adding blocks of wood under the wheels, when
the correct height was reached, the jacks were removed and the aircraft rested on the
blocks of wood.
During the jacking procedure it was very important to follow the safest method
possible and be aware of all the safety precautions and any potential dangers that may
occur. The jacks were raised simultaneously in a slow steady manner to reduce the risk of
the aircraft slipping off the jacks. To reduce the risk of damage to the aircraft should the
aircraft slip from the jacks; two pieces of wood were placed underneath each wheel to
keep the clearance from the ground to the wheel at a minimum distance (Fig.3.2.5).
Before jacking commenced, all load cells were connected and the load cell kit was
turned on. Both jacks were then raised in a slow and steady manner simultaneously until
the aircrafts wheels had cleared the blocks of wood. The readings were then recorded
from each reaction point (Fig.3.2.6).

Figure 3.2.5 - Wooden blocks placed under wheel

~ 14 ~
 Figure 3.2.6 Scale reader

Due to the replica aircraft including two disarmed Vickers 0.303 machine guns, the
weight and moment of these have been subtracted when determining the empty weight.
According to Fisher (2012), the approximate weight of each machine gun is 40lb. The
ammo weight was around 20lb, but because this is not present, the total subtracted for
military load is 80lb.

3.3 RESULTS

REACTION POINT WEIGHT (LB) REACTION POINT WEIGHT (LB)

Crew 180 Crew 180
Military Load -80 Fuel Load 228.1
Oil -6 Oil 46.6
Left Wheel 508 Ammunition 20
Right Wheel 485 Left Wheel 508
Aft Fuselage 87 Right Wheel 485
TOTAL 1174 Aft Fuselage 87
TOTAL 1554.7
Table 3.3.1 - Empty Weight Data
Table 3.3.1 - Loaded Weight Data

~ 15 ~
Fuel Load
Fuel capacity = 140 ltr = 8543
Fuel Density = 0.0267 lb/
Fuel weight = Volume x Density = 8543 x 0.0267 = 228.1 lb

Oil Load
Oil capacity = 25 ltr = 1526
Oil density = 0.0345 lb/
Full oil load = 0.0345 x 1526 = 52.6 lb
Oil volume in tank at time of check weigh was 175 , weight of oil

3.4 DETERMINING THE CENTRE OF GRAVITY

When the scale values were recorded, the arms of each weighing point were
determined in order to calculate the moments. The aircrafts datum was first determined
by hanging a bob line from a point at the front of the propeller and marking a line on the
hangar floor at the tip of the bob weight. (Fig.3.4.1).

Figure 3.4.1 - Aircraft's datum line

~ 16 ~
 REACTION WEIGHT (LB) ARM (IN) MOMENT (LB-
POINT
Crew 180 60 IN)
10800
Military Load -80 26 7/8 -2150
Oil -6 22 1/2 -135
Left Wheel 508 32 16256
Right Wheel 485 32 15520
Aft Fuselage 87 164 14268
TOTAL 1174 54559

Table 3.4.1 - Empty weight data

REACTION POINT WEIGHT (LB) ARM (IN) MOMENT (LB-IN)

Crew 180 60 10800
Fuel Load 228.1 72 1/2 16537 1/4
Oil 46.6 22 1/2 1048 1/2
Ammunition 20 26 7/8 537 1/2
Left Wheel 508 32 16526
Right Wheel 485 32 15520
Aft Fuselage 87 164 14268
TOTAL 1554.7 75237 1/4

Table 3.4.2 - Loaded weight data

Measurements were then made to each reaction point, then using chalk; lateral lines
were drawn on the hangar floor at these points. This allowed more accurate
measurements to be made from the datum to each weighed point to determine their
arms. For each station item, the weight was multiplied by the arm to establish a moment
for each position.

Empty weight CG = Total moment/Total Weight = = 46.5in

Loaded weight CG = Total moment/Total Weight = = 48.4in

~ 17 ~
3.5 EFFECT OF CG POSITION ON LONGITUDINAL STABILITY
When analysing the longitudinal stability of any aircraft, the centre of gravity is a
critical element in the evaluation. The centre of gravity, for the purposes of calculations,
is the point where the entire mass of the aircraft is concentrated. The distance from the
reference datum of the aircraft to the centre of gravity has been calculated by dividing
the total moment by the total weight of the aircraft. The wings of an aircraft generate a
nose down pitching moment which must be countered by a download generated at the
tail. Moving the CG further aft will minimise the download on the tail and reduce drag,
however the longitudinal stability of the aircraft will be reduced.
The neutral point of the aircraft, which is sometimes referred to as the AC of the
aircraft as a whole, is the point where the net change in lift generated by the entire
aircraft acts when the angle of attack changes. When calculating the static margin, which
is a measurement of the aircrafts longitudinal stability, the distance is measured
between the aircrafts centre of gravity and the neutral point. The static margin is
expressed as a percentage of the mean aerodynamic chord of the wing. There are two
static stability neutral points, stick-fixed and stick-free. Stick-fixed stability relates to the
controls being fixed at a constant location and it is this condition which will be assumed
during analysis.
If the centre of gravity is ahead of the neutral point, the aircraft is said to have
positive stability, meaning it will return to its original level attitude if disturbed by a gust
or a pilot input. If the centre of gravity lies at a point aft of the neutral point, the aircraft
will have negative stability and an increase in angle of attack will result in a destabilising
moment. An example of these two conditions is illustrated in Fig.3.5.1. The further
forward the centre of gravity is to the neutral point, the more stable the aircraft will be. If
the centre of gravity lies at the same position as the neutral point, there will be an
increase in lift as angle of attack changes, but no moment change, as pitching moment
becomes independent of angle of attack.

~ 18 ~
Figure 3.5.1 - Static Neutral Points (Kocent-Zieliski, 2011)

~ 19 ~
4 CONSTRUCTION OF SCALE MODEL
4.1 PREPARATIONS
Preparation for building the balsa model involved first accumulating all the
necessary tools, equipment and materials. These include pins, cement, single edge razor
blade, wax paper, common pins, fine sandpaper, dope and a brush (Fig.4.1.1).
All the frames were built on a lay plan, which was placed on a corkboard to enable
the parts to be pinned down securely. Wax paper was pinned over the layouts to prevent
any parts from sticking to the plan during assembly. All the parts from the die-cut balsa
sheet were then removed carefully and laid on the corkboard with the identifying letters
facing up.

Figure 4.1.1 - Initial Preparations

4.2 BUILDING THE FUSELAGE FRAME

Using common pins, all the keel parts from the die-cut balsa sheets were gently
pressed, lined up for use, then pinned to the plan. The top and bottom keel parts were
then cemented together, followed by each of the fuselage formers, which were cemented
at right angles to the keel (Fig.4.2.2). A side keel was then cemented in place when dry,
the frame was removed from the plan and duplicate halves of the formers were cemented
in place against the keel and formers. The duplicate side keel was then cemented in
position.

~ 20 ~
 Figure 4.2.1 - Frame pinned and fuselage formers cemented at right angles

Figure 4.2.2 - Frame with keel parts and fuselage formers cemented

1/16 square side stringers were then cut to length and cemented into the former notches
(Fig.4.2.3) and the completed fuselage was then lightly sanded to remove any balsa fuzz
and excess cement. The stiff paper cockpit covering was then made and added to the
completed frame.

Figure 4.2.3 - Fuselage with side stringers cemented

~ 21 ~
4.3 BUILDING THE WING FRAMES
The leading edges, trailing edges and side edges of the top wing were first pinned
securely to the corkboard and cemented together on the wing plan. The spars were then
cemented in place, followed by all the ribs, ensuring all ribs were at right angles to the
leading and trailing edge (Fig.4.3.1). The same process was then followed for the bottom
wing.

Figure 4.3.1 - Top and bottom wing

4.4 BUILDING THE TAIL SURFACES

The stabiliser and rudder were constructed directly over their respective lay-outs on the
plan as illustrated in Fig.4.4.1. All parts were pinned and cemented and once dry, the
completed frames were gently sanded and smoothed. The landing gear struts were then
assembled over their respective layouts.

Figure 4.4.1 - Tail Surfaces and Landing Gear Struts

~ 22 ~
4.5 COVERING THE FRAMES
The tissue was first dry fitted over the sections of the fuselage to measure the area
to be covered. When attaching the tissue to the frames, the dope was applied to the
edges of the framework that would be in contact with the tissue. The tissue was then
applied gently to the frame and excess tissue was trimmed off (Fig.4.5.1).

Figure 4.5.1 - Covering the Fuselage

The top and bottom of the wings were then covered using separate pieces of
tissue, as were the top and bottom of the stabiliser and both sides of the rudder
(Fig.4.5.2). After all the frames had been covered and the dope was allowed to dry, the
tissue was sprayed lightly with water from an atomiser and allowed to dry. This made the
tissue covering to become smooth and taut.

Figure 4.5.2 - Covering Wing and Tail Surfaces

~ 23 ~
4.6 ASSEMBLING THE MODEL
With a sharp razor, the tissue was removed from the notches in the wing ribs that receive
the wing and cabane struts. The bottom wing was then cemented securely to the fuselage
and allowed to dry (Fig.4.6.1).

Figure 4.6.1 - Bottom Wing Cemented to Fuselage

The stabiliser and rudder were then aligned carefully onto the model and
cemented. The cabane struts were then cemented into the prepared notches in the
fuselage. The wing struts were then cemented into the notches in the bottom wing
before cementing the top wing to all the struts. Finally, the wing was aligned carefully
before the cement dried hard (Fig.4.6.2).

Figure 4.6.2 - Final Assembly

~ 24 ~
5 CONDUCT OF WIND TUNNEL EXPERIMENT
In order to attain additional data relating to the aircrafts pitching moment, a wind
tunnel experiment was conducted to provide data for analysis. Other aerodynamic data
was collected, including the lift and drag of the aircraft at various angles of attack.

5.1 PREPARATIONS
In order to support the model in the wind tunnel, brackets were constructed and
cemented to the surfaces of the top wing at the quarter chord points and on the upper
surface of the aft fuselage (Fig.5.1.1).

Figure 5.1.1 - Attaching Support Brackets

The tail of the aircraft was removed for testing and replaced for further testing in
order to provide comparative data on the effect of the tail contribution to the
longitudinal stability. It was first ensured that the aircraft was properly sealed and all
parts were secure, including the brackets on the upper surface of the top wing and aft
fuselage.

~ 25 ~
5.2 METHOD
The purpose of the wind tunnel experiment was to investigate and evaluate the
behaviour of the aircraft with respect to its pitching moment. The results have been
analysed and details are provided in the analysis section of this report.
The aircraft was first mounted in the tunnel with the tail removed as shown in
Fig.5.2.1. The pitch angle was then zeroed on the computer with the aircraft in take-off
attitude, with the wings at 15 degrees angle of attack.

Figure 5.2.1 - Mounting Model in Wind Tunnel

With the wind speed in the tunnel set to 17 m/s and reducing the angle of attack
by 20 degrees, data was recorded at each angle, including the lift, drag and pitching
moment. As the equipment was zeroed with the aircraft at 15 degrees angle of attack, the
pitch angle of -20 degrees in the results actually relates to an angle of attack of -5
degrees. Once all the required data had been recorded the experiment was repeated after
attaching the tail to the aircraft (Fig.5.2.2).

~ 26 ~
 Figure 5.2.2 - Model Mounted in Tunnel with Tail Attached

5.3 RESULTS
The results of the experiment are provided in Appendix A and have been analysed in
section 6.2 of this report.

6 ANALYSIS
In order to analyse the longitudinal static stability of an aircraft, the static margin
must be determined, as well as an investigation of the static equation of moments about
the y axis through the centre of gravity.
An AC (Aerodynamic Centre) exists on both the wing and tail of the aircraft, about
which the wing pitching moment coefficient is invariant with lift coefficient. The AC of
an aerofoil lies very close to the 25% chord point, however, according to Stinton (2001),
when examining the equivalent monoplane of a biplane configuration, the aerodynamic
centre will be located about 2% SMC (Standard Mean Chord) further forward, at about
23% chord length. This is due to the upper wing creating a greater amount of lift than the
lower wing. The analysis will only consider stick-fixed longitudinal static stability,
meaning the control surfaces will be assumed to be held at a constant location.
The analysis will investigate the static margin of the aircraft in order to measure the
longitudinal stability and analysis will also be conducted based on the experimental wind
tunnel data that has been gathered.

~ 27 ~
6.1 EVALUATION OF STATIC MARGIN
The first stage in the analysis must be considering the centre of gravity, not only
from the measured point of view already conducted, but from the aircrafts point of view
with regard to the relationship between the CG and the overall aerodynamic centre.
Generally, the AC of the wing should be aft of the CG for positive stability, but it is
the AC of the entire aircraft that matters, not just the AC of the wing alone. The aircrafts
overall AC is also known as the neutral point. This is the position of centre of gravity at
which the aircrafts stability is neutral; therefore the CG must be located ahead of this
point for positive stability to exist.
The static margin is the distance between the aircrafts NP (neutral point) and its CG
location, expressed as a percentage of the wings mean aerodynamic chord. This
percentage is a measure of the aircrafts longitudinal static stability. According to Raymer
(1999), typical static margins range from 5%-40%.
Since the CG has been calculated previously, it is only the location of the aircrafts
neutral point which needs to be determined in order to calculate the static margin. Two
methods will be used to determine this location and both results will be compared. The
first method used, by Don Stackhouse, is by using the ratio of the wing areas of a biplane
to find the combined AC of the wings, and the overall AC for the aircraft. In order to find
the AC of a pair of wings, the AC of the individual surface must be found. The AC of the
individual wings can be assumed at 23% chord length from the leading edge, and then a
weighted average method is used to find the AC of the combination. The second method
is taken from Hiscocks publication, Design of Light Aircraft, and involves calculating
the neutral point by using the slope of the wing and tail curves, the wing downwash
correction and the volume coefficient of the tail.
Both methods of calculating the static margin do not consider certain contributions
that will affect the position of the neutral point, and consequently the value of the static
margin. These contributions include the effect that the fuselage and the propeller have
on the aircrafts longitudinal stability and so will be investigated following the initial
static margin calculations.

~ 28 ~
 6.1.1 Don Stackhouse Method
The wing areas must first be determined, and then on a side view of the aircraft, a line
is drawn from the AC of the top wing to the AC of the bottom wing. The AC of the
combination will be located on that line, closest to the larger of the two surfaces, at a
distance proportional to the ratio of their areas. The measurements of the flight surfaces
are provided in Appendix B.

Area of Top Wing

Area of Bottom Wing

Ratio of Wing Areas

A line must now be drawn on a side view of the aircraft, from the AC of the upper
wing, to the AC of the lower wing. The AC of the combination will lie on that line,
approximately 47% from the upper wing to the lower wing. According to Stinton (2001),
the AC of the equivalent monoplane wing lies at 23% SMC (Standard Mean Chord).
Therefore, the AC of each aerofoil will be assumed at 23% SMC when drawing the line
connecting the two.

~ 29 ~
 From analysing scale drawings taken from original Sopwith documents, the AC of
the wing combination was determined to be 36 9/16 aft of the aircraft datum (Fig.6.1.2).
The same process was used to determine the neutral point of the aircraft, resulting from
the tail contribution.

Area of Tail

Ratio of Tail Area to Total Wing and Tail Area

The neutral point of the aircraft is therefore located at a distance 10% aft of the
line drawn between the wing combination AC and the tail AC. From analysing scale
drawings, this distance was determined to be 51.5 aft of the aircraft datum.

Figure 6.1.1 - Sopwith F1. Camel Longitudinal Static Stability Measurements

~ 30 ~
The static margin is determined from the following equation:

Where,
Xnfix = Distance from datum to neutral point
Xcg = Distance from datum to centre of gravity
C = Chord length

From these calculations, it is evident that the aircraft does appear to have positive
longitudinal static stability. The effect of the fuel, oil and pilot load has a significant
effect on the static margin by causing the CG to reposition further aft, closer to the
neutral point. However, consideration must be made to factors which will affect the
position of the neutral point. These factors include the effect of wing downwash on the
tail, the fuselage effect and the propeller contribution. All these factors contribute to the
longitudinal stability of the aircraft by affecting the position of the neutral point, so these
factors must be analysed to determine a more accurate calculation of the static margin.
From comparing the static margins before and after these contributions have been
considered, it will be possible to assess the impact they have on the static margins.

~ 31 ~
 6.1.2 Richard Hiscocks Method
In order to locate the neutral point of the aircraft, it is necessary to locate the neutral
point of the tail. According to Hiscocks (1995), the most important tail contribution
depends on the parameter:

Where, for a horizontal tail,

So the first step in solving is calculating the lift curve slopes for the wing and tail.
According to Hiscocks, the lift curve slope can be corrected from two dimensional to
three dimensional flow by the approximate expression, where R = Aspect Ratio:

For a rectangular wing,

Fig.6.1.2 illustrates this formula was derived from various test results.

~ 32 ~
 Figure 6.1.2 - Lift Curve Slope (Hiscocks, 1995)

For the equivalent monoplane wing of the Sopwith Camel,

For the lift curve slope of the tail,

~ 33 ~
Now we have the lift curve slopes for the wing and tail, the wing downwash correction
must now be determined. This can be derived by referring to Fig.6.1.3 of downwash angle
versus wing angle. It can be seen that for an aspect ratio of 6.1, .

Figure 6.1.3 - Downwash Angle vs. Wing Angle (Hiscocks,1995)

is the volume coefficient of the tail and is given by the expression:

Where,

~ 34 ~
When applied to the Sopwith Camel, these become:

The loaded centre of gravity for the Sopwith Camel was determined to be 48.4 aft
of the datum. This is 24.3 aft of the equivalent monoplane wing leading edge, expressed
as a fraction of the chord length it is 0.451.

The analysis so far has only considered the tail contribution when determining the
aircrafts static margin. The two methods used have resulted in a static margin of 5.7%
and 5.5% respectively. However, the aircrafts longitudinal stability is also affected by the
fuselage and propulsive unit; their contributions alter the position of the neutral point of
the aircraft and so must be investigated.

6.1.3 Effect of Fuselage on Static Margin

The fuselage will have a destabilising effect on the aircrafts longitudinal stability.
According to Etkin & Reid (1996), the effect of the fuselage causes a forward shift in the
neutral point which is mainly dependant on the length and width of the body forward of
the wing. It is possible that this effect could cause the static margin of this aircraft to
become negative, thus showing that the aircraft is statically unstable.
The data for estimating the shift of the neutral point due to the effect of the fuselage is
presented in Fig.6.1.5, the results of which have been derived from wind tunnel tests. In

~ 35 ~
this case, the forward shift of the neutral point will depend on the length and width of
the fuselage ahead of the monoplane equivalent wing. The shift of NP is given by and
is shown on the graph by the curves, which are accurate to within , and are about
5% higher for low wing configurations.

Figure 6.1.4 - Effect of Fuselage or Nacelle on Position of NP (Etkin & Reid, 1996)

Using this data and referring to Etkins graph, it can be seen that:

~ 36 ~
This is expressed as a fraction of chord length, positive aft, meaning that there has been a
forward shift in the position of the neutral point from 50.58% chord to 45.58% chord.

It can be seen from these results that the fuselage contribution of this aircraft is
significant and has resulted in the NP shifting forward, to a location just aft of the CG.

6.1.4 Effect of Propeller on Static Margin

The analysis so far has not considered the effect of the propulsive unit on static
longitudinal stability. According to Perkins & Hage (1949), the contributions of a running
propeller can have profound effects on both the equilibrium equation and the stability
equation. This analysis will not examine the full theoretical detail required for a full
analysis of these power effects, however, the effect on the location of the aircrafts neutral
point is of significance and so will be investigated.
The propeller contribution can be broken down into two main effects. The first is the
direct propeller contribution as a result of the forces created by the propeller itself. The
second includes indirect effects which result from the propeller slipstream and its
interaction with the wing and tail surfaces. This analysis will only consider the effect of
the propeller normal force, as the indirect effects can be assumed as negligible, having
previously considered the effect of wing downwash.

Propeller Normal Force

As seen in Fig.6.1.7, according to Perkins & Hage (1949), the stability contribution
of the propeller normal force for a typical single engine fighter is destabilising if the
propeller is mounted ahead of the CG, and given by the expression:

~ 37 ~
Where,

Figure 6.1.5 - Direct Power Components (Perkins & Hage, 1949)

For the Sopwith Camel,

It has previously been established that the fuselage contribution has shifted the
neutral point just aft of the CG, resulting in a stability that is almost neutral. The
propeller contribution shows a destabilising effect of 1.7%, resulting in a negative static
margin, showing that the aircraft is unstable. This means that a stick force would be
required just to maintain a level flight attitude. If the aircraft deviates from its attitude,
there will be no restoring moment to return it to its original attitude.

~ 38 ~
6.2 ANALYSIS OF WIND TUNNEL DATA
The data contained in Appendix A of this report provides information relating to
the lift of the aircraft at various values of angle of attack ( ), which can be used to
calculate the lift-curve slopes of the aircraft. The aircrafts pitching moment is also
provided, which is the primary element in the analysis of longitudinal stability. The
following formula is used to calculate at every value of used in the wind tunnel
experiment:

Where,

Where,

~ 39 ~
 is a dimensionless quantity and is a measure of the effectiveness of the wing lift,
usually in the range of 0 (or a bit below) and about 2 or 3. The value of has been
calculated at every measured value of and is shown in Appendix A.3 and A.4. These
values have been used to plot the lift-curve slopes shown in Fig.6.2.1 and Fig.6.2.2.

1.6

1.4

1.2
Coefficient of Lift (CL)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-0.2

-0.4
Angle of Attack ()

Figure 6.2.1 - Lift-Curve Slope with Tail Attached

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
Coefficient of Lift (CL)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-0.2

-0.4
Angle of Attack ()

Figure 6.2.2 - Lift-Curve Slope without Tail Attached

~ 40 ~
 A graph containing the parameters, and can be used to analyse the
longitudinal static stability and trim of an aircraft. According to Etkin & Reid (1996), for
an aircraft to be stable, the slope of the versus curve must be negative. A positive
slope of this curve will be an indication that he aircraft is unstable. The pitching moment
coefficient, , has been calculated from the formula:

Where,

The figures 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 have been derived from the formula above and moment data
contained in Appendix A.

~ 41 ~
 0.7

0.6
Pitching Moment Coefficient (CM)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Angle of Attack ()

Figure 6.2.3 - Pitching Moment Vs. Angle of Attack without Tail Attached

0.9
Pitching Moment Coefficient (CM)

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Angle of Attack ()

Figure 6.2.4 - Pitching Moment Vs. Angle of Attack with Tail Attached

~ 42 ~
 The main purpose of this experiment was to analyse the data gathered with
respect to the aircrafts pitching moment, the accuracy of the pitching moment data is
such that the expected values have not been obtained. However, the nature of the
dispersed data does indicate that the horizontal stabiliser of this aircraft was not
particularly effective, given its small area and symmetrical camber.
From viewing the trend line for the configuration with the tail attached in
Fig.6.2.4, the slope of the vs. curve is positive. This condition indicates instability, as
a negative slope is required for positive longitudinal stability. If an aircraft is
longitudinally unstable, an increase in will create a nose-up pitching moment and the
pilot would have to apply downward force on the control column in order to maintain
level flying attitude.
Fig.6.2.3 provides an indication of positive longitudinal static stability. This is due
to the nose down pitching moment generated by the wings in the absence of a tail to
counter the moment.
Figure 6.2.5 shows typical curves of the vs. relation, demonstrating the effect
of the CG position on longitudinal stability. Previously, it was established this aircraft is
unstable when fully loaded. The results of the wind tunnel experiment reinforce this,
showing that the CG is located aft of the neutral point by the positive slope of the curve
in Fig.6.2.4.

Figure 6.2.5 - Effect of CG Position on Cm Curve (Etkin & Reid, 1996)

~ 43 ~
REACTION POINT WEIGHT (LB) ARM (IN) MOMENT (LB-IN)
6.3 POSSIBLE DESIGN MODIFICATION
It is clear that the success of the Sopwith Camel was due to its high
manoeuvrability, resulting from its negative static margin, giving it an advantage in a dog
fight during the Great War. If a flying replica of the aircraft was to be constructed, in
order to make it more stable and safe in flight, a major modification to the design would
be required which would convert the fierce, manoeuvrable, and highly agile aircraft into
one which was docile and stable.
It would be necessary to alter the concentration of mass in order to reposition the
location of the aircrafts centre of gravity and provide a positive static margin and a more
stable aircraft. The other important factor to consider is the powerful rotary engine. If
the 130hp Clerget rotary engine was replaced with a modern low-powered radial type, the
problem caused by the gyroscopic effect of the Clerget engine would be eliminated.
The most significant element of mass that is aft of the CG would be the fuel tank, so
two ways to provide a positive static margin for this aircraft is by either repositioning the
fuel tank further forward, causing a forward shift of the centre of gravity, or by altering
the weight of the full tank itself. A static margin of at least 5% is recommended for
positive static stability about the lateral axis (Raymer, 1999). Since the current loaded
static margin has been calculated at -1.2%, an improvement of 6.2% in the SM (static
margin) is required.

The loaded centre of gravity required would be 38.9% chord length from the leading
edge; this was found to be 21 aft of the monoplane equivalent leading edge and 45.1 aft
of the aircrafts datum.

~ 44 ~
 Crew 180 60 10800
Fuel Load 228.1 50 11405 1/4
Oil 46.6 22 1/2 1048 1/2
Ammunition 20 26 7/8 537 1/2
Left Wheel 508 32 16526
Right Wheel 485 32 15520
Aft Fuselage 87 164 14268
TOTAL 1554.7 70120 1/4

Table 6.3.1 - Loaded Weight Data for New Design Option

It can be seen that the required position of the fuel load would be 50 aft of the aircrafts
datum. From Fig.6.3.1 it can be seen that it is not possible to fit a rigid fuel tank ahead of
the point where it is currently installed, although it may be possible to fit a bladder tank.
A more feasible solution to the problem would be to reduce the weight of the fuel tank
itself rather than reposition it.

Figure 6.3.1 - Sopwith F.1 Camel Cutaway Drawing (Pilot Press Ltd)
~ 45 ~
 The following calculations address the potential solution of reducing the weight of
fuel by fitting a tank with a smaller capacity. The weight of a full fuel tank is currently
228lb, this creates a destabilising effect which may be reduced by fitted a tank with half
the capacity. The following calculations investigate this possibility.

This is 22.4 aft of the monoplane equivalent leading edge, 41.5% chord length.

This is before the fuselage and propeller contribution is considered. From previous
calculations, these contribute a destabilising effect of 6.7% on the static margin.

This result shows that it is possible to provide a positive static margin and a stable
aircraft by simply reducing the weight of the main fuel tank.

~ 46 ~
7 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The present report has provided a method of analysing the static longitudinal
stability of the aircraft by determining the static margin and investigating the various
factors which affect this value. Initial calculation of the static margin was conducted
using two different methods to provide a more accurate and reliable estimation. In
conclusion to the methods used, it can be seen that the results are reliable, as each has
provided approximately the same value for the static margin. The main objective of this
report has been achieved, as reliable results have been established which present a
measurement of the aircrafts longitudinal static stability.
After considering the contributions of the fuselage and the propeller on the
longitudinal stability of the aircraft, the most significant destabilising effect was found to
be the contribution of the fuselage, causing a destabilising effect of 5% to the static
margin. The effect of the propeller contribution resulted in a destabilising effect of 1.7%.
From evaluation of these factors, the static margin of the aircraft was in fact determined
to be negative, indicating inherent instability.
The results of the wind tunnel experiment provided further additional data for
comparison, although the values of pitching moment were dispersed. Despite this,
Fig.6.2.4 indicates longitudinal instability in the model as the slope of the vs. curve
is positive. This result reflects the value of static margin already calculated, determining
the aircraft to have very low stability, or instability, depending on the variable load such
as fuel and oil.
This result reflects the characteristics of the aircraft, which by all accounts was
considered to be a very unstable, yet highly manoeuvrable machine. Sir Thomas Sopwith
himself said of his most famous achievement, In the hands of a competent pilot, who
had made friends with the Camel, it could really play wonderful tricks. But it was a
vicious little machine to fly and not easy; and it wasnt everybodys cup of tea. You had to
be a good pilot to fly a Camel (Bramson, 1990).
From investigation of a possible design modification to provide a positive static
margin, it can be concluded that this is a possibility. It was determined this is possible by
either altering the position of the main fuel tank further forward or by replacing the
main fuel tank with one that is half the size. This alteration of the mass would reposition

~ 47 ~
the centre of gravity further forward, resulting in a positive static margin and a safer,
more stable aircraft.
In addition to the tasks conducted and the analysis of those tasks, consideration was
made to an alternative source of data for analysis. This was a digital model of the aircraft
using Solidworks and the representation of experimental data by importing the model
into flow works. The decision was made not to pursue this task due to the timescale of
the project. It was estimated that it would take between 30-40 hours to complete the
Solidworks tutorial and an additional 15 hours to complete a Solidworks model of the
aircraft. The project would benefit from this analysis by providing an additional source of
data for comparison; however, due to the timescale this was not feasible. For the purpose
of this report the sources of data and the methods used have been sufficient to provide a
measurement of the aircrafts longitudinal static stability and a satisfactory conclusion.

~ 48 ~
APPENDIX A WIND TUNNEL DATA
A.1 WIND TUNNEL DATA WITH TAIL ATTACHED

Date 2 Apr 2012

Pitch angle (deg) Velocity (m/s) Drag (N) Lift (N) Pitch (Nm)
-0.00488281 17.3993 6.86035 12.10940 0.854492
-0.678711 16.9443 5.15137 11.85230 0.878906
-1.57715 16.8286 4.72412 11.69430 0.756836
-2.91992 17.0592 5.22461 11.60940 0.646973
-3.88184 16.4768 4.40674 11.59670 0.854492
-4.71191 16.238 4.93164 11.21310 0.622559
-5.88379 16.8286 4.27246 11.05960 0.695801
-6.97266 16.9443 3.77197 10.64450 0.524902
-7.89551 17.6223 2.90527 9.74121 0.622559
-8.8623 16.8286 4.22363 9.03320 0.57373
-9.88281 17.1733 3.07617 7.88574 0.695801
-10.9033 16.4768 2.62451 6.88477 0.671387
-11.8848 16.3578 2.81982 6.12793 0.549316
-12.8564 17.3993 3.479 5.07813 0.671387
-13.9893 16.4768 2.02637 3.46680 0.549316
-14.9512 16.8286 2.67334 2.17285 0.598145
-15.9375 17.2866 2.9541 2.07520 0.45166
-16.9922 17.1733 1.62354 0.24414 0.57373
-17.9199 16.7122 2.55127 -0.53711 0.622559
-19.0527 16.7122 2.38037 -1.24512 0.476074
-19.873 17.5112 2.14844 -1.75781 0.500488

20

15

10

5 Pitch angle (deg)

0 Velocity (m/s)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Drag (N)
-5 Lift (N)

-10 Pitch (Nm)

-15

-20

-25

~ 49 ~
A.2 WIND TUNNEL DATA WITHOUT TAIL ATTACHED

Date 2 Apr 2012

Pitch angle (deg) Velocity (m/s) Drag (N) Lift (N) Pitch (Nm)
0.102539 17.2866 5.48096 11.8652 0.524902
-0.957031 17.6223 5.5542 11.499 0.524902
-1.67969 16.5949 4.77295 11.4502 0.549316
-2.77832 17.5112 4.1748 11.4502 0.646973
-3.74023 17.0592 4.05273 11.4502 0.622559
-4.70215 16.9443 3.38135 11.1572 0.427246
-5.94238 16.8286 5.45654 10.8539 0.524902
-6.84082 17.2866 4.77295 10.5469 0.45166
-7.83203 16.8286 3.6499 9.83887 0.402832
-8.90625 17.5112 2.97852 8.54492 0.45166
-9.90234 18.0061 2.771 7.83691 0.57373
-10.9277 16.7122 3.10059 7.44629 0.524902
-11.9141 17.3993 2.9541 5.93262 0.57373
-13.0078 16.9443 2.12402 5.0293 0.476074
-13.8477 16.9443 3.32031 3.93066 0.57373
-14.8291 17.1733 1.92871 2.75879 0.476074
-15.9082 16.9443 2.75146 1.80664 0.500488
-16.958 17.5112 1.92871 0.24414 0.622559
-17.9395 16.9443 2.31934 -0.4395 0.646973
-18.9111 17.5112 2.72217 -1.3428 0.598145
-19.9121 17.1733 3.62646 -1.816 0.646973

20

15

10

5 Pitch angle (deg)

Velocity (m/s)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Drag (N)
-5
Lift (N)

-10 Pitch (Nm)

-15

-20

-25

~ 50 ~
A.3 WIND TUNNEL LIFT DATA WITH TAIL ATTACHED

Wind Tunnel Lift Data (17m/s With Tail)

Angle of Attack (deg) Coefficient of Lift (CL) Pitching Moment Coefficient (CM)
-5 -0.20 0.49
-4 -0.14 0.46
-3 -0.06 0.61
-2 0.03 0.56
-1 0.23 0.44
0 0.24 0.58
1 0.39 0.54
2 0.57 0.65
3 0.68 0.54
4 0.77 0.65
5 0.88 0.68
6 1.00 0.56
7 1.08 0.61
8 1.19 0.51
9 1.23 0.68
10 1.25 0.61
11 1.29 0.83
12 1.29 0.63
13 1.30 0.74
14 1.32 0.86
15 1.35 0.83

~ 51 ~
A.4 WIND TUNNEL LIFT DATA WITHOUT TAIL ATTACHED

Wind Tunnel Lift Data (17m/s Without Tail)

Angle of Attack (deg) Coefficient of Lift (CL) Pitching Moment Coefficient (CM)
-5 -0.20 0.63
-4 -0.14 0.58
-3 -0.04 0.63
-2 0.03 0.61
-1 0.20 0.49
0 0.31 0.46
1 0.44 0.56
2 0.56 0.46
3 0.66 0.56
4 0.83 0.51
5 0.87 0.55
6 0.95 0.44
7 1.10 0.39
8 1.18 0.44
9 1.21 0.51
10 1.24 0.42
11 1.28 0.6
12 1.28 0.63
13 1.28 0.54
14 1.28 0.51
15 1.33 0.51

~ 52 ~
APPENDIX B Sopwith F.1 Camel Measurements

~ 53 ~
REFERENCES

1. Alan Bramson (1990) Pure Luck: The Authorised Biography of Sir Thomas Sopwith,
1888-1989, Patrick Stephens Ltd.
2. Arkadiusz Wrbel (2011) Sopwith Camel, Second Ed. Kagero
3. Barnes W. McCormick (1979) Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics,
John Wiley & Sons
4. Bernard Etkin & Lloyd Duff Reid (1996) Dynamics of Flight Stability and Control,
Third Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
5. Courtland D. Perkins & Robert E. Hage (1949) Airplane Performance Stability and
Control, John Wiley & Sons
6. Daniel P. Raymer (1999) Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Third Ed.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc.
7. Darrol Stinton (2001) The Design of the Aeroplane, Wiley-Blackwell
8. Don Stackhouse (2007) Don Discusses in Depth Centre of Gravity, available at:
www.djaerotech.com
9. Edward Kocent-Zieliski (2011) Sopwith Camel, Second Ed. Kagero
10. Gibson John C. (2000) Unpublished comments of the first edition of Airplane
Stability and Control, Cambridge U. Press, 1997.
11. Ian R. Stair (1987) Windsock Datafile No.6, Albatros Productions Ltd
12. John Pudney (1964) The Camel Fighter, Hamish Hamilton Ltd.
13. J.M. Bruce (1972) Profile 31 The Sopwith Camel, Profile Publications Ltd
14. Richard Fisher (2012) The Vickers Machine Gun Data Summary, available at:,
Vickers MG Collection & Research Association

~ 54 ~