Menu
▾
▴
[Flightgear-fgaddon-commitlogs] r11946 - branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0: Bom bable V5.0
|
From: <fli...@li...> - 2025-05-05 11:13:21
|
Revision: 11946
http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/fgaddon/11946
Author: helijah
Date: 2025-05-01 10:13:48 +0000 (Thu, 01 May 2025)
Log Message:
-----------
Bombable V5.0
Added Paths:
-----------
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/COPYING
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/SopwithCamel-Realistic-JSBSim-Flight-Model-Notes.txt
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/bombable-modding-aircraft-for-dogfighting.txt
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/bombable-multiplayer-dogfighting.txt
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/bombable-readme.txt
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/bombable-todo.txt
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/bombable-uninstall.txt
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/bombable-whatsnew.txt
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/dicta-boelcke-rules-for-ww1-dogfighting.txt
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/FGData/AI/
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Nasal/bombable.nas
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Nasal/oldbombable.nas
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Nasal/originalbombable.nas
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Columbia-CA-Tank-Invasion1.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Columbia-CA-Tank-Invasion2.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Columbia-CA-Tank-Jeep-Invasion1.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Kansas-City-Bombable-Testbed.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Kansas-City-East-Bottoms-Tank-Columns-circulators.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Kansas-City-East-Bottoms-Tank-Columns-one.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Kansas-City-East-Bottoms-Tank-Columns-two.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Kansas-City-East-Bottoms-Tank-Jeep-Columns-one.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-LakeTahoe-TwoF6FHellcats.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-LakeTahoeWWIIB17BombersWithF6FHellcatCover.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Lees-Summit-Bombing-Range-unarmored-easier-tanks.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-MarinCounty-TwoZeros.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-MarinCountyB-17BombersWithZeroCover.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-MarinCountyCamelInvasion1-Simple.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-MarinCountyCamelInvasion1-Zoo.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-MarinCountyCamelInvasion2-Simple.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-MarinCountyCamelInvasion2-Zoo.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-MarinCountyUFOInvasion.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-MarinCountyZeroInvasion.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Pine-Mountain-Lake-CA-Tank-Invasion1.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Pine-Mountain-Lake-CA-Tank-Invasion2.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Pine-Mountain-Lake-CA-Tank-Jeep-Invasion1.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Pine-Mountain-Lake-CA-Tank-Jeep-Invasion2.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-SanFranBayFerryInvasion.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-SanFranCessnaInvasion.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-SanFranWartHogInvasion.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-SanFranWartHogInvasion2.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Sun_Valley_Bombing_Range.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Sun_Valley_Tank_Invasion1.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Sun_Valley_Tank_Invasion2.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-Sun_Valley_Tank_Jeep_Invasion1.xml
branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Scenarios/BOMB-WWIIB17BombersWithF6FHellcatCover.xml
Added: branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/COPYING
===================================================================
--- branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/COPYING (rev 0)
+++ branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/COPYING 2025-05-01 10:13:48 UTC (rev 11946)
@@ -0,0 +1,340 @@
+ GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
+ Version 2, June 1991
+
+ Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+ 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
+ Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
+ of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+
+ Preamble
+
+ The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
+freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
+License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
+software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
+General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
+Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
+using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
+the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
+your programs, too.
+
+ When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
+price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
+have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
+this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
+if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
+in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
+
+ To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
+anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
+These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
+distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
+
+ For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
+gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
+you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
+source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
+rights.
+
+ We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
+(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
+distribute and/or modify the software.
+
+ Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
+that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
+software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
+want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
+that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
+authors' reputations.
+
+ Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
+patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
+program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
+program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
+patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
+
+ The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
+modification follow.
+
+ GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
+ TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
+
+ 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
+a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
+under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
+refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
+means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
+that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
+either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
+language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
+the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
+
+Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
+covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
+running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
+is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
+Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
+Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
+
+ 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
+source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
+conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
+copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
+notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
+and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
+along with the Program.
+
+You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
+you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
+
+ 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
+of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
+distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
+above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
+
+ a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
+ stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
+
+ b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
+ whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
+ part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
+ parties under the terms of this License.
+
+ c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
+ when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
+ interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
+ announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
+ notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
+ a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
+ these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
+ License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
+ does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
+ the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
+
+These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
+identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
+and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
+themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
+sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
+distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
+on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
+this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
+entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
+
+Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
+your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
+exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
+collective works based on the Program.
+
+In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
+with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
+a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
+the scope of this License.
+
+ 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
+under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
+Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
+
+ a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
+ source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
+ 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+ b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
+ years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
+ cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
+ machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
+ distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
+ customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+ c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
+ to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
+ allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
+ received the program in object code or executable form with such
+ an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
+
+The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
+making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
+code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
+associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
+control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
+special exception, the source code distributed need not include
+anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
+form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
+operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
+itself accompanies the executable.
+
+If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
+access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
+access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
+distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
+compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
+
+ 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
+except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
+otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
+void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
+However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
+this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
+parties remain in full compliance.
+
+ 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
+signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
+distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
+prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
+modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
+all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
+the Program or works based on it.
+
+ 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
+original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
+these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
+restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
+You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
+this License.
+
+ 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
+infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
+conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
+otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
+excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
+distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
+License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
+may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
+license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
+all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
+the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
+refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
+
+If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
+any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
+apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
+circumstances.
+
+It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
+patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
+such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
+integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
+implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
+generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
+through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
+system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
+to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
+impose that choice.
+
+This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
+be a consequence of the rest of this License.
+
+ 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
+certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
+original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
+may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
+those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
+countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
+the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
+
+ 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
+of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
+be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
+address new problems or concerns.
+
+Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
+specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
+later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
+either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
+Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
+this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
+Foundation.
+
+ 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
+programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
+to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
+Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
+make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
+of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
+of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
+
+ NO WARRANTY
+
+ 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
+FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
+OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
+PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
+OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
+TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
+PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
+REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
+
+ 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
+WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
+REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
+INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
+OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
+TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
+YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
+PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
+POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
+
+ END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
+
+ How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
+
+ If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
+possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
+free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
+
+ To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
+to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
+convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
+the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
+
+ <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
+ Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
+
+ This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+ the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+ (at your option) any later version.
+
+ This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+ GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+ You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+ along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
+ Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
+
+
+Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
+
+If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
+when it starts in an interactive mode:
+
+ Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
+ Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
+ This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
+ under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
+
+The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
+parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may
+be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
+mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.
+
+You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
+school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
+necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
+
+ Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
+ `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.
+
+ <signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1989
+ Ty Coon, President of Vice
+
+This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
+proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
+consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
+library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
+Public License instead of this License.
Added: branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/SopwithCamel-Realistic-JSBSim-Flight-Model-Notes.txt
===================================================================
--- branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/SopwithCamel-Realistic-JSBSim-Flight-Model-Notes.txt (rev 0)
+++ branches/release-2024.1/Addons/Bombable-5.0/Docs/SopwithCamel-Realistic-JSBSim-Flight-Model-Notes.txt 2025-05-01 10:13:48 UTC (rev 11946)
@@ -0,0 +1,1295 @@
+SOPWITH CAMEL: A REALISTIC JSBSIM FLIGHT MODEL - NOTES
+
+Version 1.8
+
+Brent Hugh, 28 May 2013
+
+br...@br...
+
+PURPOSE
+
+In flying the existing Sopwith Camel flight models in Flightgear with Bombable
+in simulated combat situations, the shortcomings of these flight models became
+apparent. Flightgear flight models are typically designed and optimized for
+flying aircraft well within their design envelopes, and work very well in
+those situations.
+
+However, combat aircraft are often operated near the limits--or even over the
+limits--of their documented capabilities. Particularly for an aircraft like
+the Camel, working with and against the quirks of its design was an integral
+part of operating the aircraft in both everyday operations and in combat.
+These operational quirks were openly exploited by combat pilots.
+
+As one writer said:
+
+ I enjoyed flying the Camel, but its vices of control instability, extreme
+ control sensitivity and pronounced gyroscopic effects all combined to create
+ the impression of balancing an egg on the point of a needle rather than flying
+ an aircraft . . .
+
+ It was never forced into manoeuvres - they were executed by light pressure on
+ the controls and subsequently relaxing, or sometimes reversing, the pressure
+ once the desired rate of response was attained.
+
+I set out to create a flight model of the Camel that would incorporate as many
+of the documented combat flight characteristics of the Camel as possible, and
+in as realistic a way as possible.
+
+Technical and operations manuals of the Camel are available that give a
+baseline for its capabilities and operation, and the JSBSim flight model now
+very closely matches those public specifications. However, extensive wind
+tunnel testing data, which would give far more detailed data about performance
+of the aircraft in different situations--and which is often available for more
+modern aircraft--is not available for the Camel as far as I know.
+
+For that reason, I have relied on detailed reports by pilots of historical and
+modern Sopwith Camels, which give an account of characteristics, quirks, and
+typical solutions used by pilots, and used these first-hand sources to guide
+the development of the flight model.
+
+CAMEL FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS IMPLEMENTED IN THE FDM
+
+Camel flight characteristics are documented below and in the included files.
+
+Below is a list of Camel flight characteristics implemented in this JSBSim
+flight model, with a rating of the effectiveness of the current implementation
+on a scale of 1-5:
+
+1 - Not implemented
+
+2 - Partially implemented
+
+3 - Well implemented
+
+4 - As well implemented as possible, as far as I (a non-pilot) can determine
+
+5 - As well implemented as possible, according to an expert Camel pilot
+
+
+4 Weight, fuel capacity & weight, hp, dimensions and other technical details
+implemented as described in attached article, 'The Sopwith "Camel"', The
+Automobile, Nov 7, 1918.
+
+4 Best available calculations for moment of inertia of engine/propellor, prop
+thrust, moment of inertia of aircraft wings and body. See included file
+Camel-JSBSim-calcs-2011-10D.xls. NOTE: These results could/should be verified
+and improved by actual measurement and testing of an aircraft, by wind tunnel
+data, or by extensive testing and feedback of the model by an experienced
+Camel pilot.
+
+4 Speed, RPM, horsepower of climbing and horizontal flight closes matches
+published number. See for example the speed/climb rate graphs comparing the
+JSBSim Camel and a historical 1917 Camel in the Docs subdirectory, file
+Camel-JSBSim-calcs-2011-10D.xls NOTE: 2013/04/07, with new lift/drag tables
+need to re-check the speed/climb rates to make sure they still match
+historical records NOTE: The numbers to not match exactly, of course--tweaking
+parameters in JSBSim you can match any single parameter exactly put not
+several parameters of different types exactly. Nevertheless the results are
+very close, definitely show the characteristics of the Camel (vs any of the
+other similar aircraft of the period) and in fact is probably close enough to
+be within the bounds of individual variation of production Camels. TODO: Retest
+these items on Ver 1.6; tweak dive rate/speed to better match historical Camel.
+
+3 Max sustained turn rate about 76 deg/sec, ie 360 degrees in 4.7 seconds
+(near stall speed, level flight, sea level). NOTE: Current best time is about
+8-10 seconds; this matches reported times by Camel pilots of the time and the
+4.7 sec/76 deg/sec might not be the most reliable number?
+
+4 Flown basically with rudder and elevator; rudder initiates turns etc and
+ailerons only used as assist; many pilots didn't use ailerons much.
+
+3 Able to turn through 360 degrees (including roll in/out) in 8-10 seconds as
+reported by WWI era Camel pilots.
+
+4 Quick/light response to controls
+
+4 The gyroscopic effect causes the nose to rise in a left-hand turn (moreso
+that most other similar aircraft)
+
+4 The gyroscopic effect causes nose to drop in a right-hand turn
+
+4 Fairly large amounts of left rudder were needed in both L & R turns to
+correct
+
+4 Sluggish in left turns. Quicker through 270 degrees to the right than 90
+degrees to the left. NOTE: This is noticeable on flat, level, coordinated turns
+at steady speed, may not be as dramatic as historic accounts indicate. In Ver.
+1.6 this effect is more obvious.
+
+4 Known for stalling/spinning on take-off if inattentive piloting let nose
+rise during initial LH turn.
+
+4 Sensitive in a turn, if the turn were tightened just a little, it was likely
+to whip into a tight spin.
+
+4 All the weight of the engine, guns, and pilot was concentrated in the first
+seven feet of a short 18-foot fuselage.
+
+3.5 Spins: Period of 1-2 seconds. In Ver. 1.6 the stall and spin
+characteristics we re-tweaked; this area may still need more work.
+
+3 Loses 150-200 feet per revolution while spinning. NOTE: Loses about 125ft
+per revolution, may need further tweaking. Needs re-checking in ver. 1.6.
+
+4 Exit spin by gentle forward pressure in the stick, then *gradually* pull
+out. AC will *sometimes* self-recover from a spin, but many times not.
+
+2.5 General spin characteristics similar to Camel; ability to do spin-related
+maneuvers documented for the Camel--snap rolls, etc. Note that 'snap rolls' as
+often described in relation to the Camel appear to not be true aerobatic snap
+rolls as we would perform today (too vigorous for the Camel's light airframe)
+but a kind of roll coordinated between rudder & aileron.
+
+3.7 Possible to fly inverted. Stalls at about 65 mph/56 knots when flying
+inverted. TODO: Tweak exact stall speed.
+
+3 In inverted flight, possible to stall and get into an inverted spin.
+
+3.8 Camel's elevator was powerful and sensitive.
+
+3.9 Rudder was too small and relatively ineffective.
+
+3.9 Straight/forward flight requires slight right rudder at all times.
+
+3.8 Roll for turns initiated by rudder (due to large adverse yaw/drag of
+ailerons); ailerons use to control roll in turns rather than initiate.
+
+4 Accelerating the aircraft caused the nose to climb, and swing to the left.
+
+4 At 110 miles per hour, there was about 15 to 20 pounds of back force on the
+control column, which could not be trimmed out because the aircraft had no
+pilot-adjustable, moveable horizontal stabilizer.
+
+3.8 Moving the stick forward to enter a dive caused the Camel to yaw left
+because of gyroscopic force, and correcting this yaw with right rudder caused
+the nose to pitch down sharply.
+
+4 Steerable tail skid of the Camel helped to overcome a slight swing to the
+left as I opened the throttle. (This seems to be only a feature of replica
+Camels, however it is implemented in FG as otherwise there is no way to
+maneuver the A/C on the ground. In WWI ground crew would have been used instead.)
+
+4 The tail came up at about 20 knots.
+
+4 Lifts off about 35-40 knots
+
+4 Able to take off & land in a very short distance, especially on a field and
+with a headwind--see for instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT9wtDNiKaI
+With a 15 mph headwind, JSBSim Camel now matches this takeoff almost exactly.
+The rollout matches pretty well, too--though obviously much depends on the
+exact surface and other details.
+
+3.5 Right rudder needed to keep AC on course early in roll-out.
+
+3 Left rudder needed later in roll-out as speed increases. NOTE: The JSBSim
+current requires R rudder on takeoff, not left, and not quite full rudder. Not
+certain of the reason for this.
+
+3 Rudder loses effectiveness as soon as it drops on landing. NOTE: JSBSim
+implements steering in the taildragger when it's touching ground. This may not
+be 100% authentic, but otherwise it's just impossible to maneuver the Camel on
+the ground in FG!
+
+4 In a wind of 10 to 15 knots you are airborne in a couple of plane lengths
+at 35 mph.
+
+4 Rate of climb of almost 1,000 feet a minute climbing out of take-off.
+TODO: Need to verify/tweak exact climb rates & match to historical data.
+
+4 Capable of looping, 110 mph required.
+
+4 Being slightly tail-heavy it goes up and over in an incredibly small circle
+in the sky, and faster than any other WWI aircraft I have flown.
+
+4 Tail heavy with full fuel
+
+4 Slightly nose heavy with empty fuel.
+
+4 Ineffective ailerons: Slow roll/ailerons only with level flight requires
+23 seconds to complete--if it can be done at all (it requires a special
+technique). This is reported in a radial engine replica; it is duplicated in
+Ver. 1.4 almost exactly, with the added feature that roll to the L is
+noticeable faster/easier than roll to the R, due to large torque of Clerget
+rotary engine.
+
+4 Ailerons induce 'awe-inspiring' opposite yaw (ie, yaw to the R on L roll)
+and much drag.
+
+4 Starting at level flight, adding full left aileron just moves the nose to
+the right and it stays there. You don't start rolling right until you
+coordinate with the rudder as well. (And ditto for full R aileron.)
+
+4 In level flight at 100 mph indicated, just a hint of rudder is required
+for straight flight.
+
+4 Thin airfoil shape affects lift, drag, AOA of stall, etc., and the effects
+are quite different than for later aircraft with thicker wings. Stall speed:
+Wikipedia and several other sources report 48 mph/41.7 knots. However, this
+does not match up with the Camel's reputed quick turn rate. Lower stall
+speed directly equates with quicker turn rate. A replica Camel reports a
+stall speed under 40 MPH (35 knots) and Frank Tallman reports stall speed of
+35-40 mph (30.4-34.8 knots). A stall speed in this range seems to fit better
+with the Camel's reported turn rate.
+
+4 Current (Ver. 1.4+) drag/lift uses tweaked historical lift/drag curves for
+the Camel's wing shape and also the known historical zero-lift drag
+coefficient for the Camel.
+
+3 P factor - evidently the shape of the prop creates a somewhat higher P
+factor than for later similar aircraft, but the strength of this effect is an
+open question.
+
+4 As you slow down over the top of the loop you must feed in rudder against
+the torque.
+
+4 On strafing runs, as soon as the airspeed reaches 130 to 140 mph the nose
+begins to hunt up and down, and the elevator becomes extremely sensitive. I
+feel this action is due largely to the square windshield between the two
+Vickers guns, causing a substantial burble over the tail surfaces.
+
+3.9 In stalls at 35 to 40 mph the nose drops frighteningly fast and hard to
+the right, but you also get control back quickly, although a surprising amount
+of altitude has been lost. I have had the pleasure of limited dog fighting
+with other WWI fighters, and there are none that can stay with a Camel in a
+turn. TODO: JSBSim model stalls almost exactly as described, but nose drops
+hard to L instead of R. This can likely be tweaked in the model.
+
+4 Very quick half-roll (a touch of left rudder for a half roll, then a quick
+half-loop was a often-used maneuver to reverse direction).
+
+4 Twin Vickers machine guns, 400 round capacity (historically 250-400 seems to
+have been the range), best known realistic mass, ballistic, and aerodynamic
+characteristics for rounds, firing rate, characteristics of tracer rounds,
+etc. Historically realistic re-loading scenario (requires landing, full stop,
+engine off). See camel-alternative-submodels.xml for information and
+documentation. NOTE: Aerodynamic characteristics of machine gun rounds could
+be tweaked if better data were available; tracer visuals could be made
+more realistic.
+
+3.8 Mixture needed constant manual adjustment; first adjustment about 250 ft
+above ground on liftoff. For highest realism, switch on manual mixture
+using the Camel menu. TODO: Mixture and throttle adjustments are not as
+tweaky as described by Camel pilots. Mixture lever or dial isn't implemented;
+a simple Flightgear menu displays current mixture & RPM when manual mixture is
+enabled.
+
+3.5 Control of engine thrust via blip switch and magneto rather than throttle.
+NOTE: Pilots can simulate the realistic historical way of controlling the
+Camel's engine using this method: Leave throttle at full position at all times;
+manipulate engine power through use of the magnetos and blip switch alone.
+Engine power with one and with two magnetos engaged is very close to that
+described in technical specifications; operating with one magneto creates a
+low-power setting. TODO: A more realistic flight experience would be to
+connect the joystick throttle control to the mixture, allowing constant
+adjustment of the mixture as necessary, and leave throttle always at full with
+engine power adjusted by magnetos and blip switch.
+
+3 Engine power with both magnetos or one magneto matches historical engines.
+NOTE: The one-magneto setting doesn't seem to match the historical Clerget
+power, not exactly sure how to address this given JSBSim's propulsion model.
+
+4 Engine start. Camel engines were notoriously difficult to start. Given the
+manual engine starting methods of the day, they must have started either with a
+quick crank or not at all. NOTE: This is modeled by an approx. .5-1.5 second
+cranking period, initiated by the 's' key, which starts the engine about 1/4
+of attempts.
+
+4 Engine runs out of fuel/stops when inverted or pulling negative Gs. On slow
+roll (23 seconds), engine stops just after wings vertical and starts again
+soon after regaining erect flight. NOTE: This is implemented via a Nasal
+routine that tracks fuel in a simple carburetor. Fuel flows or out depending
+on the forces involved and when the carburetor runs out of fuel the engine
+sputters and stops until the carburetor refills.
+
+4 Service ceiling 19,600 ft. Tested in ver. 1.7, by the standard of highest altitude able to sustain 100 fpm climb (1.66 fps).
+
+3.5 The 130HP Clerget Camel was generally lower performance/underperforming for altitudes greater than 10,000-12,000 feet.
+
+
+
+SPECIFICATIONS
+
+Cruising speed for Camel with 130 HP Clerget, per SopwithCamelSpecs-1955.pdf -
+Flight, "Sopwith Camel", 22 April 1955, is
+
+ 115 mph @ 6500 ft
+ 113 mph @ 10000 ft
+ 106.5 mph @ 15000 ft
+
+ Climb to
+ 6500 ft = 6 min 0 sec
+ 10000 ft = 10 min 35 sec
+ 15000 ft = 20 min 40 sec
+
+DOCUMENTS
+A number of relevant documents and notes, including facsimiles, articles, and
+calculations, are included in the Docs folder of this distribution.
+
+Below is a compilation of notes and comments by pilots with experience flying
+the Camel.
+
+---
+
+Sopwith F.1 Camel;
+
+Clerget 9B;
+
+Wg 1 482
+
+We 962
+
+b 28.0
+
+ 18.8
+
+S 231
+
+Wg/S 6.4
+
+Wg/Po11.4
+
+
+Vmax 105 (at 10,000 ft)
+
+Vs 48
+
+Cd0 0.0378
+
+f 8.73
+
+A 4.11
+
+L/Dmax 7.7
+
+http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/app-a.htm
+
+---
+
+Based on the information contained in appendix II of reference 100 for the later
+Sopwith Snipe, the gyroscopic action of the engine caused a nose-up moment in a
+left turn and a nose-down moment in a right turn. Accordingly, left stick, a
+large amount of left rudder, and moderate back stick were required in a steep
+left turn; too much back stick caused the aircraft to stall and spin. Right
+stick, a moderate amount of left rudder, and full back stick were required in a
+steep right turn. There seems little doubt that these odd control techniques
+could cause confusion and indecision on the part of an inexperienced pilot.
+
+100. Penrose, Harold: British Aviation. The Great War and Armistice - 1915-1919 (London: Putnam & Co., 1969).
+
+http://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch2-2.htm
+
+---
+
+R&M 592 Report on Accidents to Certain Aeroplanes with Special Reference to
+Spinning - Aeronautical Research Committee
+
+*Note: This report refers to the Camel as "A"*
+
+II. BEHAVIOUR OF "A"
+
+4. During the course of the investigation the Committee had the advantage of
+evidence on the behaviour of various aeroplanes from fourteen pilots with wide
+flying experience.
+
+5. On many of the most important points their opinion was unanimous. Where
+differences occurred the contradiction was more apparent than real, and
+further evidence showed that such difference did not affect the actual
+manoeuvre. For instance, some pilots make use of the lateral control, but an
+agree that this does not materially affect the spinning of an aeroplane.
+
+6. All the pilots agreed that the machine A had certain peculiarities which
+may be summarised as follows :*
+
+GENERAL CHARACTERISICS.
+
+7. (a) Stalling.-A as usually rigged is tail heavy and longitudinally
+unstable. This is accentuated when a light Le Rhone engine is substituted for
+a heavier Clerget and/or where guns and ammunition are removed.
+
+During normal horizontal flight, it is necessary to keep a continuous forward
+pressure of about 14 Ibs. on the control column. Any relaxation of the pilot's
+effort is therefore likely to end in a stall. Because of the longitudinal
+instability of the aeroplane engine failure will be followed by a stall unless
+the pilot dives the machine.
+
+8. (b) Turning.--Most of the pilots, in the course of their evidence drew
+attention to the fact that a steeply-banked right hand turn requires full left
+rudder. This is accounted for by gyroscopic effect.
+
+9. The unsymmetrical forces and couples on an aeroplane arise from engine
+torque, slipstream and the gyroscopic couple. The first two, torque and
+slipstream, may produce an unsymmetric setting of the ailerons and rudder
+respectively. They do not produce effects which depend on the rate of turning
+to any appreciable extent. The gyroscopic couple alone is capable of
+explaining the effect mentioned above.
+
+10. The propeller, viewed from the pilot's seat, turns clockwise, and when the
+aeroplane is turning to the right it tends to put its nose down as a
+consequence of the gyroscopic couple. The tendency is countered by left rudder
+and back (or top) elevator. Turning to the left, the nose of the aeroplane
+tends to go up, and this effect is countered by left rudder and forward (or
+bottom) elevator.
+
+From the evidence of the witnesses it is apparent that practically all flyers
+feel strongly the need of a larger rudder surface.
+
+14. (d) Looping.-In the case of A all violent use of the controls must be
+avoided. With the stick pulled too hard back, the machine will fail to
+complete the loop. Further, if a straight loop is required, left rudder must
+be used to counteract gyroscopic effect, and it was stated by one witness that
+the rudder was barely sufficient for this manoeuvre.
+
+15 (e) Spinning.-The general method adopted when getting into a tight hand
+spin is :*
+
+(i) Cut off engine.
+
+(ii) Pull back control stick.
+
+(iii) Put on right rudder. This describes the action usually taken, but the
+essential feature is that the machine is slowed down until it stalls, when the
+normal sequence is a spin.
+
+16. There is general agreement as to the position of the controls when in a
+spin. The essential feature is that the stick is kept hard back; the position
+of rudder and ailerons is relatively unimportant.
+
+17. The normal method of coming out of a spin is with the control stick
+slightly forward and other controls neutral. In this position the spin will
+soon stop, out the nose of the machine must be held down until flying speed is
+attained, when the stick should be pulled gently back, and the machine is
+flattened out.
+
+In the case of an emergency, the spin can be stopped more rapidly by putting
+the stick forward and reversing the rudder, but in this case a violent
+manoeuvre is induced, and want of skill may lead to the machine dropping back
+into the reverse spin.
+
+18. It appears to be established that the rotation cannot be reversed without
+an intermediate period, during which the machine is re-stalled. This does not
+require the fuselage to be brought to a horizontal position.
+
+19. As usually rigged, the aeroplane A will not come out of the spin with
+hands off, and will only come out slowly, if at all, with all the controls
+held strictly central.
+
+21. There is no aeroplane at present in use which spins faster than A; its
+time period is 1 to 2 seconds, and the loss of height per turn 150 to 200 feet.
+
+23. Accidents due to spinning.-The Committee have considered 41 accidents to
+machine A due to stalling and spinning. These accidents can be divided into
+two groups :* Group (i) includes accidents due to stalls at low level. Group
+(ii) includes accidents due to spins continued to the ground from a high
+level. A classified list will be found in Appendix IV.
+
+24. On all aeroplanes loss of control occurs when stalled. At a low level this
+results in a nose dive or spin, and an accident ensues as lack of head room
+precludes the completion of the manoeuvre before the ground is reached.
+Accidents in group (0 belong to this category. The common feature is that the
+stall was unintentional, the primary cause of the stall varying (e.g., engine
+failure, faulty turn, general inexperience).
+
+38. In cases where previous dual instruction on A is impossible the movements
+necessary in a spin must be impressed so forcibly on the pupil that they will
+return to his mind subconsciously when the difficulty arises. The routine
+method is :
+
+(i) Stick forward and central and rudder central.
+(ii) Wait for the machine to acquire flying speed.
+(iii) Pull out gently."
+
+Source: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/56275-question-ways-get-killed-sopwith-camel-4.html
+
+---
+
+Max sustained turn rate is about 76 deg/sec. That is near stall speed, level
+flight, at sea level. p. 7
+
+A graph of speed vs climb rate is given for the Camel and four other
+aircraft from the same era (p. 7).
+
+http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/AIAAPaper2005-119.pdf
+
+Not su
+
+---
+
+"I lived its quick response - it was so remarkably swift and sensitive that it
+demanded constant attention. The torque caused the nose to rise in a left-hand
+turn and drop in a right-hand turn. Fairly large amounts of left rudder were
+needed in both turns to correct for these idiosyncrasis. The tiny biplane was
+so sensitive in a turn, however, that if the turn were tightened just a little,
+it was likely to whip into a tight spin - quickly and without warning. Oddly
+this very ease for spinning was used in combat by many pilots to shake a
+persisten German from their tails. Sopwith Camel vs Fokker Dr 1: Western Front
+1917-18 by Jon Guttman, Harry Dempsey, quoting from mark Curtis Kinney's
+memoir, I Flew a Camel
+
+---
+
+Here is a description about the Camel's traits from BARKER VC, (via author
+Wayne Ralph at
+http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/2001/11306-sopwith-camel-flight-characteristics.html
+):
+
+Quote:
+
+All the weight of the engine, guns, and pilot was concentrated in the first
+seven feet of a short 18-foot fuselage. The various models of rotary engine
+fitted to the Camel, from a 110-hp Le Rhone, to a 130-hp Clerget, to a 150-hp
+Bentley, had the propeller attached to the engine crankcase and the crankshaft
+to the aircraft so that the propeller and engine revolved together at more
+than 1250 rpm. This heavy whirling engine was lubricated continually by castor
+oil which was not recycled, but rather was burned in the combustion process
+and vented overboard, soaking the aircraft, the pilot's flying suit, helmet
+and goggles. The gyroscopic forces that were generated varied in intensity
+based on a complex interaction of engine rpm, aircraft speed, and control
+input. The scout had a different character turning left or right, as did all
+the rotary-engined aeroplanes, but the Camel to an extreme degree. It was
+sluggish in left turns and the nose always pitched up, while right turns were
+very quick, with the nose dropping sharply. Without plenty of top (ie, left)
+rudder to correct the pitch down, it would spin. A Camel pilot had to apply
+left rudder turning left or right, the amount varying with aircraft speed and
+engine rpm. Since the engine rotation countered the input of left stick and
+rudder, some pilots made all turns to the right because the aircraft was
+quicker through 270 degrees, than 90 degrees to the left. The Camel's elevator
+was powerful and sensitive, while the rudder was too small and relatively
+ineffective. Coordinated turns demanded a fine touch. Correcting sideslip, the
+tendency of the aeroplane to slide to the inside of a banked turn, by applying
+opposite rudder, caused the Camel to tighten up in the turn. In steep turns
+over 45 degrees of bank, the aircraft tended to pitch up its nose, and tighten
+up its bank angle as speed reduced, requiring continual adjustments in the
+amount of forward pressure on the stick with engine rpm changes. In the words
+of test pilot W/C Paul A. Hartman, RCAF, the Camel has no 'dynamic
+longitudinal stability' in steep turns. Accelerating the aircraft caused the
+nose to climb, and swing to the left. At 110 miles per hour, there was about
+15 to 20 pounds of back force on the control column, which could not be
+trimmed out because the aircraft had no pilot-adjustable, moveable horizontal
+stabilizer. Therefore, Camel pilots had to fly two-to-three hour missions,
+continually applying forward pressure just to maintain level flight. Letting
+go resulted in the aircraft pitching up, and rolling inverted to the right.
+Moving the stick forward to enter a dive caused the Camel to yaw left because
+of gyroscopic force, and correcting this yaw with right rudder caused the nose
+to pitch down sharply. By today's standards the Camel was completely
+unacceptable, and yet many pilots of 1917-8, most with under 100 hours of
+flying time used it as a lethal weapon.
+
+---
+
+http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/2001/11306-sopwith-camel-flight-characteristics-3.html
+In those notes are a description of when and why the mixture had to be adjusted.
+If memory serves, it was perilously low to the ground, under 250 feet. The
+shift to left rudder would have to have taken place either just before or just
+after this, because the whole point of changing the mixture was that the
+engine would have been on the verge of choking, which means that you'd be
+trying to maintain flying speed.
+
+My guess is that the shift would have to happen within 10-20 seconds of
+getting airborne under normal circumstances.
+
+---
+
+"...all flights of these early machines were conducted from the grass surface
+of the airfield, not the paved runways, and the steerable tail skid of the
+Camel helped to overcome a slight swing to the left as I opened the throttle.
+The tail came up at about 20 knots.
+
+As the speed reached 40 knots I eased the stick back slightly and the Camel
+became airborne. It accelerated rapidly to 55 knots and I held it in a climb
+at that speed until I reached 500 feet. I leveled off, leaned the mixture, and
+started a left hand turn. The gyroscopic effect from the rotary engine quickly
+became apparent...
+
+...I enjoyed flying the Camel, but its vices of control instability, extreme
+control sensitivity and pronounced gyroscopic effects all combined to create
+the impression of balancing an egg on the point of a needle rather than flying
+an aircraft...it was never forced into manoeuvres - they were executed by
+light pressure on the controls and subsequently relaxing, or sometimes
+reversing, the pressure once the desired rate of response was attained.
+
+By modern standards of stability and control, the Camel would be totally
+unacceptable as a military aircraft...
+
+(quoted from Canada's National Aviation Museum - Its History and Collection,
+by K.M. Molson)
+
+http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/2001/11306-sopwith-camel-flight-characteristics.html
+
+---
+
+"As I opened the throttle I simultaneously applied full left rudder and as I
+became airborn I found that I had full left rudder on. (This was the answer
+always, as I afterwards found, and I was never in trouble again from this
+cause)"
+
+August 98 issue of Flight journal has the flying of the Camel by Rich King.
+160 Hp Gnome engine (yes, rotary), quote:
+
+Right rudder is needed to keep the Camel tracking straight ahead while it is
+on the runway, and as the tail comes up, I find that my rudder correction was
+right on. I m facing straight down the center of the runway.........A little
+back pressure on the control stick and the bumpy ground falls away behind me,
+and the Camels speed continues to increase at an exhilarating rate. A little
+forward pressure on the "closh handle" hold the aeroplane a few feet above the
+runway while its speed continues to increase. .... Left Rudder is now needed
+to keep the racing Camel straight....." end quote
+
+http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/2001/11306-sopwith-camel-flight-characteristics-2.html
+
+---
+
+From the Frank Tallman book "Flying the old planes"...
+
+My Sopwith Camel is, as far as I'm aware, the only original World War 1 Camel
+ever brought back to flying condition. It was originally owned by Colonel
+Jarrett of the Jarrett War Museum located on the old Steel Pier in Atlantic
+City; who in the 1930's had the best museum of WWI equipment ever assembled,
+including the Belgian War Museum in Brussels. The Jarrett Museum fell on hard
+times following WWII and, with time and money on my side after my service
+period, and a lifelong ambition of owning a WWI aircraft, I purchased for a
+small sum (by today's standards) several antique aircraft including the Camel,
+a Nieuport 28, a Pfalz D.XII, a Fokker D.VII and a SPAD VII.
+
+The Camel was the first WWI aircraft I brought back to flying condition and
+required some major rebuilding, which took several years, many thousands of
+dollars and a whole host of experts including Paul Poberzney of the
+Experimental Aircraft Association, the gifted master craftsman Ned Kensinger,
+the Hawker Siddeley Group and a number of very dedicated volunteer's.
+
+(NB: There is quite a bit on the rebuilding process in the Chapter but I have
+left it out of this extract for the sake of space).
+
+When the day finally came to fly the air was filled with great anticipation.
+On arrival at the airport though I was dismayed to hear from my team that they
+had been trying to get the temperamental 110 h.p. Le Rhone started since
+8.00am that morning, without success. The lack of knowledge amongst us
+regarding the Le Rhone was appalling. Did we have spark? Yes. Was the mag set?
+Yes. Had the commutator ring been wiped off? Yes. Had we primed it? Only every
+other cylinder.
+
+With only a vague notion of what I was doing I clambered into the cockpit (a
+very tight fit) and reviewed the cord-wrapped Spade stick, the Block tube,
+carburettors next to one's knees, the flexible air intake to the outside air
+scoops, the wood wire brace longerons, the instrument panel with it's clutter
+and the duel control cables to the wooden rudder bar. At my request, the crew
+forced open the intake valves as the engine was pushed through (switch off)
+and shot a charge of fuel in each cylinder, as the cylinder came in front of
+the hole in the cowling. By accident, rather than by knowledge, I advanced the
+long lever controlling the air, and in pushing the manet (a small wheel knob
+on the miniature control quadrant) forward and then returning it, I had hit on
+the correct starting procedure. Wonder of wonders, as I flipped the
+porcelain-mounted switch up and called for contact, the Le Rhone started with
+a full-throated bellow, scaring both me and the crew!
+
+By shoving the fuel-controlling lever forward and using the coupe (cut-out)
+button on the stick, I was able to keep the engine running. Soon the
+never-to-be-forgotten smell of castor oil infused our area, and the sight of
+oil splattering the leading edge of the low wings indicated that the engine
+was lubricating properly. Taxiing practice ended ignominiously a hundred feet
+from the starting point, when my newfound knowledge wasn't equal to the
+delicate adjustment of fuel and air, and the Le Rhone quit.
+
+The revitalised ground crew hauled the 900 pound airplane over the grass and
+faced me into the wind. For safety sake we changed the plugs, and the Le Rhone
+started first try. I headed down the field with the throttle wide open. The
+tail came up almost instantly, and visibility was good, except for the Aldis
+sight and the twin Vickers. Not having planned on flight it came as something
+of a shock to find the Camel airborne at about 35 mph after a ground run of
+just 150 feet. Being afraid of jockeying with my ticklish fuel and air
+controls I stayed low and just got used to the Camel's sensitive ailerons,
+elevators and rudder.
+
+I circled the field once, got into position for landing, shut fuel air and
+switch off, and made a light forward slip, touching down gently on three
+points. Total landing couldn't have been much longer than the initial take-off
+run.
+
+So much for my first (unintentional) flight in the Camel.
+
+Since then I've spent more time flying the Camel than any of the other
+historical aircraft in our collection. I've also had more forced landings in
+it than all the rest of the WWI aircraft combined. It's that temperamental Le
+Rhone. Cylinders have blown, magneto's have failed, even fouled spark plugs
+have brought me down unceremoniously, with sweating hands and my heart in my
+mouth, desperately seeking a patch of open ground on which to land. Yet for
+all that it's the one I turn to first for any show or exhibition, as the Camel
+gets my blood going like no other. This is an aircraft that is a joy to fly.
+
+With the Le Rhone 9J, you cannot adjust either the fuel or air intake without
+running the risk of a dead-stick landing. You must leave them alone and use
+you Coupe (cut-out) button for all fight handling.
+
+The take-off run is easy. In a wind of 10 to 15 knots you are airborne in a
+couple of plane lengths at 35 mph and climbing out at 60 mph, with a rate of
+climb of almost 1,000 feet a minute. The elevators are sensitive, as is the
+rudder. Consequently, when fling for any distance I often put the heels of my
+shoes on the floor tie wires, because the vibration of the Le Rhone through
+the rudder bar exaggerates the rudder movements.
+
+In level flight at 100 mph indicated, the Camel is delightful, with just a
+hint of rudder being required for straight flight. The structure is rugged
+enough to feel comfortable in loops, and being slightly tail-heavy it goes up
+and over in an incredibly small circle in the sky, and faster than any other
+WWI aircraft I have flown. Sneeze and your halfway through a loop before your
+aware of what's happened. 110 mph is enough to carry you through, and as you
+slow down over the top you must feed in rudder against the torque.
+
+In military shows I have ground strafed, and as soon as the airspeed reaches
+130 to 140 mph the nose begins to hunt up and down, and the elevator becomes
+extremely sensitive. I feel this action is due largely to the square
+windshield between the two Vickers guns, causing a substantial burble over the
+tail surfaces.
+
+Turns are what the Camel is all about. Turning to the right with the torque
+requires the top rudder to hold the nose up, and the speed with which you can
+complete a 360-degree turn is breathtaking. Left turns are slower, with the
+nose wanting to rise during the turn. But small rudder input easily keeps the
+nose level with the ...
[truncated message content] |
