Handling: Hanriot versus Camel

Rumpler · 10 January 2010, 09:58 AM

I've been researching types, looking for a potential replica project, and was struck by the difference in handling descriptions between a Sopwith Camel and the Hanriot Hd.1. Similar configurations (cockpit/engine closely spaced, rotary, one wing all the dihedral), similar power, similar weights and performance, yet the Camel's handling is usually described as "vicious" or dangerous, and the Hanriot's as delightfully maneuverable. Any suggestions as to why the difference?

RAF56_Ball · 11 January 2010, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rumpler

I've been researching types, looking for a potential replica project, and was struck by the difference in handling descriptions between a Sopwith Camel and the Hanriot Hd.1. Similar configurations (cockpit/engine closely spaced, rotary, one wing all the dihedral), similar power, similar weights and performance, yet the Camel's handling is usually described as "vicious" or dangerous, and the Hanriot's as delightfully maneuverable. Any suggestions as to why the difference?

I can venture a few educated guesses:
1. The engine of the camel was a higher HP and torque, therefore more subject to 'P'factor and gyroscopic effects.
2. The upper wing of a biplane carries the most load and the most aerodynamic forces. the upper is flat on the camel which decreases stability/improves maneuverability, while the upper has the dihedral, and therefore increased stability, on the Hanriot.
3. The Hanriot has a fair bit more stagger of the wings. That tends to imporve airflow over the wings, may also decrease turbulence over the tail, improving controlability.
4. Would look at the rudder. The camel's rudder may be a bit smaller and therefore less stabilizing, but would need a good side-view to tell.
5. Would check and see if engine position relative to the center of mass is closer on teh camel than the Hanroit.
lastly, would look at the ailerons. The camel's may be larger, which would improve roll effectiveness, but increase adverse yaw when at high AOA. I don't know there is is a difference between the two, I just suspect it from pictures.

Rumpler · 11 January 2010, 09:11 AM

I hadn't really thought about the uneven distribution of lift. I'll bet the upper wing dihedral combined with the larger vertical tail makes the most difference. Now, all I have to do is find reliable Hanriot plans, set up my workshop, win the lottery/find a reliable LeRhone (the two are about as likely), and three thousand or so work hours later, I'll have a fliable WW1 replica (fliable as in, one I can fly

).
Wonder what colors I should paint it...

gipsymoth236k · 11 January 2010, 03:26 PM

Hello Rumpler,

FYI - a GREAT source for Hanriot HD.1 construction drawings is from REPLICRAFT:

About Replicraft

Please give my kind regards to Jim Kiger there.

-Gary Sewall

Leatherhead · 11 January 2010, 04:03 PM

Rumpler,

Jim's current HD.1 drawings are not dimensioned, so would be pretty useless for a replica builder. He is currently working on a new set of drawings for the HD.1 which will be for full-scale building. I would wait until those are available. The last time I spoke with Jim, back in August, he was about 60% complete (my estimate, not his). Hopefully, he is close to finishing.

Rumpler · 11 January 2010, 06:19 PM

They're beautiful, as are all his efforts. While they might not be much use for a constructing parts, they're great for getting an idea of general configuration/construction. Wish I'd known he was coming out with a new set, though. Oh well, when the new ones are available, I'll have three sheets of really cool wallpaper for my shop

. I've heard that some builders use a set (something around 150 pages) of drawings of a Macchi-Hanriot. Anybody know where one might obtain those?

Leatherhead · 11 January 2010, 07:20 PM

Rumpler,

I have the Macchi drawings on CD. Please contact me:

dstaha@msn.com

RAF56_Ball · 12 January 2010, 10:13 PM

Have you thought of Robert Baslee? He could engineer an aluminum tube and gusset design for you that could use refined or near original airfoils. It can be as exactly sized and detailed as you have data for, but with modern materials and engine. And you will save a FORTUNE on lottery ticket recycling!!
*ducks for cover*
Here is some of his work seen in a Camel.
http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/re...f-1-camel.html

Rumpler · 12 January 2010, 10:57 PM

What an inspiration! Very unassuming on the outside, but inside: computer aided cutting machines, tubing, jigs and engines, and all sorts of aircraft and parts. And his energy level is intimidating. I live about 30 minutes away, which I'm beginning to suspect is a sign that I ought to just buy one of his kits. Most of the Aerodrome airplanes are more approximations than true replicas, though his Nieuport 28 is good looking. If he gets the dihedral worked out on his Pup that would be a great candidate. An authentic Hanriot will take years to finish, while one of the Aerodrome kits can be knocked out in six months. Hmmm...build a Pup and fly on sunny days, while building the Hanriot when it rains (or snows, as it has the last few weeks). The idea has appeal...the lottery plan hasn't worked very well so far...I wonder what he'd charge to customize a design?

snj5 · 12 January 2010, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rumpler

...I wonder what he'd charge to customize a design?

The Airdrome F.1 Camel is a 'custom' prototype. Robert's prototypes, I think, are the best WW1 replica for safe frequent flying, and are an IMMENSE anount of value for the money. If you disallow all of the original and replica WW1 parts that are on the prototype Airdrome Camel, it costs about like a new SUV.