Anyone fancy buying G-ASOP (Sopwith Camel!)

When I visted Desmond St Cyrien in 1971-72 he showed me the Sopwith Pup which eventually emerged as G-APUP. Interestingly this aircraft had started as a replica project, scratch-built from plans obtained from Kingston. He told me that during the initial construction stages he managed to locate a Pup “in store in a French museum”. He told me that over the years he had managed to obtain the remains of said Pup, part by part and that G-APUP thus became a reconstruction rather than a replica. At the time I visited there was only one Pup in his garage. He made no mention of another Pup or Camel although he was more than happy to discuss all the other aircraft he had owned over the years. In fact when I asked about the Klemm L-25 (then being restored by Roy Nerou and now in Germany) he owned up to having torn the first page out of its logbook as a keepsake and gave it to me to pass on to Roy.

I know that CA house prices are going through the roof, but is anyone else of the opinion that this item is overpriced? :confused:

As I expected, there were no bids for this item!

Great to see those pics, never saw it fly at OW only sitting in the hangar.

Thanks AIB,

That explains why I can only find three prints of the Camel in the air.

Septic.

Personally I couldn’t care less how much original material there is–not much probably.
Here’s the machine in question, in the air where it should be.
I do care about that, not some minor point of semantics about if it’s ‘sole survivor’ or not.

Gary to my knowledge it appeared at one Shuttleworth air day.

I’m not sure how many times the Camel flewat Old Warden, but luckily I managed to see it fly once.

SEPTIC.

Who are you to say its a Static airframe!!!!! it flew not that long ago when in the UK. As for a FW190-D that is in Airworthy condition that has all the Original parts still in place, now think about it!!!!! ALL THE ORIGINAL PARTS! All the parts that were on it when it came off the production line!!!!!
And as for NOT THAT RARE!! now you are talking B******S!!!!! How many original WW1 fighters do you know out there? At the end of the day any 90 year old aeroplane is gona have had a few bits changed, so OK its been rebuilt, but what aeroplane of that age, or younger hasent!

easy mate… I said “I guess”, not “the airframe is static”
I expressed my opinions after watching the pics of the plane, that doesnt look to be in great shape.. As per the rarity, I think the LVG that used to fly at Shuttleworth is way more unique: the only original flying german plane of WWI..

Alex

The case of the Camel is that the aircraft appears to have suffered two major accidents during the course of the war and interestingly why would she be rebuilt at all post the seond accident when there were numerous Camel’s
around and the war was in it’s final stages.
The case of the Tiger Moth is interesting. There are indeed numerous Tiger Moths flying that owe very little to the aircraft that started . However I would say even when Tigers were relatively cheap to buy in the 1950’s and 60’s that the majority were rebuilt if they suffered minor damage. This however was a part of the life ofthe machine. It is far different to getting a damaged Tiger and throwing 3/4 of it away and then saying it’s original.
As for the Spitfire – well despite what most people think the cases of
almost complete replacement of fuselage assemblies are a relatively modern
happening. Indeed I would say the first machine to have large amounts of
skinning replaced and some frame attention would have been the Alan Lurie
machine in the mid 1970’s. The cases of Spitfires that have needed far more than that are quite small. There are Spitfires flying that owe little to WW2 and likely to be more so . However when we consider the those they are
quite well documented and none has ever been sold as ‘sole survivor’ or
as ‘unique survivor’.
Interestingly you mention that you wouldn’t use 90 year old longerons in a flying restoration . Well the LVG which was flying at Shuttleworth until quite recently didn’t receive new longerons whilst there and I am sure the RAF AHB wouldn’t have sanctioned it anyway. I am sure if I look I can find yet more examples of 90 year old wood still flying.
To round it off – you consider the Camel original and that’s your opinion.
I however would suggest based on the amount replaced by BAe that it’s very much open to debate. I would also suggest that few operators would at this time consider replacing that much of an ‘original’ WW1 aircraft – conserving her and placing her in a museum would be far more likely as was the case with the Pup that Desmond St Crien rebuilt.

What do you consider to be a steardy progression! durring any A/C’s life many parts, even major components will be changed and replaced. As has allready been stated this particular A/C suffered two major accidents before the end of WW1 and was heavily repaired, so in the twenties was it still considered not to be arriginal!? Many Tiger Moths,as you state, that are flying today have been so badley damaged in accident etc over the years that none of the Original Aeroplane exixts, are you going to tell there owners that there aeroplane is not original. If will all insisted that a historic aeroplane must still have all its original parts then we should ground the lot! if you expect that a 90 year old aeroplane should be flying around with 90 year old longerons then your mad! How many Spitfire’s that are flying are Original! are you saying that the one,s out there that have had major rebuilds with much of the skins and structure replaced are not original Spitfire’s!?
This i still feel is a rare aeroplane and worth what someone is prepared to pay for it! I agree with you that in many cases a Replica is a good alternative but if someone is prepared to but in time and mooney to get an original aeroplane airworthy then good on em, if your saying that if X amount of it is replaced its no longer original then you are going to open a big can of worms with many historic aeroplanes out there.

Blue Max – This Camel has had five fuselage cross members replaced – new longerons -new bracing wires-new oil tank-new fuel tank and various other parts done on the fuselage. It has new spars in all wings and the centre section along with new compression struts. These have then had new sockets and lugs fitted.
What strikes me a sad is how much of this machine ws replaced to make her airworthy. This wasn’t a steady progression through the life of the machine like many
Tiger Moths and such like . This very much appears to be a case of throwing at least half of her away. As you say how many original WW1 fighters are airworthy – not many
-however to go to the lengths of doing it does rather question whether a replica would have been the way forward in this case instead of finding out that the vast bulk of her wasn’t going to be gaining flight again.
As for the two American Dora’s – neither of those has really been structurally repaired to a similar scale as the Camel.

I guess the baby is not airworthy, now who would buy a static airframe for that much? A museum or a private collector would really afford such expense for a subject that all in all is not THAT rare (this is no FW190D-9 in working order and with all the original parts still in place..)?

Alex

P.S.
Feels good to post here again chaps 😀

Who are you to say its a Static airframe!!!!! it flew not that long ago when in the UK. As for a FW190-D that is in Airworthy condition that has all the Original parts still in place, now think about it!!!!! ALL THE ORIGINAL PARTS! All the parts that were on it when it came off the production line!!!!!
And as for NOT THAT RARE!! now you are talking B******S!!!!! How many original WW1 fighters do you know out there? At the end of the day any 90 year old aeroplane is gona have had a few bits changed, so OK its been rebuilt, but what aeroplane of that age, or younger hasent!

I guess the baby is not airworthy, now who would buy a static airframe for that much? A museum or a private collector would really afford such expense for a subject that all in all is not THAT rare (this is no FW190D-9 in working order and with all the original parts still in place..)?

Alex

P.S.
Feels good to post here again chaps 😀

Still want it Bod?[/QUOTE]

If i had the money, Yep!

The “Barn” photo is indeed a garage in Horley but I am sure I have seen at least one photo of the stuff that came from the barn. There were Pup parts, Camel parts and some 504 bits as I remember. Some of the correspondence between the farmer and Desmond St Cyrien also survives.

a second rate Spit

Wash your mouth out! There’s no such thing! 😀

Yes but how accurate are any of the prices in the Spitfire buyers guide in Pilot???

😀 LOL WP!

Dear Santa……

For Christmas I would like a Supermunk so I can go faster than Webpilot on boxing day. Oh and a prop for the T-6 cos I havent got £6000 spare, and a Grumman Goose, and a Big Trak cos you didnt get me one in 1984 when i asked for one (yes I do hold grudges and ebay isnt the same)…and…….

Ebay isn’t the same, agreed, but if Santa had a look at Ebay Item No 4594763097…

Dear Santa……

For Christmas I would like a Supermunk so I can go faster than Webpilot on boxing day. Oh and a prop for the T-6 cos I havent got £6000 spare, and a Grumman Goose, and a Big Trak cos you didnt get me one in 1984 when i asked for one (yes I do hold grudges and ebay isnt the same)…and…….

Jeez 500k for a chippie I’d want it gold plated for that! 😀

Heh.

800K for the Camel, 1.5m for a “good” Spitfire, but buttons for a decent Chippy/ie….ah. A mere couple of million isn’t going to do it, is it…