Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter

Surely the whole point of WWI aeroplanes is that they were powered by rotary engines? Otherwise you might just as well make the whole thing from modern materials and have done with it.

An SE5a with a rotary, now that would be a sight :diablo::diablo:.

Whilst I agree that where possible & practicable, reproduction aircraft should be fitted with their original types of engines, unfortunately there are simply not enough of them to go round, & those that do become available, are priced beyond the pocket of the ordinary enthusiast/repro builder. & as stated elsewhere, most early engines are not safe/reliable enough for flying long distance.
However all this said, should anyone have a spare BENTLEY rotary cluttering up their garage,that they want rid of, I’ll be more than happy to take the junk off your hands :D:diablo:.

Bob T.

Surely the whole point of WWI aeroplanes is that they were powered by rotary engines? Otherwise you might just as well make the whole thing from modern materials and have done with it.

An SE5a with a rotary, now that would be a sight :diablo::diablo:.

Whilst I agree that where possible & practicable, reproduction aircraft should be fitted with their original types of engines, unfortunately there are simply not enough of them to go round, & those that do become available, are priced beyond the pocket of the ordinary enthusiast/repro builder. & as stated elsewhere, most early engines are not safe/reliable enough for flying long distance.
However all this said, should anyone have a spare BENTLEY rotary cluttering up their garage,that they want rid of, I’ll be more than happy to take the junk off your hands :D:diablo:.

Bob T.

I was merely pointing out that it can be done if you choose. Suddenly I am the engine police…. oh dear.

However, putting a radial in, or a flat four, is a compromise. The aeroplane will not fly the same as one with a rotary, even a DVII with a Ranger or Gipsy Queen will not remotely fly in the same way as one with the original engine. If you want to learn anything about how the aircraft of the period were operated and used then a ‘modern’ engine teaches you nothing. It then usually becomes an underpowered facsimile. You might as well make the whole thing from steel tube and modern fittings.

The point is that East Fortune have put considerable work into making the aeroplane correctly and from the photographs appear to have done a very good job. They have, no doubt, learned a lot about the construction techniques and methods. Put a Rotec on the front and it ceases to be the historical exercise it is now.

Rotaries do become available. When I was sourcing an engine for my Rearwin it was actually easier to find a rotary than it was to find a small radial as Rotec were not making and Warners were all being snapped up by WW1 ‘replica’ builders. I could have bought a couple of 80HP Le Rhones and at least one Clerget for less than I paid for a Warner.

Matt’s point about being able to take it to shows is valid but only so far, with all due respect to him and what he does in the aeroplanes he flies, the airshow use of ‘modern’ engined replicas is about as valid as a PT6 powered Spitfire. It is nice to look at but nothing like how the aeroplanes were actually operated.

I would love to see the East Fortune Strutter fly with a Clerget. It would be intersting to compare notes.

I was merely pointing out that it can be done if you choose. Suddenly I am the engine police…. oh dear.

However, putting a radial in, or a flat four, is a compromise. The aeroplane will not fly the same as one with a rotary, even a DVII with a Ranger or Gipsy Queen will not remotely fly in the same way as one with the original engine. If you want to learn anything about how the aircraft of the period were operated and used then a ‘modern’ engine teaches you nothing. It then usually becomes an underpowered facsimile. You might as well make the whole thing from steel tube and modern fittings.

The point is that East Fortune have put considerable work into making the aeroplane correctly and from the photographs appear to have done a very good job. They have, no doubt, learned a lot about the construction techniques and methods. Put a Rotec on the front and it ceases to be the historical exercise it is now.

Rotaries do become available. When I was sourcing an engine for my Rearwin it was actually easier to find a rotary than it was to find a small radial as Rotec were not making and Warners were all being snapped up by WW1 ‘replica’ builders. I could have bought a couple of 80HP Le Rhones and at least one Clerget for less than I paid for a Warner.

Matt’s point about being able to take it to shows is valid but only so far, with all due respect to him and what he does in the aeroplanes he flies, the airshow use of ‘modern’ engined replicas is about as valid as a PT6 powered Spitfire. It is nice to look at but nothing like how the aeroplanes were actually operated.

I would love to see the East Fortune Strutter fly with a Clerget. It would be intersting to compare notes.

But that is the whole point, with a reliable and practicle engine there is no reason that it cannot be flown away from home base and seen by a wider audience. For sure there is nothing like the sight and sound o fan original rotary engine flying by but by their very nature they are difficult to opperate and do not make for a practicle flying machine. For the most part the general viewing public wont know the difference but at leat they will now be aware of WW1 aviation. There is room for both and of course not all WW1 A/C had rotaries anyway!! Not every one has the luxury of having an original engine available to them or can afford to obtain one. I would love to construct an SE5 or a Foker DVII but the engine is an issue and niether of those had rotaries, if anyone has a Hispano, BMW or Meccedes they would like to donate 😀
As always there are those that scoff at anything other than 100% original replica’s, can we see the progress of your replica’s please????
Looks like it is making exellent progress and I look fwd to seeing more progress and the project completed 🙂

But that is the whole point, with a reliable and practicle engine there is no reason that it cannot be flown away from home base and seen by a wider audience. For sure there is nothing like the sight and sound o fan original rotary engine flying by but by their very nature they are difficult to opperate and do not make for a practicle flying machine. For the most part the general viewing public wont know the difference but at leat they will now be aware of WW1 aviation. There is room for both and of course not all WW1 A/C had rotaries anyway!! Not every one has the luxury of having an original engine available to them or can afford to obtain one. I would love to construct an SE5 or a Foker DVII but the engine is an issue and niether of those had rotaries, if anyone has a Hispano, BMW or Meccedes they would like to donate 😀
As always there are those that scoff at anything other than 100% original replica’s, can we see the progress of your replica’s please????
Looks like it is making exellent progress and I look fwd to seeing more progress and the project completed 🙂

Its effectively an aircraft to be operated from a museum site and not as such an air display machine that has to fly around the country and earn its keep.
I will be amazed if it flies for any more than five hours a year – I dont think its a matter of engine snobbery – I am sure the pilots who flew them in the WW1 would have been delighted with a radial engine too but they didnt have that luxury.If you want to accurately demontrate the handling of these machines a rotary is the way to go.

Its effectively an aircraft to be operated from a museum site and not as such an air display machine that has to fly around the country and earn its keep.
I will be amazed if it flies for any more than five hours a year – I dont think its a matter of engine snobbery – I am sure the pilots who flew them in the WW1 would have been delighted with a radial engine too but they didnt have that luxury.If you want to accurately demontrate the handling of these machines a rotary is the way to go.

It can be done with a proper engine

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a348/Andybeds/LEstrut3.jpg

Oh dear, engine snobbery!

Early war rotary engines had a TBO for a complete overhaul of around 10-20 hours, the mid-war types (Le Rhone, Oberursel, Clerget) of around 30-50 hours.
Ok if you operate out of your home field with a rotary (six 10 minute flights / displays in an hour) but to position to airshows and therefore a wider audience a radial is more practical. A 1 1/2 strutter is a large aeroplane so to de rig, transport and rig at a show, practice / display then de-rig, transport and rig would be too costly for most airshow budgets.

It can be done with a proper engine

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a348/Andybeds/LEstrut3.jpg

Oh dear, engine snobbery!

Early war rotary engines had a TBO for a complete overhaul of around 10-20 hours, the mid-war types (Le Rhone, Oberursel, Clerget) of around 30-50 hours.
Ok if you operate out of your home field with a rotary (six 10 minute flights / displays in an hour) but to position to airshows and therefore a wider audience a radial is more practical. A 1 1/2 strutter is a large aeroplane so to de rig, transport and rig at a show, practice / display then de-rig, transport and rig would be too costly for most airshow budgets.

If a Clerget or Rhone 130Hp had been located that was both available to be purchased and able to be restored within the available budget, then no doubt it would have been used. I think the Rotec 360 150HP has been selected with in depth consideration since the project commenced in 2000. The alternative would just be a non-flying replica.
So what would you prefer a non flying Strutter or a flying one with a radial engine?

As long as it is a flyer great,everything is a compromise so a radial has to suffice and no doubt it will be a lot more practical to use in the long run,well done to all concerned.

If a Clerget or Rhone 130Hp had been located that was both available to be purchased and able to be restored within the available budget, then no doubt it would have been used. I think the Rotec 360 150HP has been selected with in depth consideration since the project commenced in 2000. The alternative would just be a non-flying replica.
So what would you prefer a non flying Strutter or a flying one with a radial engine?

As long as it is a flyer great,everything is a compromise so a radial has to suffice and no doubt it will be a lot more practical to use in the long run,well done to all concerned.

The latter please.

Moggy

The latter please.

Moggy

If a Clerget or Rhone 130Hp had been located that was both available to be purchased and able to be restored within the available budget, then no doubt it would have been used. I think the Rotec 360 150HP has been selected with in depth consideration since the project commenced in 2000. The alternative would just be a non-flying replica.
So what would you prefer a non flying Strutter or a flying one with a radial engine?

If a Clerget or Rhone 130Hp had been located that was both available to be purchased and able to be restored within the available budget, then no doubt it would have been used. I think the Rotec 360 150HP has been selected with in depth consideration since the project commenced in 2000. The alternative would just be a non-flying replica.
So what would you prefer a non flying Strutter or a flying one with a radial engine?

Right?

It isn’t a Spitfire, but it would be a nicer aircraft than a Cessna 152

Moggy

Right?

It isn’t a Spitfire, but it would be a nicer aircraft than a Cessna 152

Moggy

Sort of the look ! The engine physically wouldn’t be spinning around ! I totally agree on the purist thing ! I have no idea why people mess around with those Merlins when a PT6 would surely do the same job ! Might sound a bit different but if it looks like a Spitfire and flies like a Spitfire it is right?

Sort of the look ! The engine physically wouldn’t be spinning around ! I totally agree on the purist thing ! I have no idea why people mess around with those Merlins when a PT6 would surely do the same job ! Might sound a bit different but if it looks like a Spitfire and flies like a Spitfire it is right?