Best cox motor for Guillows 28 inch. Sopwith Camel (RC)

Hi John M. and welcome to the forum!!!

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here.. because what I'm going to recommend will undoubtedly raise some eyebrows..

Try a "Babe Bee" engine with a 8" X 3" wood propeller (a Zinger if you can find one). Bush its hub-hole down to fit the 5-40 Cox prop screw. Two K & S brass tubing pcs. (telescopic fits) worked for me. I use Sig Champion 25-35% nitro which provides the necessary power and contains an oil-blend with the desired castor in the mix.

I've bench-tested that combo for a Sterling E2 Fokker DR1 (1" scale/23.5" WS) model that I'm building.



I set-up the kit's plywood firewall for both; the Babe Bee and a 2nd gen. product-engine/horseshoe-carb mounting.



A "scale" propeller for this model is 8 in. dia.



Disclaimer; The above-referenced prop will "lug" the engine. Bench-test that combo.. then remove the cylinder to check the ball & socket joint for "play". If you can't feel any play.. then you're good to go. Any play should be corrected with a reset-tool.. or else swap-out the piston/cylinder assy. from a different freshly-run engine. Lugging the engine by using a propeller that's a larger diameter than the OEM max-recommended will stress that joint... so it's better to start with a proper fit.

Engine rpm is reduced significantly.. but I flew that prop (control line) on a self-designed profile biplane; made from the Sterling Fokker kit's outlines. An RC model should work well.... and have a VERY scale-like power. It will not exhibit the shrill piercing   exhaust-note of an engine running at 15-16K rpm.. but rather a "lower tone" that sounds awesome.

The full-scale Camel's top-speed in level-flight is 113mph.. so if you're going for a realistic/scale-like experience, that would be as close as you can get.

Below youtube vid is me doing a demo of a Babe Bee swinging a steeper-pitch Zinger "8 X 4".. my muffler design and an Ace RC (Ralph Cooney designed) venturi throttle.



I also feel that much of a smaller-diameter propeller's thrust is augmented by the radial cowling. Using a 6"d prop just-forward of a 4"d cowling yields just 1" of outer-blade that's working. A 8"d prop has twice that area. Granted; there's an rpm penalty when using the 8"d but it's not a deal-breaker.. (IMHO)

Roddie, Nice tryplane , also u answered a question I had anot a bigger prop on a baby be I have on my cardboard wing albatross. Plus the sound of that baby bee did sound like an old WWI biplane . Nice Video

akjgardner wrote:How much does it weigh?

Oh, I’m not sure, I just opened the box, but suppose it will weigh about 30-50 grams.

I have had this Sopwith Camel for some time now, a consignment shop buy.  I thought it might be your 28" so I was going to weigh it and give a ball-park figure, but it's 36".  



So nicely done, I'm afraid to touch it so I'm leaving it for someone younger with better eyes and streadier hands to cover.   A Peter Rake Kit I believe.  I have his Airtruk.

roddie wrote:Hi John M. and welcome to the forum!!!

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here.. because what I'm going to recommend will undoubtedly raise some eyebrows..

Try a "Babe Bee" engine with a 8" X 3" wood propeller (a Zinger if you can find one). Bush its hub-hole down to fit the 5-40 Cox prop screw. Two K & S brass tubing pcs. (telescopic fits) worked for me. I use Sig Champion 25-35% nitro which provides the necessary power and contains an oil-blend with the desired castor in the mix.

I've bench-tested that combo for a Sterling E2 Fokker DR1 (1" scale/23.5" WS) model that I'm building.



I set-up the kit's plywood firewall for both; the Babe Bee and a 2nd gen. product-engine/horseshoe-carb mounting.



A "scale" propeller for this model is 8 in. dia.



Disclaimer; The above-referenced prop will "lug" the engine. Bench-test that combo.. then remove the cylinder to check the ball & socket joint for "play". If you can't feel any play.. then you're good to go. Any play should be corrected with a reset-tool.. or else swap-out the piston/cylinder assy. from a different freshly-run engine. Lugging the engine by using a propeller that's a larger diameter than the OEM max-recommended will stress that joint... so it's better to start with a proper fit.

Engine rpm is reduced significantly.. but I flew that prop (control line) on a self-designed profile biplane; made from the Sterling Fokker kit's outlines. An RC model should work well.... and have a VERY scale-like power. It will not exhibit the shrill piercing   exhaust-note of an engine running at 15-16K rpm.. but rather a "lower tone" that sounds awesome.

The full-scale Camel's top-speed in level-flight is 113mph.. so if you're going for a realistic/scale-like experience, that would be as close as you can get.

Below youtube vid is me doing a demo of a Babe Bee swinging a steeper-pitch Zinger "8 X 4".. my muffler design and an Ace RC (Ralph Cooney designed) venturi throttle.



I also feel that much of a smaller-diameter propeller's thrust is augmented by the radial cowling. Using a 6"d prop just-forward of a 4"d cowling yields just 1" of outer-blade that's working. A 8"d prop has twice that area. Granted; there's an rpm penalty when using the 8"d but it's not a deal-breaker.. (IMHO)

Do you know how long that fuel lasted in the BabyBee flight with that prop setup ?

I have the Guillows Sopwith Camel. The suggested engine size is .09-.15. I would think because this is a very old design, were talking about vintage engines like OK .09, Torpedo .09 or the OK .14. In and around that time, the Fox .15 Steelfin would be another option. These engines are light for their size but they're not powerhouses. My suggestion of the Enya was due to the fact you were looking for r/c use and any modern engine would more than likely be too powerful. The Enya is not really a slouch at all and is quite powerful for it's size. The benefit is that it's dead reliable and it throttles terrifically.


             



           Here's my Sterling Triplane, I can tell you first hand that you need TONS of lead to make this balance with a .049. This was built 42 years ago. I can't believe this plane is still around.  When I tried to fly it, it went straight up in a spiral and into a tree. It totally wound itself up in the lines and did some damage to the wings. This was because I never realized how tail heavy this plane was due to the short nose. What I did notice when I got home is that a Mccoy .098 with a metal 1 oz. tank was far better for balance vs the Cox Babe Bee. It still needed some lead to fully balance. It resides on a shelf over my bench. Tissue is torn, dope is faded, it was quite a sight when first built. The dope has shrunk and warped the wings and cracked the finish in multiple areas. It looks it's age.

OSFS 20 four stroke if you can find one. Would sound a lot better too. I use one on an original Clancy Lazy Bee.

Jdtamyers wrote:I’m kinda new to stick and tissue aircraft, that’s to say that the last one I built was in 1972 and it’s now 2024… So, are there any opinions on the best Cox motor for an RC conversion of the Guillows 1/12 scale Sopwith Camel.
I’m looking for the correct power match rather than looking for more time in the air… I’m trying to keep the plane light as possible but I would consider an alternate fuel tank, if possible for that aircraft??

John M

Friend, if your model is the one in the photograph attached here, what you need is a safe running engine with good power.
I recommend that you put an O.S. motor. .15 FP, you may also need to add weight, but at the same time you can play with the extra weight so as not to increase too much in the total weight of the model, that is, achieve a low wing loading.
As it has a very short nose moment, you will have to think about placing a battery pack as close to the engine as possible, and the servos too, that is, you have to try to reduce the weight of the tail (cola) by placing all the components as far forward as possible. .
Remember, an O.S. .15 FP R/C, would be ideal!


Example: This is my Pitts model, in order to reduce wing loading, (instead of adding too much lead), place a 4 element nickel metal hydride battery under the motor.
You can see the lead indicated with a red arrow.

I built one but a long time ago I chose to use an ok 0.74 engine but never finished and it ended up as a donor of parts for other planes made custom I used the top wing for another project

A small radial engine, perfect nose weight and sound.

For the life of me, I’m not smart enough to navigate through the forums question and response system. But I’ll figure it out…
Anyway, I tried to respond to the question of the aircrafts weight. But I’ll try again. (I tried to put a smiley face here but what went up was this “ “ ) hummm..

The Kit weighs about 16oz without an engine.

Mike1484 wrote:I think roddie is in the right ballpark on this plane. A .049 Baby Bee with a rotating exhaust throttle and a 7x3 or a 7x4 prop would be my choice. I have built most of the Guillow's 20" to 28" models for R/C and free flight and the ones with the radial engines and short noses need the tail end ( anything behind the center of gravity ) built as light as possible. Most of these kits will fly with an .020 for free flight and radio. Maybe something bigger for control line if you beef up the structure. U-Tube has some videos of this kit flying but most people use electric for their planes. hope this helps...

                                                                    Mike1484

Oh! I had not thought about electric. Do you know of an electric motor that has the power equivalent of a BabyBee, if you know? But electric might be a simpler way to go.
Thanks.

Jdtamyers wrote:

Do you know how long that fuel lasted in the BabyBee flight with that prop setup ?

There hasn't been a flight-test yet.. and note; that I'm using an external fuel tank for the bench-run in the vid. I bypassed my Babe Bee's 5cc integral tank on that engine by drilling a hole through the bowl and installing a rubber grommet for a longer fuel-line to pass through.

Jdtamyers wrote:
Oh! I had not thought about electric.  Do you know of an electric motor that has the power equivalent  of a BabyBee, if you know?   But electric might be a simpler way to go.

Thanks.

I don't know much about the modern (brushless) electric motors.. but an old-school (brushed) 380 series is said to be comparable to your garden-variety .049 glow engine. The 380 series elec. motors are a "dime a dozen"... That is to say; they're cheap and plentiful.

You'd need a flight-battery pack and an Electronic Speed Control (ESC) for the motor. A 9.6 volt AA/Ni-MH pack could be mounted in a compartment below the motor with a hatch-door for access. Provide some "flow-through" ventilation to keep the pack cool. You'd also need a propeller-mount/adapter for the motor. This arrangement places much-needed weight forward.

Other CEF members could recommend a modern (brushless) motor system, powered by a LiPo battery-pack. This would be the ultimate set-up.... BUT; being lighter in weight, you'd need to add more weight up-front VS the brushed system.

Here is a free flight Sopwith Camel with same wingspan as the Guillow.
https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=3611 28in span F/F Sopwith Camel Dec 1971 Aeromodeller

Power used was half-A. The Guillow will require a certain amount of sheeting in plank on the fuselage for strength, maybe planking on wing, too, like from spar forward. Those are just a few of my thoughts.

Given that it is draggy and you want sufficient wind penetration, I'd think a .049 Golden Bee to Black Widow, or any of the modern reed valves using the extended 8 cc fuel tank would be about right. Use at least a 6x3 prop, which is optimal for these.

I have a few vintage wood Tornado Plastikote 7x2 wood props, which would put the thrust wind a bit further from the bulbous cowling. A 7x3 might be considered, but will run a little hot, need to make sure that air is generously getting to the cylinder and head's cooling fins.

Given the "flimsiness" of the Guillow rubber powered construction, if I were building, would steer clear of the larger engines, .09 and up. Those larger engines, it would be better to build from a plan that was specifically for R/C.

The OS Max .15FP is one fantastic engine, very user friendly. However, it's powerful, said to even fly a 42 inch wingspan Ringmaster with ease.

Anyway, just a few of my thoughts.

1/2A Nut wrote:A small radial engine, perfect nose weight and sound.

Hello Brad!...can you tell me the web link of these engines that you published...I'm simply curious about them, I don't know them and they seem like little gems of a work of art...thank you!

Ronald Valentine  https://www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/4775418942/in/photostream/lightbox/  do a search    https://www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/5655880333/in/album-72157651649874017/  

GallopingGhostler wrote:Here is a free flight Sopwith Camel with same wingspan as the Guillow.
https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=3611 28in span F/F Sopwith Camel Dec 1971 Aeromodeller

Power used was half-A. The Guillow will require a certain amount of sheeting in plank on the fuselage for strength, maybe planking on wing, too, like from spar forward. Those are just a few of my thoughts.

Given that it is draggy and you want sufficient wind penetration, I'd think a .049 Golden Bee to Black Widow, or any of the modern reed valves using the extended 8 cc fuel tank would be about right. Use at least a 6x3 prop, which is optimal for these.

I have a few vintage wood Tornado Plastikote 7x2 wood props, which would put the thrust wind a bit further from the bulbous cowling. A 7x3 might be considered, but will run a little hot, need to make sure that air is generously getting to the cylinder and head's cooling fins.


Given the "flimsiness" of the Guillow rubber powered construction, if I were building, would steer clear of the larger engines, .09 and up. Those larger engines, it would be better to build from a plan that was specifically for R/C.

The OS Max .15FP is one fantastic engine, very user friendly. However, it's powerful, said to even fly a 42 inch wingspan Ringmaster with ease.

Anyway, just a few of my thoughts.

Thank you for responding

electric

i'd check with the good peeps over at Willie Nillies. Not ONLY do they have electric motors? they have 3d printed mounts that mimic a cox engine

https://willynillies.com/buy-here/ols/products/1-slash-2-a-td-049-deluxe-completion-package-everything-you-need-except-tx-and-rx-1-2-a-td

1/2A Nut wrote:A small radial engine, perfect nose weight and sound.

.        My god I need one Unfortunately It is impossible to find this as they are the only 4 stroke engine that Ronald Valentine built and exists other than those in the photo