full size sopwith camel replica

[BrendAn]

this is a beautifully finished  camel by scott matthews at latrobe valley.

some of you may have watched his videos of the build over the last 3 years.

finished now and a real credit to scott.

[facthunter]

Ron Jackson at Riddell's Creek built a Sopwith  that flew well. I hope it's still around somewhere. The Originals with Rotary "Radial" engines had a Lot of gyroscopic effects and a LARGE Prop. Nev

[Blueadventures]

14 hours ago, BrendAn said:

this is a beautifully finished  camel by scott matthews at latrobe valley.

some of you may have watched his videos of the build over the last 3 years.

finished now and a real credit to scott.

Nice.

[rodgerc]

He’s had considerable angst along the way with his chosen power plant, but doggedly preserved….I sincerely hope that he doesn’t come to regret his tenacity in that regard. 🙏 

Edited Friday at 12:34 AM by rodgerc

[facthunter]

I can't see the Small prop doing the Job. I guess the Motor is a Rotec? A "shakey Jake" Jacobs or a Warner super scarab might do it Better

[onetrack]

He's displaying extreme concern, and a major lack of confidence in the aircraft, and especially the Rotec engine. That's not good, and it obviously needs a fearless and confident test pilot to run it for a few hours, to boost the builders confidence.

 

Unfortunately, the history of the reliability of Rotec engines is a bit patchy, and personally, I wouldn't have chosen that make to use as a power plant. I realise his choices were limited, to enable an authentic look.

 

But a Verner may have been a better choice - provided you avoid running the Verner on AVGAS. Numerous unhappy Rotec users have replaced their engines with something more reliable - such as Verner.

The Rotec has a reputation for bad oil leaks and major internal component failures. Not something you can put up with, when you go flying.

[BrendAn]

The ideal engine would be the gnome rotary replica being manufactured in NZ .  I can't find it but it is supposed to be a well mad engine. And reliable.

[facthunter]

I don't think Verner has made the distance, unfortunately like some many others, including the "D" Motor. which is didn't think would either. . Early Gnome and Rhone Motors have  very low hours before they Needed routine Maintenance and they Only turn a LARGE Prop at about 1200 RPM with a Lot of gyroscopic effects and a high usage rate of CASTOR oil which ends up all over the Pilot.. I'd like to see a bulkier and bigger dia Prop on that Motor and reduce all possible drag Like the dummy Machine guns for Instance. Jacko's Sopwith flew fine. I can't recall what engine was in it. The NZ stuff, Like always will be a well done thing .I've seen what they do and they punch well above their Weight in these matters. Nev

[Blueadventures]

I watched his engine install, very poor engine build, terrible cylinder castings, poor electronic modules. Terrible for delivered engine and terrible after purchase support. Could not have run the engine pre first delivery. Understand why he is so disappointed with them.

[Kiwi]

On 06/03/2026 at 10:09 AM, facthunter said:

Ron Jackson at Riddell's Creek built a Sopwith  that flew well. I hope it's still around somewhere. The Originals with Rotary "Radial" engines had a Lot of gyroscopic effects and a LARGE Prop. Nev

 

I believe crazy Dave brought it after Ron crashed it into the trees. (engine failure)

It had a proper rotary aircraft engine in it.

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, Blueadventures said:

I watched his engine install, very poor engine build, terrible cylinder castings, poor electronic modules. Terrible for delivered engine and terrible after purchase support. Could not have run the engine pre first delivery. Understand why he is so disappointed with them.

It's not an uncommon situation for buyers of these engines unfortunately.

[Blueadventures]

Just now, BrendAn said:

It's not an uncommon situation for buyers of these engines unfortunately.

Damn terrible, complete waste of everyones time, lucky this guy lived close.  He seems to give good attention to detail.  Piss poor engine quality control, you'd expect them to have run the engine pre to despatch.

[BrendAn]

https://youtu.be/LlPtMVijIzs?si=sbgxFRXO91olB1AO

[BrendAn]

6 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Damn terrible, complete waste of everyones time, lucky this guy lived close.  He seems to give good attention to detail.  Piss poor engine quality control, you'd expect them to have run the engine pre to despatch.

I am surprised Scott chose that motor. I know it looks good but at the risk of destroying the aircraft in an engine out. I have been into rotecs workshop and they were doing some impressive work on jabs and airframe repairs. But I haven't purchased anything either. I was pretty disappointed reading how some customers have been treated.

[onetrack]

The comments from Laurent-LV - who is obviously an engineer - under that video, leaves one gobsmacked that these Rotec blokes are still in business! It's amazing that someone hasn't sued them into bankruptcy.

[facthunter]

They are Not crooks and  are trying hard to build a special type of Motor. .   Nev

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

They are Not crooks and  are trying hard to build a special type of Motor. .   Nev

Trouble is a lot of customers have had a bad experience and been ignored or abused if they contact them.  Hopefully they have the radials sorted out by now.

[onetrack]

Below is an extract from Laurent-LV's video comment, he obviously has good engineering skills and has done his research and examination of the Rotec design.

 

QUOTE: "

The development of the ROTEC engines initially relied on the plans of a model engine, plans that were available for purchase at the time for hobbyists. The two ROTEC enthusiasts thought they could turn it into a business by making engines in sizes compatible with amateur-built aircraft.

The issues begin at this stage because neither of the two brothers had any knowledge of mechanical engineering, let alone precision engineering. The technical solutions chosen for these engines are pure heresy, both in terms of engine architecture, materials used, and the complete absence of tolerance chains, etc.

The problems with these engines are as follows:

- Selection of materials for the various components

- Lack of tolerance chains for assemblies

- Absurd technical options regarding the reduction unit

- Huge risks of breakage in the reduction unit

- Cylinder-head connections not properly managed by the manufacturer, leading to leaks after a few hours

- Incorrect materials and sizing of cylinders, resulting in deformations and corrosion attacks both externally and internally

- Cylinder mounting on the engine block done through studs and nuts of incompatible quality, allowing the cylinders to potentially separate  from the engine block

- Apocalyptic combustion cycles, leading to rapid valve fouling, overheating, and seizing

- The piston pivot point is incompatible with the crankshaft amplitude, causing piston skirts to rub against cylinder walls

- Due to the lack of tolerancing, piston mounting on their bushings can sometimes feel stiff (seized) or loose, leading to rapid wear and the development of hot spots

- Longitudinal guidance of the crankshaft within the engine case and the connection of the connecting rods to the master rod is completely uncontrolled. This results in uncontrollable friction depending on engine speed and load, causing overheating and premature wear of certain parts.

- The angle formed by the rocker arm push rods and the rocker receptacle is too wide, allowing the push rods to disengage, thus rendering the valve operation ineffective

- The connection of the valve covers to the cylinder heads is done using two screws located at the center of the covers. Tightening the screws causes deformation of the covers, creating a "banana" shape that allows leaks to appear around the engine

- Overall lubrication system and circuit are catastrophic

- Ignition management relies on technical solutions unworthy even for a lawnmower

- The alternator drive system is a makeshift bush repair installation

There are dozens of critical issues with these engines, concerning both the 7- and 9-cylinder models.
As they are, these engines should NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be used in manned flying vehicles.
Even on the ground, they present significant dangers to people staying in the vicinity.

As for the manufacturer's arrogance, their audacity in selling engines assembled from worn-out parts, even those from engines that have crashed, should be enough to deter anyone who takes the time to inquire before purchasing these decorative objects that should remain static."

 

That's got to be a large enough analysis, and seemingly professional opinion, to make anyone understand, that the Rotec engine falls far short of what is required for a reliable aircraft engine.

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

Below is an extract from Laurent-LV's video comment, he obviously has good engineering skills and has done his research and examination of the Rotec design.

 

QUOTE: "

The development of the ROTEC engines initially relied on the plans of a model engine, plans that were available for purchase at the time for hobbyists. The two ROTEC enthusiasts thought they could turn it into a business by making engines in sizes compatible with amateur-built aircraft.

The issues begin at this stage because neither of the two brothers had any knowledge of mechanical engineering, let alone precision engineering. The technical solutions chosen for these engines are pure heresy, both in terms of engine architecture, materials used, and the complete absence of tolerance chains, etc.

The problems with these engines are as follows:

- Selection of materials for the various components

- Lack of tolerance chains for assemblies

- Absurd technical options regarding the reduction unit

- Huge risks of breakage in the reduction unit

- Cylinder-head connections not properly managed by the manufacturer, leading to leaks after a few hours

- Incorrect materials and sizing of cylinders, resulting in deformations and corrosion attacks both externally and internally

- Cylinder mounting on the engine block done through studs and nuts of incompatible quality, allowing the cylinders to potentially separate  from the engine block

- Apocalyptic combustion cycles, leading to rapid valve fouling, overheating, and seizing

- The piston pivot point is incompatible with the crankshaft amplitude, causing piston skirts to rub against cylinder walls

- Due to the lack of tolerancing, piston mounting on their bushings can sometimes feel stiff (seized) or loose, leading to rapid wear and the development of hot spots

- Longitudinal guidance of the crankshaft within the engine case and the connection of the connecting rods to the master rod is completely uncontrolled. This results in uncontrollable friction depending on engine speed and load, causing overheating and premature wear of certain parts.

- The angle formed by the rocker arm push rods and the rocker receptacle is too wide, allowing the push rods to disengage, thus rendering the valve operation ineffective

- The connection of the valve covers to the cylinder heads is done using two screws located at the center of the covers. Tightening the screws causes deformation of the covers, creating a "banana" shape that allows leaks to appear around the engine

- Overall lubrication system and circuit are catastrophic

- Ignition management relies on technical solutions unworthy even for a lawnmower

- The alternator drive system is a makeshift bush repair installation

There are dozens of critical issues with these engines, concerning both the 7- and 9-cylinder models.
As they are, these engines should NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be used in manned flying vehicles.
Even on the ground, they present significant dangers to people staying in the vicinity.

As for the manufacturer's arrogance, their audacity in selling engines assembled from worn-out parts, even those from engines that have crashed, should be enough to deter anyone who takes the time to inquire before purchasing these decorative objects that should remain static."

 

That's got to be a large enough analysis, and seemingly professional opinion, to make anyone understand, that the Rotec engine falls far short of what is required for a reliable aircraft engine.

Bloody hell. Not ad for rotecs.

What happened to the 3 cylinder radial that was being developed in south Australia. I know they had a demo driving around in a vw beetle.

 

Edited 16 hours ago by BrendAn

[facthunter]

To many "emotive " words to take as a worthy engineering analysis. Engineers don't talk like that.  Obviously intending to Imply the worst about the Engine. and the builders abilities.. Nev

 

[facthunter]

Plenty of stuff on Line showing the Guts of the engines The later cast heads look fine by Me.  Nev

[onetrack]

Nev, perhaps "Laurent-LV" just happens to be one of the many unfortunate owners who trusted their Rotec radial, and which engine let them down in a big way, perhaps even caused them to crash, and which engine cost them heaps and heaps of money and angst.

 

The bloke who built the Sopwith Camel seems to dread starting it and running it - and even worse, flying behind it.

[Blueadventures]

31 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Nev, perhaps "Laurent-LV" just happens to be one of the many unfortunate owners who trusted their Rotec radial, and which engine let them down in a big way, perhaps even caused them to crash, and which engine cost them heaps and heaps of money and angst.

 

The bloke who built the Sopwith Camel seems to dread starting it and running it - and even worse, flying behind it.

He hit the Bulls eye with same issues described in the video above and the other video about the engine specifically.

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Blueadventures