Author Topic: Sterling Skyshark (Read 3476 times)

skyshark58 · « **on:** January 15, 2012, 02:05:22 PM »

Have any of you built and flown a Sterling Skyshark powered by a 35 like it was designed for? I recently acquired a Johnson 35 that has the " vari-speed" slotted type throttle and thought it might work well in a Skyshark. I have used the Skyshark for 15 carrier without all the movable controls and they fly pretty good. I wonder how good it would fly with a light 35 and the ailerons and rudder working. I know there is not much wing area so the slow speed might not be so good but it should be a rocket on the high end. Mike

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #1 on:** January 15, 2012, 03:31:28 PM »

Well, I flew one back in the day with an OS-35S R/C. Won quite often...of course I was about 14 at the time but was not the only junior in the pack. With all the moveable stuff out in the breeze it was very stable and the slow speed was competitive for the era. I wish there was a nostalgia class for the Skyshark, it is a great design. Unlike many others of its time the LG is very strong as well. Go for it!

skyshark58 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 15, 2012, 05:40:48 PM »

It is too small for Nostalgia Profile and I'm not sure if the engine would be OK with the "vari-speed" throttle, it is not a box stock engine throttle set up. It however would be fun to see how it flew.
I suppose I could build one and fly it, then lock up the ailerons and rudder put a 15 in it and use it that way. Naaaa to much work

Mike

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #3 on:** January 15, 2012, 06:03:02 PM »

The only class it could fly in today would be Class I with no scale points. I think that is correct. 2 reasons to build it: Nostalgia and it is a good flying design - as flown by the world famous Deer Park Carrier Team if I remember correctly. There are other vintage engines I'd choose over the Johnson but that's just me.

skyshark58 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 15, 2012, 06:25:40 PM »

Yes I guess class I nostalgia would work. Not much competition in that class so I guess I could win something! Maybe another trophy to store in the attack. Mike

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #5 on:** January 15, 2012, 06:27:12 PM »

I flew one with both a McCoy Red Head 35 R/C and a Super Tigre G21/40 R/C. It was a great handling airplane. With the 40 I took 3rd in Sr. Class 1 at the Olathe Nats. Just for kicks, after my slow flight I brought it over the deck and stood it on its tail. The Navy judges loved it. I always thought it was too bad that it didn't fit the profile rules.

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #6 on:** January 15, 2012, 06:38:41 PM »

Idea:

Include it in the NW Sport Carrier Class with some sort of high-speed penalty due to its smaller wing area. That is really the only advantage it has over the planes specified by the rules. Or just allow it period. With an OS-40 FP its high speed advantage would most likely be off-set by a low speed disadvantage due to higher wing loading. I'd build the kit I have if their was a class other than Class I that it is eligible in. Just a thought.

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #7 on:** January 15, 2012, 07:07:58 PM »

How about a 1 design event for the Skyshark? This sort of thing could work at a local or regional contest.

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #8 on:** January 15, 2012, 07:31:37 PM »

I like it but wonder if there would be enough participation to merit a complete seperate event. Incorporating Skysharks into an existing event would make it easier for contest organizers. That being said, there is a set process to make changes to NW Sport carrier that others would have to initiate.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #9 on:** January 15, 2012, 11:21:48 PM »

What is the wing area? Has anybody ever enlarged the entire airplane to profile carrier size?

skyshark58 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 16, 2012, 12:55:19 AM »

Yes I tried it but the fuselage was too tall,I should have skinned it up. It had a K&B 5.8 Reverse rotation in it. All I could get on the top end was about 22 seconds. It might be worth another try. I still have the drawings I think. Some where around 350 Square inches I believe. Mike

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #11 on:** January 16, 2012, 05:08:25 AM »

Quote from: bill bischoff on January 15, 2012, 11:21:48 PM

What is the wing area? Has anybody ever enlarged the entire airplane to profile carrier size?

I enlarged the wing on mine to make it Profile legal. But, my change really screwed up the tail volume ratio so slow flight elevator authority was minimal at best.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #12 on:** January 16, 2012, 05:22:10 AM »

Bob, glad to see you are around. Time to build something, isn't it?
Wayne

john e. holliday · « **Reply #13 on:** January 16, 2012, 09:23:45 AM »

I remember the Skyshark, as I was the only one who built one in our area. Back then you flew profile or scale carrier. I liked mine as a practice plane, but it was not legal for profile as I found out later. So I stayed with scale carrier thru the years. Trying to fly/compete in F3C put a damper on carrier flying for a while.

I too also tried to scale up the wing and tail surfaces to make the design legal. But, gave up as it didn't look right.

Bill Little · « **Reply #14 on:** January 16, 2012, 12:11:06 PM »

Back around 1966 (or there abouts) I built one for a friend. No 3 line, and the flaps were set up for "Stunt". Nothing to write home about done that way, but still fun to fly!

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #15 on:** January 16, 2012, 12:35:09 PM »

Just a ramble...not a rant. This is an iconic design and is well remembered by many in the carrier community. Nostalgia Profile Carrier has not caught on as well as it should partly because there are few noteworthy profile designs that are eligible (no flames here please, just talking in in general). Would making a model specific exception to the current Nostalgia rules to allow stock Skysharks in Nostalgia Profile Carrier get get any support? The only advantage to the Skyshark is a greater top speed, that could be addressed by making Skysharks limited to a top speed of 75 or 80 mph point wise. Sort of what was mentioned in a previous post except apply it to Nostalgia as opposed to NW Sport. Just a thought, don't know if it is a practical idea or not.

Bill Little · « **Reply #16 on:** January 16, 2012, 12:41:09 PM »

Hi Pete,

I would think that inclusion rather than exclusion would be a great idea in a class where there are not a lot of designs.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

skyshark58 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 16, 2012, 01:24:08 PM »

Yes I think that would be a great idea.Make an exception to the Sterling Skyshark, I'll vote for it
!
As I recall when profile carrier was invented the only limitation was the 35 engine had to be a plain bearing box stock engine. Both Fox and Sterling came out with equipment for this new event. A year or two later the rules were changed and the investments both Fox and Sterling had went down the tube. Consequently both dropped their support of the event. Mike

bill bischoff · « **Reply #18 on:** January 16, 2012, 02:31:23 PM »

I think profile has always been 300 sq. in. minimum. The Skyshark kit certainly pre-dated the profile event.

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #19 on:** January 16, 2012, 03:30:54 PM »

I thought there was a profile event the Skyshark was legal in. It would not have had a minimum wing area requirement but I may be mistaken. I do remember that when the increased wing area rule went into effect some tried to increased the area of the kit Skyshark with mixed results. I turned mine into a biplane...real bad idea. I guess another visit to the rulebook archives may be in order.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #20 on:** January 16, 2012, 07:03:46 PM »

Pete, I distinctly remember that someone said that the Sterling Models Skyshark was about to be launched when news came of a rules change for profile carrier. Sterling Models owner said it was to late and to expensive to change the Skyshark for the new rules. So when the Skyshark kit was launched is when the rules changed for Profile Carrier.1974-75 rules show 300 sq inch wing area.
Wayne

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #21 on:** January 16, 2012, 07:28:49 PM »

I thought it was legal in profile before the rules change but that was a long time ago. I still think inclusion of the design has merit but won't pursue it further...or at least until I pay my NCS dues for 2012.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #22 on:** January 16, 2012, 08:27:10 PM »

The Skyshark kit came out in 1964 or 1965. In the America's Hobby Center ad in the June-July 1965 Flying Models, it lists the Sterling Skyshark kit, which is # S-28. The Sterling ad on the back cover features "the newest Ringmaster", Ringmaster Jr. Flash, kit# S-29. This would indicate to me that the Skyshark came out just prior.

skyshark58 · « **Reply #23 on:** January 17, 2012, 12:10:06 AM »

That sounds about right to me. When did Profile class appear?

Mike

bill bischoff · « **Reply #24 on:** January 17, 2012, 09:02:40 AM »

In mid-late 60's Nats reports, I found references to a Jr/Sr Class I profile event. I found references to Profile/ Class I/ Class II in a '72 Nats report. Inconclusive, but at least it narrows it down somewhat.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #25 on:** January 17, 2012, 09:22:31 AM »

If I remember right the first NATS for Profile Carrier was in 1970. I was flying Class II with my McCoy powered Sterling Gaurdian. There were over 200 entries in Profile and Ray Garragus(spelling) was running two decks. Him and his crew worked all day as hard as they could push the competitors to get the flights in.

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #26 on:** January 17, 2012, 09:36:26 AM »

In 1968 at Olathe I flew my Skyshark in SR. CL I. Sterling offered a special award for the highest placing profile model in JR & SR CL I. There was no restriction on the model size, it only had to be a profile. I flew the modified Skyshark in Profile at the 1970 Glenview NATS. I think John nailed it.

Ray Galloway ran the decks that year. Boy, was he ever a character.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #27 on:** January 17, 2012, 12:59:59 PM »

Well then what or who was pushing the 300 sq inch rule and why or was it there from the get go.
Wayne

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #28 on:** January 17, 2012, 01:28:01 PM »

Don't remember the year(s) - early 70's? - there was a push to get three new events going - Slow Rat, Slow Combat and Profile Carrier - that all had similar plane/engine restrictions - 300 sq. in., profile fuselages, stock, plain-bearing .36 engines. I don't know if the 300 sq.in minimum in carrier inspired that or came out of it or was separately developed entirely.

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #29 on:** January 17, 2012, 02:04:05 PM »

Quote from: Mike Anderson on January 17, 2012, 01:28:01 PM

Don't remember the year(s) - early 70's? - there was a push to get three new events going - Slow Rat, Slow Combat and Profile Carrier - that all had similar plane/engine restrictions - 300 sq. in., profile fuselages, stock, plain-bearing .36 engines. I don't know if the 300 sq.in minimum in carrier inspired that or came out of it or was separately developed entirely.

That's pretty much it. Some saw the opportunity for a single basic design to work in all 3 events. A Condor or the stuff from Ed's Garage could just as easily be a racer. I also heard comments to the effect that Sterling already owned CL II so they didn't need Profile with the Skyshark.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #30 on:** January 17, 2012, 04:21:48 PM »

Coincidentally, this photo was posted today on a Yahoo group that I belong to. Those who are interested in Navy piston-pounders may be interested in this group:
(There is also a good 3-view and larger version of this photo)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PropNavy/

Description: This group is for the exchange of photos and discussion of US Naval aircraft driven by props. It also includes LTA ships since there isn't as much information on these aircraft as the heavier than air birds.

edit: I might as well post the 3-view also... adding

skyshark58 · « **Reply #31 on:** January 18, 2012, 08:07:33 PM »

FYI the Skyshark measures out at about 214 sq. inches.
Mike

bill bischoff · « **Reply #32 on:** January 18, 2012, 08:54:35 PM »

So, if you enlarged it 20%, span would be 40.8", length would be 28.5", area would be about 308 sq. in.. I don't know the fuselage height, but if the original was 5", the enlargement would be 6". It seems like a simple 20% enlargement would work. I realize that once you start fudging with a slimmer fuselage, more wing chord, etc, you've totally missed the point and it's not a Sterling Skyshark anymore. (I'm sure some people would feel that way about ANY deviation.)

jim welch · « **Reply #33 on:** January 19, 2012, 08:47:43 PM »

1965 Willow Grove nats junior/senior profile carrier was my first attempt at carrier at the nats flying the sterling profile/k&b 35 green head exhaust throttle engine.The kit was the first one from the hobby distributor in virginia and me and Willis Swindell had flown it one season before that nats so the kit had to have came out in 64.I won that event and got a bunch of cl stuff that year.Most importantly I got to see Bob Gialdini fly in stunt, Bill Wisnewski fly a piped speed plane (pink lady) that was unreal.Got to build combat planes all night in a hanger just enjoy the super models being worked on there and sleep in a navy hooch for a week.....exciting times for a youngster.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #34 on:** January 20, 2012, 05:35:00 AM »

Still not legal for Profile Carrier, unless Richard Perry could come on here and say otherwise for Nostalgia Carrier. John Vlna should also know as he flies Nostalgia Carrier Events.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #35 on:** January 20, 2012, 09:10:56 AM »

Why wouldn't it be legal for profile if blown up to 300 sq. in? Wikipedia says it was meant to be a carrier airplane, so it should qualify for bonus points. It would NOT be eligible for the "old airplane" bonus in nostalgia profile, because you can't make the models bigger or smaller than how they were originally designed.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #36 on:** January 20, 2012, 10:29:37 AM »

Correct Bill, it would be legal for Profile but not nostalgia profile. It would look cool in Profile though.
Wayne

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #37 on:** January 20, 2012, 10:39:20 AM »

Top picture of me launching Bob Heywood's Skyshark at Glennview NAS 70 or 72. It had a 40 in it and flew in Class 1 with no scale points.
Thanks
Wayne

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #38 on:** January 20, 2012, 11:46:22 AM »

Quote from: bill bischoff on January 20, 2012, 09:10:56 AM

Why wouldn't it be legal for profile if blown up to 300 sq. in? Wikipedia says it was meant to be a carrier airplane, so it should qualify for bonus points. It would NOT be eligible for the "old airplane" bonus in nostalgia profile, because you can't make the models bigger or smaller than how they were originally designed.

I beg to differ:

In the day I flew a Skyshark with the wing enlarged to 300 sq. in. There are dated photos to prove the point. Not being a stock kit built model I will argue that it became my design with the kit as a doner. Should I choose to reprise that model I will claim eligibility for the Nostalgia Bonus.

Wayne, take a very close look at the pit shot from the same NATS. It's the one with Charlie and his "NATS shorts". You can see the modified wing.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #39 on:** January 20, 2012, 12:32:52 PM »

Bob, which picture are you refering to.
Wayne

Bill Little · « **Reply #40 on:** January 20, 2012, 01:12:34 PM »

Hi All,

I have a set of plans made from parts tracings of a kit. Having no knowledge of "Carrier" I need some info. We have been having Carrier at our local contest and I would like to eventually fly the Profile section.

What would be the dimensions of the wing to make the Skyshark legal?

Thanks!
Bill

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #41 on:** January 20, 2012, 01:19:10 PM »

Quote from: Wayne J. Buran on January 20, 2012, 12:32:52 PM

Bob, which picture are you refering to.
Wayne

This one. You gave me the print some time ago. If you look close you can see the wing mod.

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #42 on:** January 20, 2012, 01:27:38 PM »

Quote from: Bill Little on January 20, 2012, 01:12:34 PM

Hi All,

I have a set of plans made from parts tracings of a kit. Having no knowledge of "Carrier" I need some info. We have been having Carrier at our local contest and I would like to eventually fly the Profile section.

What would be the dimensions of the wing to make the Skyshark legal?

Thanks!
Bill

Go back and look at Reply # 32 in this thread.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #43 on:** January 20, 2012, 01:31:03 PM »

I looked at the original picture and if you look at the left wing you can see the enlargement. That print is dated 9/71 so I must have delayed having it printed. So its definately the 1970 Nats at Glenview NAS.
Wayne

Bill Little · « **Reply #44 on:** January 20, 2012, 03:13:31 PM »

Quote from: Bob Heywood on January 20, 2012, 01:27:38 PM

Go back and look at Reply # 32 in this thread.

Thanks, Bob......

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

bill bischoff · « **Reply #45 on:** January 20, 2012, 04:15:12 PM »

Quote from: Bob Heywood on January 20, 2012, 11:46:22 AM

I beg to differ:

In the day I flew a Skyshark with the wing enlarged to 300 sq. in. There are dated photos to prove the point. Not being a stock kit built model I will argue that it became my design with the kit as a doner. Should I choose to reprise that model I will claim eligibility for the Nostalgia Bonus.

This being the case, you are correct. It would be eligible for nostalgia bonus points. I would think that you would probably be asked for a few more details and dimensions, though.

STEPHEN DINERMAN · « **Reply #46 on:** February 05, 2012, 11:03:19 PM »

ed manulken [the oner of sterling ] was a family Friend and like a uncle to me.i i was in college at the time and was going to work at capemay nj for the summer.i stopped to visit ed ans he had 3 airplanes in his office.a skyshark,airobeneta and a seagull.he decided to kit the skyshark.he told me wen i came back at the end of the summer he would have a kit waiting for me.wen i got home and visited there was a kit waiting for me.i used it as a testbed for the kb40rr.when the rules changed ed had a fight with the ama and withdrew any support he gave them.at the last willowgrove nats i did not have a airplane to fly.glen simson had a skyshark that they had enlargered the flaps to bring it up to 300 sj in. the problem was that when they dropped the hook the nose would drop and the engine would quit.the flaps were activated by the hook so if you wanted to land the flaps had to be down.i flew it and the first two attempts the engine quit the third attempt i did not drop the hook until after the low speed and had called for my landing.i was about 10 feet away from the deck i dropped the hook the engine quit .the airplane dropped onto the deck and i ended up in third place.just a Little history.steve