Author Topic: Skylarks (Read 2415 times)

Randy Powell · « **on:** February 15, 2009, 12:57:03 PM »

OK, clearly there are a lot of versions of the Skylark. I was watching Steve Helmick fly Don McClave's unit yesterday and thought, boy that sure looks a lot different that the Skylark's I remember. Below is a picture, taken from the PAMPA web site of a 1964 version of the Skylark. This is the one I remember.

How many versions of this plane are there? Are they all classic legal?

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #1 on:** February 15, 2009, 02:52:01 PM »

The one in your picture even has a wing mounted gear...

That's one problem with CLassic (or OTS) is that different versions of the same bird exist - from the original designer, from different iterations (home made,published, kitted versions) to - the mods that most folks would make in the course of building the bird. "gee, I built a _____ from the plans but a made the nose longer or the tail shorter or..." you get the idea. Makes it worse that numerous "original" designs used Nobler wings or SKylark wings, or Ibeam reibs from a Detroiter or some such.

I think what we are left with: if it looks kinda like a Skylark then it will probably get to "play" as one!

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #2 on:** February 15, 2009, 03:24:05 PM »

Mike Haverly told me (unless it was in a stunt nightmare!) that this Skylark is a copy of a version that Ed Southwick built (in '64) that Ed didn't like. I'm not sure where Mike got this information, but maybe Don McC., PW. or Pete P. But I'd like to know. I asked Paul and Pete about it, and Paul just said it wasn't like his own Skylark, and something about it "being too small", and that he'd never flown it. Pete said he flew it after the contest at the last VSC, along with other noteable stunt pilots. Everybody thought it was as well trimmed as possible, but nobody liked it. Hmmmmm.

What I noticed was that the LE doesn't appear to sweep back nearly as much as Randy's Simons Shoestring, and yet some have stated that Bill Simons' own Shoe used a Skylark foam core. Hmmmm. Hmmmm.

Mostly, I'm ok with it, but searching for a lot more line tension in the tricks. I put in a .46LA instead of a .40LA (because it was ubercold outside and the .46 is well used, while the .40's are NIB), and since VSC organizers have mandated the use of the old line sizes and pulltests, I have had to readjust tipweight and LO position. It glides very slow, so I'm willing to move the CG forward a tad. Control response is reasonable...I may widen the handle spacing. I got really tired of trying to backflip the engine and having the prop and spinner kick loose. I blame it on the shaft extension, which OBTW was not a Fox unit. I don't know who did make it, but there wasn't anything good about it.

Edit: In fact, I'm not at all certain that this shaft extension was the one used by Don McClave, or if it was added to the mix by Jerry Eichten or Dave Gardner, who were 'intermediary' owners of this plane. It's now using a genuine Fox shaft extension, which was JB Welded to the .46LA prop driver by Mike Haverly, and which was subsequently JB Welded to a Randy Aero spinner backplate by myself. The prop nut is now a steel Fox item, tho modified, as is the prop washer. The main thing is, the prop and spinner don't seem to kick loose anymore....I like that!

I know enough about stunt design that I believe there could be a flaw in the build, control system, or trim, that could make any design seem like a total oinker. But "any design" got a bad reputation, or maybe got junked and another design eventually resulted, carefully avoiding the one design feature that was blamed for the failure of the first design....right, wrong, or indifferent. Well, that's my theory, anyway...

Steve

Randy Powell · « **Reply #3 on:** February 16, 2009, 12:23:24 AM »

Hi Steve,

My curiosity was primarily about the wing. As you note, my Shoestring wing is quite difference from your Skylark. This wing was done from templates for the 64 Skylark, but with the planform from the Shoestring plans. I'm told that it's the same as the original (whatever that means) Skylark.

sigh... I suppose it's doesn't matter at this point. I just wanted the Shoestring to be as accurate as possible to the original. Weirdly, while the Shoe is finally coming around as a flier (at least somewhat), it's not nearly as good a flier as the first one I built that was faithful to the original Flying Model plans. Right down to that weird airfoil.

Scott B. Riese · « **Reply #4 on:** February 16, 2009, 10:09:49 PM »

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #5 on:** February 16, 2009, 10:20:47 PM »

Just to add some confusion, here's the Skylark that went into the magazine. To a non-skylarkian like me, it still looks suspiciously like the Sterling kit - perhaps to validate the (then) upcoming kit???

Randy Powell · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2009, 09:04:01 AM »

Dennis,

I have no idea. As noted, I don't know much about Skylarks. I was just trying to be a accurate to the original Shoestring as I could. Whatever; it's as close as I can get it. And after a lot of cutting and pasting and messing around, it's gone from a terrible flier to a sort of semi-decent one. I'm about done messing with it.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2009, 10:35:00 AM »

RP:
Back to your original post: Doubtless Ed Southwick built several versions. The pictures with the article show at least two different birds, and one of those (but not both) looks like one of the two that was pictured on the kit box. In the text Ed said he had built Skylarks with up to 62" wings (validating the larger RSM versions?) but went back to smaller for windy conditions (validating the Sterling version?) In the text he mentions one he tried with a longer tail (another version? Meanwhile your pix shows a version with wing mounted gear. I am pretty sure RSM would have had Ed handy to validate & sign off on the plans for their kits. Yet the Skylark pictured in the RSM ad appears to have a different fin than the plans or Sterling versions. Its enough fuel an army of conspriacy thoerists!

No doubt a lot of kits & plans moels were made and/or modified. How many are Classic Legal - near all of them. How many can be DOCUMENTED - thar's the rub!

Next step, you build a Classic of a different design that according to "legend" used a SKylark wing - but, if I understand you, that wing is different than the plans - which is Classic legal? Certainly the one in the plans is, but it might not have ben built, the one that was built may not have been published exactly the same way.

...and NO ONE is smart enough to pass one & fail the other so get it trimmed out and FLY THE SNOT out of it...

Randy Powell · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2009, 11:59:00 AM »

Dennis,

We'll it's better. Still has some weird quirks that I can't seem to trim out. It's still a bit jumpy in level flight. Not really a hunt but more of a tracking issue. Trust me, I've tried every trick I know and it's better, but the problem is still there. It occasionally does "weird" stuff in maneuvers; strange bobbles (not attributable to the pilot - there are plenty of those, too), an odd yawing problem that again, is largely gone thanks to the addition of a wiggly rudder. And the turn remains unpredictable. Well, that's not really true, it's more that the thing just feels, I don't know, squirrelly, I guess. The CG has been moved more than an inch and a half (a half inch in each direction) and while one problem gets fixed, another pops up. I am certain that something isn't straight, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what. I've used incidence meters, a laser level and several other tools to check things and it seems right, but clearly isn't.

I'll probably just live with it and start working on something else.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2009, 08:09:01 PM »

Randy...thinking about last Saturday, it was a good wind direction, but the wind was still very light, so wake turbulence was sometimes noticeable. Are you sure the weirdness of the Shoe wasn't just wake?

Steve

Randy Powell · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2009, 10:58:56 AM »

Steve,

Truth is, the thing isn't very much fun to fly right now. I hope it will get better and I've done a bunch of stuff to it this week to it based of what happened last weekend. I know that it's hard to assess a plane when flying at the Narrows with the wind coming off that hillside, but I don't think that was the problem. Guess we'll see.

Jim Pollock · « **Reply #11 on:** March 10, 2009, 05:17:31 PM »

Well,

Since the 1964 picture shows it, the wing gear is documented!

Jim Pollock

john e. holliday · « **Reply #12 on:** March 20, 2009, 05:47:06 PM »

I myself had two kit Skylarks during my modeling times. Yes the magazine plan and the kit plan are one in the same if you lay tham over one another. I talked to Ed at VSC about the Skylark and he stated the biggest mistake was letting anyone like Sterling kit his airplane. But, hindsight is always better. He did build and fly the smaller kit version in competition, but, he said the one that Ken Smith kitted was the true sized one. In fact it is the one that Ed flew at VSC for several years as well as the Lark before he was taken away from us. He was a true giant in the stunt circles. DOC Holliday

Bill Little · « **Reply #13 on:** March 20, 2009, 11:38:11 PM »

AFAIK, Bill Byles is the final word on the Skylark. He was a good friend of Ed's for many years, building and flying with Ed. Bill has told me that Ed had three different *Classic legal* versions of the overall plane. A smallish one (later), the 56" one he flew at the WC's with the old McCoy RH, and a .60 size. The 56" one seemed to be Ed's favorite (and kitted by Smith) and he was powering that size with the ST 46 before he left us. Bill has excellent plans for the 56" plane and they were drawn with Ed's help. The pictures on the old Sterling box were not the kit.

It is one airplane I WILL build.

Mongo

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #14 on:** March 21, 2009, 09:05:30 AM »

Ditto on Bill Byles. The plans he sells are for THE Skylark!

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #15 on:** March 21, 2009, 01:10:23 PM »

Randy,
After wading through this thread you will see that there are 5 Skylarks that are all legal for Clasic, Byles plans for the three Ed Southwick models, the MAN plans model and the Sterling kit.
I've flown the Sterling kit and it's OK. Just smaller and they can be heavy. They still have a thick wing, so can carry a load.
The one I built was from the Byles plans and used the 56" wing, I powered it with a Tigre 46. It was about 44 oz and flew pretty well.
(Flew it at VSC '92 with heavy Veco and Banner equipment, not so successful but flew nice big, smooth pattern. Went with lightweight plastic stuff for VSC '94 and it flew very well, had a nice crisp turn and flat recoveries. Pulled a leadout out on a practice flight, crashed, and repaired it; flew into the ground on outside squares on my first official and did alright on the second but the "no throw-away" format made for a poor finish.)
Call Hunt regarding the foamer for a Shoestring, I believe it was the 46 sized Southwick version. Didn't he write an expose' about the subject recently?
Chris...

dale gleason · « **Reply #16 on:** March 29, 2009, 08:07:32 PM »

This guy showed up at the VSC, had an over-run first flight, forgot the new three day, one throw-away format was in place, had a tantrum, was reminded by Leroy Black that he still had two more tries, gave Leroy a bear hug, then had to hide his face in shame! (What's that stuff about "fun fly", etc, etc?)
A year ago at this same meet, this Skylark flew wonderfully, it's maiden voyage at that time. Few months later, it suffered a handle miscue, it crashed, was put together with a "banana" curve in the fuse. Two days later the turnbuckle backed out in Classic at the Nats, quick repair, finished 11th. Managed the District VIII Perpetual Trophy. Throughout, the ST51 with a 12x5 Revup never faltered or missd a beat.
This Skylark is a Ken Smith kit, and I talked to Bill Byles about it, there is one just like hanging in Bill's home, but not quite full length flaps... Classic legal? Definitely, (even says so on the kit box)
I've been told some have SV-11 type wings, but this wing is much thicker and tapers dramatically. Two and 7/8ths thick at the root and 1 and a quarter at the tip. I think that's why it flies so well, although I don't know why. One of my biggest regrets was not meeting Ed when I had the chance, this is a great plane, I tried to emulate Ed's paint job to a degree. dale g

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2009, 09:35:12 PM »

This is the one I wrote about above and flew at VSC (where the picture was taken by Mr. David Russum!). Don McClave built it and placed 2nd at a NATS (in Classic) with it, with .40LA power. Dunno what year that was, but maybe '04? I just taped the wingspan at 52". The wing is thick and doesn't taper as much as I remembered.

It is NOT the kit plan. It was one that Southwick built in '64 and didn't like, so it hung on the garage wall for years and years. I don't know where the plans came from, but I asked Bill Byles about it, and he didn't have plans for it. Also talked to Don McC. about it at VSC, and he said it would be a good exercise in trimming for me. I don't recall if he said where the plans came from, but at this point, I couldn't recommend it. It will cut a good corner, and the control ratios seem fine, it flies alright, but line tension has been a battle. I put a .46LA in it, and Don approved of that, but of course, I had to retrim for .018" lines just for VSC. Tipweight has been increased 1.25oz, if I remember right, and I moved the LO's back about 1/8". I should take notes....but I did put a reference mark where they started out. Changing to larger and/or longer lines should move the LO's back.

I plan to do some R&R on it, including installing a bigger fuel tank, and a bigger venturi. The APC 11.5 x 4 is easily the best prop I've found for it, but will keep trying to find something better, including some picked up at VSC's "Farmer's Market". Maybe I've missed the sweetspot in LO placement...I hope I find it. I have yet to weigh it, but Don said 48 oz with the .40, so now it should be more like 50oz with all the tipweight. It glides very slowly, but well controlled, and will glide a decent distance, so I think the CG is pretty good. At VSC (arriving Sunday evening), I switched to a new Ted Handle, and gradually widened the spacing out to the 5th holes (from minimum, with the new longer arms). I'm looking forward to seeing if I can even fly it level here at near sea level.

Anyway, it looks like there's 6 Skylark variants that are Classic legit.

Steve

Edit: I just noticed that I posted the wrong picture, so changed it to the correct one. It shows the wing pretty clearly is way different than the normal Skylark. Don mentioned the lower A/R and larger flaps. I still don't recall if he said where the plans came from.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2009, 10:51:19 PM »

I want plans for the one I posted at the top.

Bill Little · « **Reply #19 on:** April 07, 2009, 03:29:45 AM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on March 30, 2009, 10:51:19 PM

I want plans for the one I posted at the top.

HI Randy,

From conversations will Bill Byles, it appears that the picture you posted was the smaller version, and one that Ed was not real fond of..........

I understand (and Bill was a life long friend and flying buddy with Ed) that the 56" version was Ed's favorite and the one he used at thew WC's. Of course, he was using a McCoy 40RH, IIRC. I wonder why Bill hasn't replied here?

The real answer to your question can be had if you contact Bob Hunt since he made the cores for Bill Simons, correct? I may be mistaken, but Bill is still around, AFAIK, so you can talk with him. I sure hope he is around!

Mongo