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