Skylark build

[Dave Nyce]

Building a kit I've had for a few years: Ed Southwick's SKYLARK. Don't like starting inverted engines, so making this one electric. Also, sheeted the empennage with 1/32" balsa, instead of covering. Planning silkspan to cover wing. Added a weight box to outboard wingtip. Added adjustable leadouts to inboard wingtip. Ordered a pilot figure on ebay.

[Crist Rigotti]

Looks good!

[Paul Walker]

Hope yours flies as well as mine!
Mine was box stock except for the fuse sides. Flew with a McCoy 40. Nothing sounds like a McCoy 40 on 4 cycle all the way.

I have another in the original box and might just use electric in it. Might be pretty unbeatable in Classic at a VSC in the future.


Loved them when I was a teen and love it them in my 60's and beyond..

[Ken Culbertson]

Everybody should have at least one Skylark in their past. Mine was from 1974 while in the Air Force.  Aero Gloss metallic green, McCoy 40.  Met my wife flying that plane 51 years ago.

Ken

[Steve Dwyer]

Dave,

I just noticed your post on the Skylark. Here's a couple of build shots of the SL I acquired a while back from a good friend Warren Wagner that moved south and didn't have the room to bring it along. Warren did a tremendous job building it but never got around to finishing it, his work is outstanding.

Here's some weight information to compare to your build. The framed bare bones model now weighs 27.4 ounces with no exterior hardware. Adding the Double Star 50 along with everything else it weighs in at 46.05 ounces (with estimated 1 oz tip weight).  I am planning on Polyspan and Butyrate color with clear that I expect will add 6 ounces, this seems to be the general consensus. I could go with Monokote to drop a little.  Totaling out it should come in at about 52.05. What is you projection?

Steve

[Jim Svitko]

Dave,

I just noticed your post on the Skylark. Here's a couple of build shots of the SL I acquired a while back from a good friend Warren Wagner that moved south and didn't have the room to bring it along. Warren did a tremendous job building it but never got around to finishing it, his work is outstanding.

Here's some weight information to compare to your build. The framed bare bones model now weighs 27.4 ounces with no exterior hardware. Adding the Double Star 50 along with everything else it weighs in at 46.05 ounces (with estimated 1 oz tip weight).  I am planning on Polyspan and Butyrate color with clear that I expect will add 6 ounces, this seems to be the general consensus. I could go with Monokote to drop a little.  Totaling out it should come in at about 52.05. What is you projection?

Steve

Have you run that Double Star 50?  I had one of those engines some time ago and I thought it was low on power for an engine of that size.  Very disappointing, and the plane I had it on weighed 53 ounces.  When I discovered the LA 46, I reworked the mounts to fit the LA 46 and it was worth the effort.   I never considered using that Double Star 50 again.

[Steve Dwyer]

Have you run that Double Star 50?  I had one of those engines some time ago and I thought it was low on power for an engine of that size.  Very disappointing, and the plane I had it on weighed 53 ounces.  When I discovered the LA 46, I reworked the mounts to fit the LA 46 and it was worth the effort.   I never considered using that Double Star 50 again.



I have not run the engine yet. It appears to have been run; I haven't had a chance to catch up with my gifter Warren Wagner on its history or his take on selecting the DS50 to build the Skylark around.

There is a fair amount of past positive hype here about the Dixon supplied DS engines. Only found one other comment regarding its power limitation. The DS's are described as a "different" type of engine, they don't like castor, are made of different materials and run best at lower rpm and handle well a big prop. They come with a head shim and a variety of venturi sizes to accommodate fuel and flying variations. Apparently, they have to be played with to get the best performance out of them. Sounds like they can easily be run to hot.  I'll get the run bench out of the shed once we stay above 50F.

It does looks like the DS 50 has a similar lug bolt pattern to the LA 46. I haven't placed a 46 into the model, I'm sure the fore and aft dimension will require adjustment to accommodate the spinner backplate clearance and whether it's a flush aluminum or recessed Dubro style.

[Jim Svitko]

Steve,
I guess since you have the DS 50, go ahead and use it.  However, you might want to rework the mounts for an easier engine swap, in case you need to do that.  A good plane needs a good engine.  I had my DS 50 on a Time Machine 50.  So, I figured a good match there.  But, with that DS 50 being so low on power, I was very disappointed.

I am not an engine guru.  I can only tell you what I have heard about the DS 50 and 60, and what my experience has been.  I heard that the DS 50 and DS 60 have what is called sub piston induction.  That might be OK if you do not use a muffler, but where can we fly without a muffler these days?  On an engine with sub piston induction, and using a muffler, exhaust gas gets back into the crankcase and contaminates the fuel charge.  Can any engine gurus verify this?  That might explain the rather low power on these two engines.

The DS 40 also had problems but the fix was easy.  A larger venturi solved the run away problem on that engine.  And, from what I can tell, the DS 40 did not have sub piston induction.

[Steve Dwyer]

I have no particular love for the DS 50 especially over the LA 46 I'm very fond of. I haven't done a weight comparison, but I believe the DS is significant lighter. I hope I don't have to fill that tail weight box with lead. I'd like more input as well from the engine folks here too.

[Steve Dwyer]

Correction the OS LA 46 is not dimensionally equal to the Double Star 50 in either lug mounting or length. The Super Tigre 46 is however identical in overall mounting dimensions and length. it would appear they designed the DS 50 around the popular ST46 of that time.

The OS LA 46 is 2.7 ounces heavier than the DS 50 and the ST 46 is 2.4 ounces heavier. Ed Southwick built his Skylark around the ST 46 and posted the average finished weight should be in the 52 to 54 ounce range. It may require nose weight with the DS.

With the Super Tigre 46 I have on the shelf, Warrens model will come in about 53.35 assuming the finish adds 6 ounces.

The bench run Super Tigre was impressive, a good runner.

Steve

[Dave_Trible]

There we are really talking about two 'almost' different airplanes.   Steve the kit you show and are talking about is a re-make of what Ed originally designed with the 56" wingspan.   The Sterling kit version was reduced to 52" and that actually calculates downward in wing area quite a bit.   The 56" version is better suited to the 40-46 size engine and can handle the 50+ ounce weight a little better.   The Sterling airplane ( which I understand Ed was not happy about) can fly well with a Fox .35 or McCoy .35-.40 in the mid-40 ounce range.   I've built both, the last being the Sterling 52" version but I did put an Enya .35 in because it was really too heavy at 48 ounces and needed some extra power.  We fly it open face-no muffler.   With a muffler using just about ANY engine except maybe a Fox it is too nose heavy like most Classic period airplanes designed in the Fox/McCoy era.   It probably would require some tail weight.   My best one was the 56" version with very little finish and a McCoy .40 Series .21-open face.

Dave

[Steve Dwyer]

Your correct Dave, I see the Sterling box and now recall reading about the issues Ed had with the Sterling redesign because of a smaller box and a smaller model. It's Apples to Oranges on this post but still a good exchange regarding the Double Star 50.
Steve

[Dan McEntee]

There we are really talking about two 'almost' different airplanes.   Steve the kit you show and are talking about is a re-make of what Ed originally designed with the 56" wingspan.   The Sterling kit version was reduced to 52" and that actually calculates downward in wing area quite a bit.   The 56" version is better suited to the 40-46 size engine and can handle the 50+ ounce weight a little better.   The Sterling airplane ( which I understand Ed was not happy about) can fly well with a Fox .35 or McCoy .35-.40 in the mid-40 ounce range.   I've built both, the last being the Sterling 52" version but I did put an Enya .35 in because it was really too heavy at 48 ounces and needed some extra power.  We fly it open face-no muffler.   With a muffler using just about ANY engine except maybe a Fox it is too nose heavy like most Classic period airplanes designed in the Fox/McCoy era.   It probably would require some tail weight.   My best one was the 56" version with very little finish and a McCoy .40 Series .21-open face.

Dave

     Once I get a table clear enough to be able to lay out the three plans I hope to do a real comparison between the three plans that are available and all classic legal. You have the Sterling kit plan, which doesn't come with complete plans and I don't know if anyone has ever drawn up a complete plan showing all the parts. Then there is the M.A.N. magazine plan that was published and in the same issue was the announcement from Sterling that they were kitting the airplane. This is one question I have , and that is if the mag plan is the same size as the kit version?? I'm not sure. Then there is the Kenn Smith kit, that Bill Byles drew the plans up for I believe, with Ed right beside him and Ed's own drawings and models to measure from. Ed's model at that first VSC looked a lot bigger than the kit versions I had seen built.  I got to meet Ed at an early VSC, my first or second trip in the early 90s. I think Ed had just gotten back to flying after having his vision problems corrected and I was excited to meet another model hearo that I had been reading about in the mags for a long time, and I was aware of the size discrepancies with the Sterling kit, so I asked him about that. To this day I wish I hadn't!! Ed was quite upset about that and even though I could tell he was not angry with me, I could tell it was something that he felt deeply hurt about, even that far down the line!! I changed the subject quickly to the model he had right there and it blew over pretty quickly but I was sure to remember to never bring that up again!! Ed was such a nice guy that I just hated that what I thought was a simple question about the history of the event got his so upset. It's a true tragedy that he and his wife were taken from us far too soon.
   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Steve Dwyer]

Dan, the empty kit box that came along with the framed model did not have plans in it. This is what I found on Aerofed, I'm not sure what build this is. I would assume the 52" Southwick kit came with plans. Some builders sacrifice the plans by building directly on top of them. Something I never do. I will add Warren fully sheeted all the tail components over foam, apparently an option that was going around at the time.

Steve

[Dan McEntee]

Dan, the empty kit box that came along with the framed model did not have plans in it. This is what I found on Aerofed, I'm not sure what build this is. I would assume the 52" Southwick kit came with plans. Some builders sacrifice the plans by building directly on top of them. Something I never do. I will add Warren fully sheeted all the tail components over foam, apparently an option that was going around at the time.

Steve

  What you have posted looks like the M.A.N. plan. The Sterling kit came with instructions sheets like the Ringmaster did and only a layout of the wing and stab to build those over. There were two or three sheets I think, I would have to get my good kit down to check, but that was typical of Sterling for almost all their kits. They wanted you to buy another instead of scratch building from the plan. Even their rubber powered scale kit plans are like that and have just enough for you to build the kit.
   Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[Steve Dwyer]

Dan,

It'd be interesting to see what the plans look like for the larger 52" Southwick model. If the M.A.N. plans are of the larger and what I have posted I have to question, wouldn't it be unusual for them to show a different SKYLARK font on the plan compared to the font on the Southwick kit box. Typically for most kits the fonts look similar.

Steve

[Dave_Trible]

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out if the plans above reflect the 52" or 56" version by creating a scale off, say, the 2" spinner in the drawing.   The only structural difference was how far the ribs were spaced apart and of course the length of the span wise parts.   One thing for sure-   the Sterling kit had the rudder built up,  not solid and it was airfoiled like the green box Nobler.  The assumed reason Sterling shortened the span was for the longest parts to fit into the box they wanted to use.   There may also have been other limitations in their wood cutting process.  Fuselage sides in all their bigger kits were pieced together- not full length either.  There was an even larger version scaled and built by Bill Byles.   It was flown at the Nats one year.   It seems to me it had a Tigre .60 or .56 in the nose.

Dave

[Dan McEntee]

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out if the plans above reflect the 52" or 56" version by creating a scale off, say, the 2" spinner in the drawing.   The only structural difference was how far the ribs were spaced apart and of course the length of the span wise parts.   One thing for sure-   the Sterling kit had the rudder built up,  not solid and it was airfoiled like the green box Nobler.  The assumed reason Sterling shortened the span was for the longest parts to fit into the box they wanted to use.   There may also have been other limitations in their wood cutting process.  Fuselage sides in all their bigger kits were pieced together- not full length either.  There was an even larger version scaled and built by Bill Byles.   It was flown at the Nats one year.   It seems to me it had a Tigre .60 or .56 in the nose.

Dave

 

    The plan he posted is the M.A.N. plan, and is the plan with the article in the December '63 issue.  I have it in my plans collection of plans from the magazine. I just have never measured it. It is the plan that is on the Outerzone UK site and it should have the article with it. In the listing on Outerzone, it calls out the span as 55".  The M.A.N. article and plan doesn't dive any specs or dimensions and that was typical of that era.  In the same issue on page 61 is the Sterling ad for the Skylark, one half of a two page ad, and it calls out 54" span. And the Smith kit is supposed to be 56"?  I'll have to get busy in the basement and clear a space and compare all three, and see what the tape measure and ruler says!!  Publishing a new design and also releasing it as a kit is the same issue of a magazine was done quite often back then. Most likely some sort of collaboration with the publisher and the kit manufacturer?? I'll work on getting all three measured up but there is a pretty good pile of stuff in front of the flat file cabinets that will impede my efforts there!! I wonder if Bill has the plans for the "big" model still? I haven't seen him post on SH in quite a while. Stay tuned!
   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

      Edit to add; here is a link to the Outerzone listing. It has the ad that appeared in the 12/63 magazine and also a photo of Paul Walker holding his rendition of the Sterling kit, I believe it is.  The different versions all fly well, I just find it interesting that one design went through all of this and still became a classic design no matter which one you build!!   https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=6298

[Dave Hull]

I have a borrowed copy of the 1993 Bill Byles drafted version of the Southwick Skylark. It has the 56" wing. The fin and rudder are solid and airfoiled. These plans show a .46 engine and a 5-oz tank. Flaps are cored out with ribs added back in just like the stab and elevators. I have compared this version to some prior versions and would note that the stab in the 1993 version is significantly larger at 25-3/4" than at least one version shown in a magazine. I don't recall the mag name or date. For what it is worth, these hand-drawn plans by Bill have Ed's signature on both sheets. One of our club members had one and it was very capable.

[Steve Dwyer]

I checked with Warren Wagner regarding the plans and unfortunately his were ruined in a basement flood when the sump pump failed several years back while he was living in Florida for the winter. I did find a letter in the kit box addressed to Warren from Ed Southwick dated May 1997. Ed described how he was planning to go to Phoenix over the weekend to fly, he lived in Kingman Az. I think they may have met each other at the Nats that year, not sure?? Ed said had ordered more prints and was planning to send a set to Warren. From Warren's description they were the Bill Byles version of the original larger Skylark.
For what it's worth and for verification the framed model is the 56"span. The rib spacing is 2-1/8 inches, hinge spacing 16", fuse length 38-1/2", spinner diameter 2" and wing chord at the root is 13-1/8" from LE to Flap TE or 10" for the wing alone LE to TE.  The stab is 25-3/4".
If anyone is interested in having Ed's handwritten letter in its mailing envelope for nostalgic reasons I'd be more than happy to send it to them. I know some people here are more or less historians. Just give me a mailing address.

Steve

[Chris McMillin]

My Skylark was built from Byles’ plans in 1992 and flown until 1994 at VSC when it had a spot of trouble. Super Tigre 46, Big Art muffler, Zinger 11x5, on 20% nitro at Tucson though I can’t remember  now the quantity. I used contest wood and dope and tissue, finished with DuPont acrylic lacquer,lightweight stuff, wheels and plastic spinner and it weighed about 44 oz.
Chris…

[Steve Dwyer]

Chris,

That was certainly a light build, I'll have to revisit the aluminum spinner, wheels, prop and muffler I'm using to hopefully peel away some ounces. Polyspan vs tissue you used may be the significant difference I'll have to live with.

Steve