Jack Sheeks Creations

[Robert Zambelli]

I got to thinking of some of the planes designed by Jack.

Does anyone have a list and/or photos of the planes he built?

Bob Z.

[Dennis Leonhardi]

I sell plans for about 20 of Jack's designs on eBay, and most of the listings have some kind of image.  I believe there is a more complete listing of his designs here.

Dennis - AirClassix on eBay

[Dan McEntee]

   Check his listing and bio in the Hall of Fame section here on Stunthanger. It may have a full listing. I know there is for Allen Brickhaus and his published articles. For "Beamer of the Month" Jack Sheeks, I think he had over 75 published, didn't he?
   Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee

[Dan McEntee]

   You may want to consider Bob Gialdini's Rayette. Good looks, profile, decent size and classic legal.
   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Peter Nevai]

Jack Sheek’s Published Designs
1. Stuka Stunt, Flying Models magazine, August 1963
2. LaDonna Stunt, Flying Models magazine, February 1964
3. Beechcraft Stagger Stunt, Flying Models magazine, June 1964
4. Skyrocket Stunt, Flying Models magazine, August 1964
5. Drink from a Tanker, Experimental, Flying Models magazine, April 1965
6. Shiek Stunter, Flying Models magazine, June 1965
7. Stuntliner, Flying Models magazine, October 1965
8. Sea Vicon Stunter, Flying Models magazine, April 1966
9. Demon Stunter, Flying Models magazine, August 1966
10. Swinger Control Line Stunter, Flying Models magazine, January 1967
11. Ryan SC Stunt, Flying Models magazine, July 1967
12. FW 190 Stunter, Flying Models magazine, January 1968
13. Freedom 45 Stunter, Flying Models magazine, May 1968
14. Spitfire Stunt, Flying Models magazine, September 1968
15. Torino Stunt, Flying Models magazine, January 1969
16. Scottsman, Flying Models magazine, February 1969
17. Knight Stunter, Flying Models magazine, June 1969
18. ME .109 Stunter, Flying Models magazine, April 1970
19. Old Glory Stunt, Flying Models magazine, February 1971
20. Magister Profile Stunt, Flying Models magazine, August 1971 24.
21. Bewitched Stunter, Flying Models magazine, July 1972
22. Flybaby Stunter, Flying Models magazine, October 1972
23. Corsair Profile, Bent Wing Stunt, Model Builder magazine, March 1973
24. Hurricane Stunter, Flying Models magazine, August 1973
25. P 26 A Peashooter Stunt, Flying Models magazine, March 1974
26. Bishop Stunter, Flying Models magazine, September 1974
27. Moondust Stunter, Model Builder magazine, December 1974 39.
28. Panic Stunter, Flying Models magazine, April 1975 40.
29. Miss Jill, Profile Stunter, Flying Models magazine, December 1975
The following models were Sheeks designs and were published under other names. He designed the models and did the plans, but they built the models.
30. Spirit of Saginaw, Stunter, under Dick Pacini, Flying Models magazine
31. ME 262, Stunter, under Jim Vornholt, Flying Models magazine
32. P-51 B, Stunter, under Joe Berry, Flying Models magazine
There are probably more.

[Robert Zambelli]

THANKS for the help, Guys - just what I needed!

Bob Z.

ps - hey, Dennis - you have a photo of my Staggerwing with your eBay ad for the Jack Sheeks version!

[Dennis Leonhardi]

THANKS for the help, Guys - just what I needed!

Bob Z.

ps - hey, Dennis - you have a photo of my Staggerwing with your eBay ad for the Jack Sheeks version!

Well, of course - I always try to go First Class!

[Robert Zambelli]

WAY TO GO!!!!!    

Your sales website is GREAT!!!   

Bob Z.

[Dick Pacini]

Peter, I must take exception to your entry #30, where you say The Spirit of Saginaw was Jack Sheeks' design.  That is not true. 

This subject has cropped up a few times over the years.  At one time during Jack's last years, he Mentioned Miss Saginaw which wasn't really correct.

As a result of the controversy, I wrote the Story of The Spirit of Saginaw and posted it here in 2009.  It should answer many questions and clear up some misconceptions.

https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/spirit-of-saginaw-history/msg128822/#msg128822

Oh, I will put in a shameless plug. The SSIII profile has been kitted by Brodak and is currently for sale.

[L0U CRANE]

Thanks, Peter!!

Just a friendly mention of a "typo." Number 8 in your list was the Sea ViXEn. inspired by a British carrier-borne jet. I thought Jim Vornholt  was also involved in this one. They apparently worked closely together...

[Peter Nevai]

Peter, I must take exception to your entry #30, where you say The Spirit of Saginaw was Jack Sheeks' design.  That is not true. 

This subject has cropped up a few times over the years.  At one time during Jack's last years, he Mentioned Miss Saginaw which wasn't really correct.

As a result of the controversy, I wrote the Story of The Spirit of Saginaw and posted it here in 2009.  It should answer many questions and clear up some misconceptions.

https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/spirit-of-saginaw-history/msg128822/#msg128822

Oh, I will put in a shameless plug. The SSIII profile has been kitted by Brodak and is currently for sale.

The list was compiled from a list Jack provided in the hall of fame thread. I just put it in a easier to read format. It was provided by Jack himself I believe.

[Dick Pacini]

Well, read my explanation and judge for yourself.  The fact is that the original I-Beam swept wing plane he drew for me that I dubbed Spirit of Saginaw was totally destroyed and never built again.  It should not be confused with the SS III profile which is my design, my plane.

Again, I recall at one time Jack referred to Miss Saginaw which was not the name I had given it.  Jack is certainly credited with the original swept wing but the planes that followed had no real connection.  In fact, the last plane was called the Free Spirit.

[Dan Berry]

My brother Calyton Berry told me about meeting Jack Sheeks -maybe at the Brodak gathering.
He said he he told him he remembered seeing all those designs in the magazines and how he was amazed at how many planes he designed.
He said Jack chuckled and replied " I had a family to feed".

[Trostle]

Jack Sheek’s Published Designs
-
-
-
-
There are probably more.

There are more.  I do not claim that this completes the list. I found these just by going through my books on semi-scale stunt designs.

- Jack did two versions of the Corsair.  The Profile version is listed above from MB, Mar 73.  He did a full fuselage, I-Beam version:  FM Nov 78
- Sea Fang FM Apr 79.  (The Sea Fang was the Royal Navy version of the Spiteful which was a "straight" laminer flow wing version of the late Spitfires.  This was one of Jack's more attractive semi scale designs in my opinion.)
- AT-9 Jeep (twin engine)  FM Aug 76
- Heinkel 100, Model Aviation, Jan 80  (another nice looking semi-scale by Jack)
- Messerschmitt 109G  FM May 77  (A nicer rendition of the 109 than his earlier 109 version.  The 109 is difficult to capture the appearance in a semi scale stunt design from the full scale 109 fighters.)

- Now to something related.  Jim Vornholt lived in Indianapolis and flew many of Jack's designs including qualifying at the 68 Nats with the Sheeks' design of the Torino.  In his article, he was looking for something different and saw a drawing of the Miss Dara racer in Jack's workshop.  With Jack's assistance, Jim drew up the plans and flew the Miss Dara.  Published in Flying Models, Dec 73.  The plans definitely show the Sheeks' influence.

Keith

[Scott Richlen]

I've always liked his  Freedom 45 and his ME-262.  Did they fly very well?  I seem to remember that the plans didn't show the actual position of the lead-outs (as shown in the pictures).

[t michael jennings]

Bob Z.

This is my Heinkel 100.

Enjoy.

T Michael Jennings
Knoxville, TN

[Scott Richlen]

This is my Heinkel 100.

Michael:

Nice!  What is the engine?  How does it fly?  It somewhat resembles the Mustunt III or IV.

[t michael jennings]

Scott,

Only flew this Heinkel 100 a couple of times.

It has several issues;

1)  The nose is very long,

2)  The overall length is about 40 inches,  (Item 1 and 2 causes me a transporting problem.

3)  I covered the wing with silkspan.  Every time I get near the aircraft, another hole appears in the wing.

When it was flown, it is a good flying aircraft.

The engine is a Fox ABC 40 engine. 

I would recommend building the aircraft at about 85% of the designed scale and use SIG Koveral on the wings.

T Michael Jennings
Knoxville, TN

[Scott Richlen]

I thought that the nose looked long in the photo but assumed it was just photographic distortion.  I always liked it, at least on the plans.  I have a Fox 40ABC lying around here someplace.  It should run good as I had it reworked by Tom Dixon.

[Scott Richlen]

Has anyone ever compiled a photo album of all of Jack's planes?  There's a certain "sameness" about most of today's stuntships that Jack's diversity of designs stand in stark contrast with.  PA would be much more appealing if we brought back originality points.

[Trostle]

PA would be much more appealing if we brought back originality points.

I agree that there is a bit of "sameness" with what is brought to contests now and diversity in design has some appeal, at least for some.  The problem is what would be the standard for originality?  In the past, if one would put different shapes on the rudder and wing tips of a Nobler that did not look like anything else ever done to a Nobler, how many originality points would it be eligible for?  Or if someone came out with an "X-Wing" configuration, how many points?  But when someone else comes out with a similar but slightly different X-wing, how many points?  Or, how about a biplane or even a triplane?  These have been done before, so how many originality points?  Would the first pusher biplane canard with swept forward wings be the only type of thing that could get maximum originality points?

Maybe I am trying to make complicated what could otherwise have a simple solution.

Keith

[Scott Richlen]

Maybe I am trying to make complicated what could otherwise have a simple solution.

Bingo!!

Everyone seems to be afraid of subjectivity.  But that's what adds a special dimension to an endeavor.  The unexpected, the unforseen.

We pick a 3 judge team and they (subjectively) decide how many points for originality.  Which is also how points are assigned in PA for any maneuver.  A judge subjectively decides that the maneuver he just witnessed was close or far away in representing the maneuver described in the rule book.

We will know that this effort is successful when the Originality Judges walk up to an airplane and one of them exclaims: "Holy Crap!  An SV-11!***  That's the only one here!  I haven't seen an exact rendering of an SV-11 for years!  This guy gets max points!!"

*** or a Nobler, or an Impact or an...

The perfect venue for trying that out would have been Brodaks, but since we don't have that anymore, well...

[Trostle]

We will know that this effort is successful when the Originality Judges walk up to an airplane and one of them exclaims: "Holy Crap!  An SV-11!***  That's the only one here!  I haven't seen an exact rendering of an SV-11 for years!  This guy gets max points!!"

When the model looks like an SV-11 or even something that only closely resembles an SV-11, how can that be considered original?  What if its only been a year since anything like an SV-11 has shown up anywhere in the universe, is there more more originality points if it has been five years since the last appearance of an SV-11.  What if the judges just have not been anywhere for several years without seeing an SV-11, yet there has been a plethora of SV-11's around the country not witnessed by this particular set of judges.  Such an approach only makes a subjective format more subjective.

Please explain the correlation between the time a particular design has not appeared at a contest and originality.

To me, something original would be a model that does not in any way resemble an SV-11 or any other known design.

Keith

[John Miller]

Something like this Colonel?

I've been working on this for a long time. It's a bit further along now than this shows, but there's still some work to go yet.

Jack was A great guy, and it was my pleasure to get to know him. I built his Torino for VSC about 10 years ago from the published plans. He looked at it and told me what he had changed as his, like mine had some "problems" that needed attention. It flew great after I made the corrections.


John

[Scott Richlen]

Keith:

You forgot this  part:
"Maybe I am trying to make complicated what could otherwise have a simple solution."


So, in answer to:

When the model looks like an SV-11 or even something that only closely resembles an SV-11, how can that be considered original?  What if its only been a year since anything like an SV-11 has shown up anywhere in the universe, is there more more originality points if it has been five years since the last appearance of an SV-11.  What if the judges just have not been anywhere for several years without seeing an SV-11, yet there has been a plethora of SV-11's around the country not witnessed by this particular set of judges.  Such an approach only makes a subjective format more subjective.

Please explain the correlation between the time a particular design has not appeared at a contest and originality.

To me, something original would be a model that does not in any way resemble an SV-11 or any other known design.

I'll have to talk to that judge as he obviously doesn't understand the meaning of "original."  However, the point I was trying to make was that if this were to be successful, the same-old, same-old would appear so infrequently (like your five years) that when they did, someone would assume they were original.

Oh, and maybe this would help: 

John: I like that design.  One of the Adamison's might note that they were flying a V-tail years ago, but most people don't remember.  So, in that case you'd get plenty of originality points!

[Scott Richlen]

John:

Side view appears to show landing gear in fuselage.  Wing drawing shows gear blocks.  Either/or?

[John Miller]

Gear is currently fuse mounted. I've been working on the Fuselage, so the wing is from an earlier iteration. Thanks for your comments.

John

[Trostle]

Something like this Colonel?

I've been working on this for a long time. It's a bit further along now than this shows, but there's still some work to go yet.

Jack was A great guy, and it was my pleasure to get to know him. I built his Torino for VSC about 10 years ago from the published plans. He looked at it and told me what he had changed as his, like mine had some "problems" that needed attention. It flew great after I made the corrections.

John

John,

The appearance of your Vanguard will be/is striking.  The eliptical wing/tail is gorgeous.  Have you had or flown an eliptical winged stunt ship?  Wondering how you will do the dihedral horizontal tail.  Split horns?  "Lucky boxes"?  I have a scale Swee Pea that has about 40^o dihedral under each side with the lucky box idea.  Works very well.   No binding through 35^o +/- elevator travel and very little play between left and right elevators and no resistance to travel.

Also, regarding the Sheeks Torino.  Mentioned earlier in this thread, Jim Vornholt who was twice Junior Champion at the Nats, flew the Torino at the Olathe '68 Nats and qualified with it.  I remember yours at VSC.  It gives an interesting appearance when doing the pattern.

Keith

[john e. holliday]

Well John, I like the looks of the plane, but draw back is it is electric.  I guess If did a version of it, it would be side mounted engine, rear exhaust with cheek cowls like the Sea Pea.

[John Miller]

Thank you both for your kind comments. They are welcomed, and help me get the drive to continue on with the project.

Colonel,, I've made a few changes from what I posted. This is due to the normal progression because of "things" that come up during the design process. I am pleased with how these changes have, IMHO, improved the appearance. The drawings posted were actually created in 2011, before my accident.

The only elliptical winged plane I've owned and flown, was a T'Bird ll, which I would rate as a semi-elliptical wing design.  I've never flown a true Elliptical design, but I am looking forward to it. I enjoyed the task of making the ribs "Geo"style. I plan on using "Lucky Boxes" for the elevators. I used them on my version of the "All American Eagle" where they work flawlessly, as you describe yours to work on your Sweet Pea".

Doc, I'll probably show an IC "Mod" for .25-.40 wet power. I like your idea for cheek cowls. I've used them on the last several planes I've drawn, and they help stiffen up the nose.

OK, I don't mean to hi jack the thread, so I'll back out. I just wanted to demonstrate the idea of Originality as  it might pertain to stunt.

John

[Gordon Van Tighem]

Care FM April 78 among the missing.
Here s my Sheeks Moondust from ‘76.
G

[Larry Renger]

In most of Jack Sheeks articles he mentioned adding noseweight. I always wondered about this and why not just lengthen the nose to get the balance. I finally did an inertia vs balance study and he had it right! Rotational inertia is less with the shorter nose and noseweight! Slight weight penalty, but better turning ability. Bright lad (and a really nice guy, definitely a “good cop”)

Now, I would just use a heavier, more powerful, fuel efficient engine and accomplish the same thing, but he didn’t have OS engines then.

It seems that the towline glider guys discovered this a long time ago to improve thermal turbulence response. Nose moment on modern gliders is almost not there.