No doubt the Shark is a benchmark design. A few years back when Lew was in better health, I was in attendance at a Lexington meet and Lew was out in the pits with a tape measure. After cordial exchanges, we asked him what in the world he was doing and he said had agreed to work as the design columnist in the PAMPA rag. He was also considering what he might do to update the Shark for a modern Super Shark design. I was pumped to see what he would come up with but it never materialized. After explaining some modern theory incorporated in my model I also let him know I surely didnt think the Shark needed a thing but maybe consider enlarging the stab/elev in span only. It already has a pretty good cord in my opinion and certainly more than most in that era.
I actually couldn't believe I was being solicited for advice from Lew McFarland. I was so new and green it was like being asked to play an original with the Beatles. I had to tell him so...I was honored. Nothing in my design was my own and I simply used every bit of modern thought at the time. Looking back at that conversation and with the advances in modern power over the last few decades I have changed my mind a bit about what I would change.
There isnt a soul in stunt that wouldn't agree that Lew was smooth at the handle as was the Shark at the end of the lines and he is the nicest soft spoken a man as you will ever meet. I always remember my Dad stressing that smooth and soft was better than tight and possibly jerky. Lew was "the Man" when I was growing up in these parts and of course my dads design mentor of sorts. Smooth and " the wing is the thing" were thing I heard often as a kid.
These days you need a design that will corner like no other without faltering or stalling and still be smooth. I believe that a wing cord over 10" is excessive and does not necessarily corner as tight as we might want. I believe the Shark is 12". In fact, with modern power train and what seems to be worsening weather a smaller more efficient wing is desirable and many have migrated this direction over the last ten years. With an excess of controllable power, there is less emphasis on wing loading and more on wing shape where the LE is concerned. Stiff surfaces, the amount of flap percentage of the cord, and the shape and accuracy across that surface has been greatly improved. This is not to say there is anything wrong with the Shark airfoil. However, the way these were constructed often lends itself to an inaccurate shape and possibly too sharp at the LE depending on the builders ability and propensity of the builder to use a sanding block. Loads at the handle have been reduced and a different touch can be employed today rather than the heavy handed, broad gesturing type of dance often seen demonstrated in old film. Slightly nose heavy was more the norm than a slightly aft CG then too I believe. For that reason a model would balloon almost uncontrollably in big wind, not to mention old flexy wire push rods under load. So, as how we power,build and trim, has improved ...the less need for a big gun type wing, sexy as it may be.
If I were redesigning the Shark for modern era, I would use a Geobolt wing or a Sv 22 or 23 with 20 or 21% smallish flaps, at about 60' span and a longer span stab/elev. than the original at about 25 to 27 percent of the wing area and air foil shaped. I would use an electric motor and would only lengthen or shorten the nose and or tail to accommodate power train and the CG. The looks of this bird needs nothing.
Lew did some tail dragger versions and while I like the characteristics of trike gear on landing and take off, I dont like what it does to the feel of the plane in maneuver. So I might build it with forward wing mounted gear at 15% rake or with retracts!
. I mention all this because, several times I have considered sitting down and laying out the super Shark Lew was never able to get to. Such a lovely bird.
Topic: Updating a plane to perform better in the modern era! (Read 4084 times)