RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build    Gallery
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
    Search This Thread  
 
Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pattern Universe - RC Pattern Flying >> Classic RC Pattern Flying >> RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   next >   >>  

Tower Hobbies Get Coupon Codes Brands  
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/2/2013 9:54 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline 		The rough cut wing tip block cut out of soft balsa and the X-acto tool I use to rout out the inside.

To be continued…


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 126

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/3/2013 1:50 AM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Shear webs installed. With the D tube wing design I most likely don’t need them but for a few minutes of work extra strength is added. There is a lot of information on the web about grain direction and if they should be inside the spars or glued to the sides, etc. I mostly wanted to add them to help tie in the center plywood wing joiner to the spars.

To be continued…


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 127

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/3/2013 8:20 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Round two.

To be continued…


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 128

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/4/2013 6:59 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Both ailerons complete. Need to complete the lower center sheeting, finish shaping and sanding the tip blocks and make the plywood center joiner.

To be continued…


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 129

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/6/2013 11:12 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline 		I completed the ¼” thick plywood center wing spar the fits snugly between the wing spars and epoxied it all together. I’ll also be fiber glassing the wing center section.

To be continued…


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 130

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/7/2013 3:03 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Making good progress, but it seems like I’m missing something.

To be continued…


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 131

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/7/2013 4:03 PM   
hrrcflyer


 

Posts: 1507
Score: 121
Joined: 4/11/2006
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Hampton, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Looks fantastic Mike, but I think it's going to be a little difficult to fly like that...............................
Keep up the great work.

David

_____________________________

Fly Safe and Have Fun ! ! !
Ultra Sport Brotherhood #22

Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 132

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/7/2013 11:07 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hrrcflyer

Looks fantastic Mike, but I think it's going to be a little difficult to fly like that...............................
Keep up the great work.

David


Thanks David and you are correct!

Hide Signatures

(in reply to hrrcflyer)
       Post #: 133

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/7/2013 11:09 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Working on the fuselage. To get a zero wing and stab setting to the thrust line I had to adjust the positions. Using parchment paper I traced the fuselage side and used my wing and stab template drawing to trace the new wing and stab position.

It worked out best on the wing to lower the front edge 1/8” and raise the back edge 1/4” to keep the wing position close to the original line and reduce the size of the filler part that will be needed on the bottom trailing wing edge to flair into the fuselage. On the stab I just raised the back edge about 1/4” to keep the leading edge aligned with the top of the fuselage.

To be continued…


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 134

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/9/2013 9:52 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline 		View of the 1/8” sheet fuselage sides and the lower 3/16” sheet doubler. I’m following the outline of the Skylark shape but not the actual parts used in the kit. I’m not going to use the large 1/16” fuselage doubler used in the kit that runs from the nose to behind the wing, etc. Instead I made the lower fuselage doubler from 3/16 rather than 1/8”. The kit is built much more stout than I need for today’s RC flying.

I decided rather than special ordering 48” sheets for the fuselage sides I’d use 36” sheets and do a splice under the stab. I find if you sand the two seam edges to a nice square edge you can make a clean joint that I will back up with a small doubler on the inside.

It looks like I will need to widen the nose about 1/8” for the Supertiger engine to fit well. I must have ground out the inside of the fuselage back in 1966 to get it to fit.

To be continued…


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 135

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/10/2013 12:24 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Test fitting some of the fuselage parts.

To be continued…


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 136

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/10/2013 7:26 PM   
doxilia



Posts: 4508
Score: 136
Joined: 4/21/2008
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Montreal, QC, CANADA
Status: offline 		Mike,

Are you planning on using a wing LE "tongue" for retention?

Looking good!

David

Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 137

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/11/2013 12:37 AM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: doxilia

Mike,

Are you planning on using a wing LE ''tongue'' for retention?

Looking good!

David


Yes, like on the Cold Duck build and other aircraft I have with fixed gear. The idea belongs to Tony Howard (Pacific Scaled Aircraft http://www.pacific-scaled-aircraft.com/ and designer and manufacturer of my no longer kited Howard Engineering Kwik Fli III taper wing). There is second short plywood doubler former that fits in front of the former shown in the picture that adds more surface area to the tongue section.

< Message edited by 8178 -- 2/11/2013 12:58 AM >

Hide Signatures

(in reply to doxilia)
       Post #: 138

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/11/2013 12:47 AM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Working on the fuselage sides and installing the 1/2” triangles on the upper fuselage. Because of the upper fuselage curve, especially toward the front, I had to soak the front part of the triangle in hot water and I built a clamping jig to pre-bend the wood. While it was clamped in the jig I dried it with a hair dryer to speed up the process.

To be continued…


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 139

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/11/2013 4:53 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline 		I’ve been working on the plan for the firewall, beam mounts and engine mounting plate size and placement. The Supertiger G21 46 has very small dimensions especially for a full ball bearing engine. Because of its small size I was easily able to replace the originally installed OS 25 Max with the Supertager back in 66 without much modification and on this build I want to keep the nose pretty close to the original plan.

I want to use the Supertiger with the baffle exhaust for nostalgia reasons but I also want to have a second mounting plate that would allow me to use a modern engine with a muffler for everyday flying. I’ve been reviewing a few of the available 40 and 46 engines (ball bearing and bushed) that I already have and what are available and they are huge compared to the Supertiger.

After looking online and sorting through my stock of engines it looks like one of my Webra 32s might be a workable solution. It is only 1/8” longer and overall smaller in width and height. I’d need to run a smaller 9X6 prop. But, I’m thinking power wise that even with a 9X6 prop that the Webra 32 might out preform the Supertiger with a 10X6. The Webra is about 1.25 ounces lighter (with muffler) so I'd need to move the battery pack forward to compensate.

To be continued…


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 140

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/11/2013 5:11 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Funny! The Skylark box recommends 09 – 15 – 19 engines!

To be continued…


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


< Message edited by 8178 -- 2/11/2013 6:53 PM >

Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 141

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/11/2013 5:42 PM   
doxilia



Posts: 4508
Score: 136
Joined: 4/21/2008
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Montreal, QC, CANADA
Status: offline 		Mike,

how many pounds are we talking about for the bird? Wing area?

I suspect the 09-15 engine size recommendation might be with twin engines in mind. Still, a single 19 for a 40 size plane sounds rather underpowered.

All I can say is that the Webra 32's (Speed and GT) are compact little powerhouses easily comparable to several older 40's. They are also extremely light. I'm actually working on a build plan at the moment with the W32 in mind. In my case on a Macs 1020 and plan to turn a 9x5 for best power and thrust (it does a little better than the 9x6 apparently).

Another option which could be interesting albeit a bit heavier is going with a Webra 40 or 50. They both are the same weight and built into the same case although the head on the 50 is slightly taller and machined aluminum like the one on your W32. Of course there was also the W36 but those are a little harder to find. It's possible that Weston in England might still have some in stock here:

http://www.westonuk.co.uk/westonuk2_013.htm

David

Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 142

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/11/2013 7:32 PM   
UStik


 

Posts: 802
Score: 105
Joined: 10/28/2006
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Augsburg, GERMANY
Status: offline 		Yes, funny. Here's the importer's recommendation: McCoy 35 or Merco 35 (a jewel) with 10x6 or 11x4. Aerobatics must have been slower back then. McCoy 19 is recommended for sports flying (out of question here) but also for "racy aerobatics" with the twin (my dream as a teenager). Props should be 8 1/4 x 6 or 9x4.

Great thread BTW, thanks!

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 143

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/11/2013 10:51 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: doxilia

Mike,

how many pounds are we talking about for the bird? Wing area?

I suspect the 09-15 engine size recommendation might be with twin engines in mind. Still, a single 19 for a 40 size plane sounds rather underpowered.

All I can say is that the Webra 32's (Speed and GT) are compact little powerhouses easily comparable to several older 40's. They are also extremely light. I'm actually working on a build plan at the moment with the W32 in mind. In my case on a Macs 1020 and plan to turn a 9x5 for best power and thrust (it does a little better than the 9x6 apparently).

Another option which could be interesting albeit a bit heavier is going with a Webra 40 or 50. They both are the same weight and built into the same case although the head on the 50 is slightly taller and machined aluminum like the one on your W32. Of course there was also the W36 but those are a little harder to find. It's possible that Weston in England might still have some in stock here:

http://www.westonuk.co.uk/westonuk2_013.htm

David


David,

It has 560 sq in of wing area and the box is marked 3.5lb with six channel equipment in the single engine configuration. The engine shown on the plans for the single engine configuration is a Cox 15. My fuselage will be lighter that the kit parts but with the D tube sheeting the wing will most likely be heavier than the kit parts. I would be amazed if it only weighed 3.5 lb .


I know the Webra 40s and 50s are awesome engines but I'm limited on the engine length. I don’t want to move the firewall or extend the nose.



< Message edited by 8178 -- 2/12/2013 12:41 AM >

Hide Signatures

(in reply to doxilia)
       Post #: 144

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/11/2013 10:54 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: UStik

Yes, funny. Here's the importer's recommendation: McCoy 35 or Merco 35 (a jewel) with 10x6 or 11x4. Aerobatics must have been slower back then. McCoy 19 is recommended for sports flying (out of question here) but also for ''racy aerobatics'' with the twin (my dream as a teenager). Props should be 8 1/4 x 6 or 9x4.

Great thread BTW, thanks!


Thanks for the neat brochure, I wish I could read it.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to UStik)
       Post #: 145

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/12/2013 12:31 AM   
doxilia



Posts: 4508
Score: 136
Joined: 4/21/2008
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Montreal, QC, CANADA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 8178
David,

It has 560 sq in of wing area and the box is marked 3.5lb with six channel equipment in the single engine configuration. The engine shown on the plans for the single engine configuration is a Cox 15. My fuselage will be lighter that the kit parts but with the D tube sheeting the wing will most likely be heavier than the kit parts. I would be amazed if it only weighed 3.5 lb.

Wow. Well, if the model is somewhere in that ballpark, even at 4 lbs (they sure were light but part of that is due to the Cox 15 not weighing much at all), the W32 should be very nice on it.

quote:


I know the Webra 40s and 50s are awesome engines but I limited on the engine length. I don’t want to move the firewall or extend the nose.

I see your point. What I don't know is whether the W36 is longer than the W32. The 25, 28 and 32 are all built into the same case. I'm wondering if the 36 was built into a 40 case or into the 25 case. A 36 in a 25 size case could be quite something. If it's the same case, then you could always use the W32 and if you decided you wanted more, you could swap it out for the 36 in a pinch. The Weston page says less than 9.5 oz with muffler - that pretty light!

Of course, Webra's are a rare commodity these days.

David

Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 146

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/12/2013 12:47 AM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline 		David,

When I bought the two 32s I was looking for 36s but at the time I could not find any.

3.5lbs sounds really, really light for an aircraft with 560 sq in. We will see!


Hide Signatures

(in reply to doxilia)
       Post #: 147

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/12/2013 8:34 AM   
stuntflyr



Posts: 1707
Score: 137
Joined: 10/4/2007
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Pacific Palisades, CA, USA
Status: offline 		80's G21 46's have modern carbs and muffler lugs. One of those old flow through mufflers would be cool, the 80's mufflers were even too big for me. This option could help you avoid the "modern engine look"!
Chris...


Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 148

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/12/2013 6:58 PM   
8178



Posts: 4175
Score: 131
Joined: 5/25/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stuntflyr

80's G21 46's have modern carbs and muffler lugs. One of those old flow through mufflers would be cool, the 80's mufflers were even too big for me. This option could help you avoid the ''modern engine look''!
Chris...




Thanks for the info Chris. Yes, I noticed the later G21 46s had mufflers and the improved carb. That might be a good solution and I would only need one mounting plate. They come up on the auction site but not often.

< Message edited by 8178 -- 2/12/2013 8:51 PM >

Hide Signatures

(in reply to stuntflyr)
       Post #: 149

RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build - 2/12/2013 7:46 PM   
Bax


 

Posts: 17283
Score: 169
Joined: 4/26/2002
Last Login: 5/17/2013
From: Champaign, IL, USA
Status: offline 		A lot of times, with the older models, when they were built for escapement or reeds, they would fly fine on the lower-horsepower engines. Super-hot performance was not expected nor demanded. In fact, if you were using one of the earlier radio systems, you would not want the speed the larger engines would provide. Only when proportional control was used, or even reeds in the hands of a skilled flyer, would engines on the large size be used.

The original models were actually flown with engines at the ends of the size range...at least if the manufacturer or designer were honest. Keeping the model light would require good building skills and good sanding and finishing skills. Many times, to keep things very light, the parts were sanded thinner; glue was used sparingly; and too-heavy parts were remade out of better wood. It can be done, but not if you just use only the parts in the kit, be careless with how much glue you use, and do minimal sanding and shaping. Then throw on a heavy paint job, and the plane can easily put on the tonnage.

_____________________________

Bill Baxter, Manager Hobby Services/Futaba Service/North America
3002 N. Apollo Dr. Ste. 1 Champaign, IL 61822 USA
Service Phone: 217 398-0007
Email: hobbyservices@hobbico.com

Hide Signatures

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 150

Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   next >   >>  
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pattern Universe - RC Pattern Flying >> Classic RC Pattern Flying >> RE: Skylark 56 – 1966 Flashback - Build
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   next >   >>  




Jump to:


 
Google 



Search | Marketplace | Event Calendar | Local Clubs | Magazine | Product Ratings | New Products | Discussion Forums

Photo Gallery | Instructor Search | Field|Track|Marina Search

Advertisers | Hobby Vendor Resources | Rate Manufacturers | Sign In/Sign Up

SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

RC Universe is a service of Internet Brands, Inc. Copyright © 2001-2013.

Charities we support that also need your help
Yorkie Rescue | Humane Society | ASPCA | Crohn's-Colitis America


2.484RCU1