Today I successfully maidened my Skylark. So far, it has exceeded all of my expections. It started out as the Goldberg ARF. I wasn't in love with the trim scheme and decided to strip it and recover it. I'm glad that I did as the main gear needed to be beefed up and some glue jointes didn't look that healthy. The airframe also got a good sanding to smooth out all of those humps and bumps. The canopy has yet to be installed, that'll happen later this week. Powered by a Tower .46 and a APC 11x5 prop, this bird is a lot faster than I thought it would be. How many of you know where the trim scheme came from??? Here's a couple of pics after the first flight.

FB

Nice job FB, really cool way to get rid of that ugly blue trim. I have one of those in the box this is another good idea. Hope we will get to see her go at Salem.
We could fly some pattern with the Intruder and the Little Truder.

Good Flying.

Peace

Mark O

Little Truder - I love it! WEDJ is looking at 10/7 for a coaching session at Salem, just need good weather. If things fall into place, I'll be picking up a WM Intruder later this week, can't wait to see yours in action!

FB

I used to fly Falcon 56 and Skylark 56 kit built models with a then radically overpowering OS Max .35S R/C engine! We were considered hotdoggers when using anything over a .25 on these models. My how times have changed.

Oddly enough, while I don't care for that trim scheme on the Intruder 90 (I'm ex-USAF), I do like it on the Skylark. You did a beautiful job covering it.


Ed Cregger

Nice Rick, can't wait to see it in action.

Check out this link:

http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXSAG7

Ed: Thanks for the kudos!

WEDJ: If the weather is good this Sunday, there'll be plenty of action! I saw the larger version at Tower and I don't think it would be SPA legal, as CG never made a large version. I could be mistaken though.

FB

FB
There was a larger Skylark design at CG. I flew it in the Nats in the early sixties. It was never kitted because of business concerns about all of the costs to produce it and questions about the size of the market for such a kit.

John W.
Scottsdale, Az

That is a beautiful covering job! I didn't even recognize it as a Skylark (despite the thread title).

The Senior Skylark is going to be kitted soon. Early R/C Models is in the prototype building stage.

David

rcacro: I didn't know that! A larger Skylark would be cool.

Dave: Thanks for the compliment! I still have to finish the canopy. I know that Tower sells an ARF, but if I could roll my own, I'd rather go with that!

FB

Larger Skylark here:


http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXSAG7

Hi FB, wonderful aircraft and pro finishing, congratulations!!!!

Yes Dave I am in the process of building the Sr Skylark prototype for Early RC both single engine version and twin engine version. Unfortunately with my work load it has taken a while. I've had the kits cut off for over 2 years now!!

John W. I think we have conversed before. I beleive you were the test pilot for Carl on most of his designs?

I saw the Skylark 70 by Goldberg a few months back and it appears to be on the same lines as the MKII Skylark 56 lines. The reviews say it flies great. Did any of Carl's designs ever fly badly? I am glad to see them doing something with his designs.

Mine are from the original version supposedly designed by Carl himself but never kitted. I am also working on a magazine article on the build and how I came face to face with an original model.

Still have to finish the Perigee and start covering the Sr Skylarks. The single engine version will have an OS .40 and the twin should have OS .25s. If it will ever cool off down here so I can work in the shop!!!!

Bob Harris

Rick & I had some practice runs today, it's amazing how much better you can get with each flight when you really try!

raindave: need a beta builder for the Sr. Skylark? Or any other vintage design??

Hi all, I am thinking of getting into Senior Pattern, is the CG Skylark 70 legal for SPA, there is a Skylark listed as legal on the website on the antique list is this the design?

See post #7

Thanks, I did not read close enough,

Larry

that is a nice color scheme on plane

Here's the next question about the new Skylark 70 ARF that has been out for a short time. The Skylark 56 Mk II ARF has a history of landing gear block failures. Several months ago I looked in RCU and found seven reviews on the 56 and five had LG block failures. I have built two 56's and both had the same failures requiring opening up the wing covering and repairing/beefing up the blocks. Has anyone out there built the new S-70 and experienced any weaknesses or LG block failures? For $220 for the new ARF, any assurances that the 70 doesn't have the same problem would be appreciated!

Here's the next question about the new Skylark 70 ARF that has been out for a short time. The Skylark 56 Mk II ARF has a history of landing gear block failures. Several months ago I looked in RCU and found seven reviews on the 56 and five had LG block failures. I have built two 56's and both had the same failures requiring opening up the wing covering and repairing/beefing up the blocks. Has anyone out there built the new S-70 and experienced any weaknesses or LG block failures? For $220 for the new ARF, any assurances that the 70 doesn't have the same problem would be appreciated!

Last weekend, the wind was blowing very hard and when I was landing, from about 7 feet up I hit a wind shear. I plane in an instant hit the tarmac extremely hard slightly nose down. It hit so hard, that the bearing block the holds the nose gear broke. The main gear came through with flying colors and the rest of the plane suffered no damage! So in my experiences the main gear blocks are not an issue. If they held up to that incident, they should hold up to just about anything.

FB

Free Bird: I am looking for results from Skylark 70 builders and flyers. Your plane is a Skylark 56, correct? Thanks.

REMitchell22

Yes it is. Assuming the the larger version is built the same way, at the same factory, by the same workers, the same issues would arise. Mostly though, I was reporting about my experiences with the Skylark and that I'm not having any issues with the landing gear like others have experienced.

FB

I'm hoping that the S-70 is not built the same way as the S-56 as five out of seven reviewed in RCU, plus two of mine, all had landing gear block failures. I hope the factory had enough sense to recognize this problem and make the corrections in the landing gear blocks before the first S-70 was put together and not make the same mistake on the S-70. For $220, one would expect the plane to be assembled correctly, but you know what happens when you assume... I figure that the only way to get the answer is to pester the people who have built the new S-70 to see what their experience was. From that it MAY be safe to assume that my S-70 will be the same way. So far, no S-70 reviewer has complained of a LG block failure, but that's based on two peoples' results...not a very big sample. If five to ten people built and flew one and had a lot of flights with no failures, then the doubts about the LG construction on the new plane would go away...Anyway, thanks for your reply.

I understand your concerns, I had the same with my S-56 after hearing of so many failures. One can only hope that the message was heard and corrective measures taken. Good luck if you get one!