Ok so this isn't a real patern plan. More of a low wing trainer sport plane. But I have one and I have never seen one at our field, so I have no ideaq how this bird performs. Is this a plane to relax with in between the stressful flights of practicing pattern? Or does this plane deserve a little more respect than that.

I am thinking of builbing this. I have a new Rossi 45, should I save the motor for a more deserving plane?
Would anybody like to see a build of this kit?


DM

DM: Bob Wetzel of the PCMA (Paulding County Model Asso.) Smyrna, GA (near Atlanta, GA) has constructed one and
has done an R & D for the forthcoming Senior Pattern Association Newsletter with lots of details including his first
flying report of it. Bob's e-mail address is:

[email protected]

Bob was very active on the SPA Pattern Circuit in 07 and planning on another good season this coming year. Bet he'd
be glad to share his experience with it with you.

Best Wishes,
Bruce Underwood SPA 15
Guntersville, AL
[email protected]

Skylark is a great flying sport plane, and capable of the Novice pattern.

I've been flying the ARF version for a few months and it's a solid performer. There are a few things though, one is the lack of rudder authority, makes stall turns difficult. There is a little coupling in knife edge to the belly, but not anything to write home about. I've got the CG toward aft end of the range, and inverted flight is almost hands off and landings are easy. The tank in the ARF (I don't know about the kit) is far too low, I changed the tank out for a Hayes and have raised it as far as it can go and it's still just a wee bit low. Not being wild about the stock covering scheme, I recovered it ala Kirkland Intruder for a different look. There's a small thread "Return of the Skylark" with a couple of pics. All-in-all, I'm pleased with the way it flies, as WEDJ said, it does the SPA novice well and I think it could be taken up a notch. To answer your question, yes, it would be a good plane to relax with.

A build thread would be very interesting to see what the differences between the ARF and kit would be.

FB

The Skylark is a derivation of the old Falcon 56 and as such is very similar in construction and flying. The wing spars on the original wing were not too strong for powerful engines and as such flexed a lot or broke if overstressed. I would save the Rossi for a plane that can handle that engine and stick with a low end sport engine for just some aerobatic fun. IMHO
Peter

Peter, I was mainly concerned with that very thing. The wing looks like it shares it's strength from the L/D as well. I was also thinking of changing the wing because of that. Then I thought of a thinner stab os well, then a built up fin and rudder.... I should just build a different plane for now. Maybe take the SkyLark out when I'm ready to just build it.[]
Thanks Peter.


DM

My feeling is that the Skylark is a classic and as such should be built and flown as originally intended. The Skylark is fairly rare these days and it's usually nice to see a original classic, flimsey wings and all. I also don't think the nose of the fuselage is wide enough to install the Rossi. If you made all the necessary changes there wouldn't be much of the original left.
There are lots of planes out there which will handle the Rossi easily and are still considered old timers. The Sig Cougar comes to mind.
Each to his own though.
Peter

I understand completely about your "keeping it as intended" attitude on these classic designs. I always enjoyed building (some cases more than flying). The biggest enjoyment was to personalize my plans by modifications. I originally had a NIB OS FS60 for this that I saved all these years. I lost this due to stupidity. I left it on the bumper of my truck after getting it out of my storage locker. I may look for a FS60 on ebay later, but for now, I'll just leave the kit in my closet. I do have other planes I should be finishing up anyway.

I did have Falcon II or maybe the III, not sure. But I kept it pretty must out of the box except for adding a dowel in the l/e and bolts for the t/e of the wing. I had on OS 45 fsr w/ a tuned pipe and the little plane screamed. I would do full throttle flybys, under 2 feet off the deck while inverted. The plane was very smooth and predictable, and I trained some folks at our field with it to boot!
The demise of the plane didn't come from a failed wing, but instead from a failed bulkhead. The one that held the front of the wing with a dowel. It was only 1/8 inch thick and I should have doubled it.[:@] The plane did last 6 years this way. I still have the OS 45 from the crash, full throttle dive into a tree trunk. I had to dig it out[X(].

DM