Conference vmszoo::rc

    i have'nt built a klipper but did build a kadet mkI and kobra
    last year.  both are very different planes but construction
    was amazingly similar.  both built and flew well.  i dont
    remember any "pitfalls" - if you have specific questions i can
    probably help
    kevin

    re -.1 & bearing crosses: must one made of balsa. The bearer did
    sound ok  to me. It could be cultural: Using english to express
    ideas will sometimes lead misundestanding. I myself prefer french.
    It does offer the best of bost world: precision & ambiguity. it
    was after all the language of diplomacy until WWII.
    
    md

    I have not built the klipper, but I have built several SIG
    kits. The kits that I build were excellent. The quality of
    the wood, die cutting, and instructions were all top notch.
    True some of the heavy stock was simply inked with the outline
    of the part, but this did not increase the building time by
    more that a few mins. The finished results have all performed
    well in the air too!
    Wayne

    Hey guys- FIGHT NICE!
    
    BTW, thanks for all the feedback; the kit does seem well done, only
    the balsa needs cut, the ply is die-cut and the directions seem
    thorough.  The price is quite nice, too.

    "scratch..."
    		Do you mean from pencil and paper design... the whole Phase
    review process.
    
    		P.S. I hve lots of experience in Phase 5...!!

                       Trev

>	sheesh...real modelers scratch build!

I'm building a (Leisure) Playboy...  only the wing ribs and leading/trailing 
edges are precut - do I qualify ???  :-)

Monte

P.S.  I don't have the patience and/or skill to live through another one !!!!

>	sheesh...real modelers scratch build!


   I have not scratched during building since I started allergy treatments.
|-)
 
   Actually I have on my board the plans for a Supermarine Spiteful (yes, 
that is the correct spelling).  The plane was featured in RCM mag. a couple
of issues ago.  I put an entry into the Balsa note asking for recommendations
on where to buy balsa, but no one answered.  

   Maybe some one should start a note on tips for scratch building.


   Jim

   

    wow, tough crowd at the notes file.  but i'll leave it at
    that.
    
    i remembered i also built a sig colt last fall which is real
    similar to the klipper.  it built fine, (no, make that great)
    but i didnt pay careful attention to the warnings about
    reinforcing the wing with filament tape.  to make a long story
    short i used the wrong kind of tape and the wing folding in
    flight one day.  i deserved it also because i was flying a bit
    too agressively.  anyways, no matter how gentle you intend to
    be flying, reinforce that wing center!  i believe tape can be
    made to work, but the klipper and colt will probably never be
    highly aerobatic without sheeting the foam wing.
    
    k

    
    	You may note some replies deleted. They weren't exactly within
    the subject matter hence I have agree to remove them. Perhaps in
    the future a note on Sig their Up's and Down's would be of merit.
    
    
    	Returning to the subject matter, B careful that all the formers
    are square. In producing two identical sides one help is to
    glue the two balsa side sheets (before trimming) together at some
    point where the glued balsa is not to be utilized. Then make one
    cut to produce two sides. This helps in getting them identical.
    You still need a straight edge to get the cuts straight. Also when
    you make your cuts be sure to keep the razor knife perpendicular
    to the balsa surface.
    	Read the instruction book many times before you attempt to start
    construction. Also get rid of the metal engine mounts and buy a
    nylon one from a local hobby store. The nylon is much easier to
    work with.
    
    						Tom

    GEE WHIZ, I just mounted the engine last night...
    
    After previously cracking a nylon mount (a long time ago), I fell
    in love with the aluminum ones in the kit!
    
    So far, I'm very happy with the kit; cutting out the balsa goes
    real quick.
    
    BTW, I XEROXed the balsa before cutting- for templates in case future
    repairs are needed.
    
    
    PS- Remember when building models meant waiting for glue to dry?

    Sounds like you have the fuselage together already so this may be
    too late and hopefully unnecessary, but following up on Tom's note
    .14 above, be very careful about alignment of the fuselage sides.
    My Kadet worked out ok without any problem (maybe I was lucky) but
    I had a lot of trouble with the Kavalier getting the sides aligned
    correctly in all three dimensions when gluing the tail ends together.
    It took about three attempts to get everything square and true.
    If you don't do it right, the wing and tailfeathers may not be at
    proper 90 degree angles to the fuselage. I'm considering a fuselage jig
    to build my next one.
    
    I also wound up with one of the ply formers a little off 90 deg. Without
    a jig, the instructions tell you to epoxy it and true it with a
    triangle, but I must have let go before the glue set up completely
    and it tilted slightly. No particular problem, except that's the one 
    that takes the dowels for the bolt-on wing so I'll notice it every
    time I install or remove the wing!

    Dave

    	Improve the tail feathers mounting location.
    
    Typical to most sheet sided fuses the tail horizontal stab is
    usually glued to the two sheet sides. Most times these sides
    are either 1/8 or 3/16 balsa. Not must to glue to.  I add a
    piece of 3/16 to 1/4 sheet stock cut in a triangular shape
    to make a platformthat bridges the two sides. this gives an
    excellent surface to glue to. It usually increases the glueing
    surface area by a min. of 200%. I have seen many tails fail because
    they were glued to just the two fuse sheets. I haven't had one
    fail glues to this platform.
    
    						  Tom	

I am almost embarrased to ask this, given my bombast on the
subject in notes past...getting experience with the sticks
somehow makes it harder to get into the workshop.

Anybody have opinions with the Sig Super Sport?

    Hey John, don't forget this finished Klipper is still for sale...
    
    I'm ready to take your offer!!!
    
    Frank.
    (348-2244)
    

Y'know this is really nutty.  I had very little trouble picking
my trainer.  I just looked through Tower's catalog, found the
Eaglet, and bought it (actually I drove across town to Sheldon's
and bought it, I was living in Silicon Valley then).

But this second ship is driving me to distraction.  I already
have two .15 engines sitting around that I can't use (no
comment), and an .09, and a .20; all in the box.  I planned to
get something in the air that I can use to sharpen my novice
skills, take the Eaglet offline, revamp it into a 4 channel
taildragger with the .20. Great stuff, I'd then have the .25
that's in the Eaglet now to use for some advanced project.

But now I'm stuck.  On one hand, I could build something for my
.09, which is very dependable, but would probably be difficult to
fly in the Coleraddy winds.  On the other hand, I could build
something in the .15 range, and risk that I'll get one of the two
.15s running (a long shot by previous experience).

Then I could cover both bets and build something in the .09 to
.15 range, so if I get one .15 running, I could use it, and if I
don't I could use the .09...but how good would that be?

Or I could build something in the .15 to .20 range and again
cover the bets with a temporary installation of the .20 until the
Eaglet conversion is done.  Or I could buy another .15, but
having lost twice, I can't bring myself to this, or I could buy a
.19/.20 and go for that size plane.

In addition, I wonder if its too early to try a taildragger? 

The really scary thing, to me, about this whole deal is that I've
been trying to make this decision for almost three months,
meanwhile doing almost nothing...and at work, I'm admired for my
ability to make instant decisions!  To be or not to be...

    Why not go for something larger?  Unless you are very space and
    cost limited, I think that you would find a 40 size plane more
    enjoyable as a second ship.  One advantage of larger size is
    better visibility in the air.  
    
    Charlie
    

    John,
    
    I know you have a thing for the smaller planes but I'd almost bet
    that this propensity is one of the factors which has held you back
    [and, by yer' own commentary, still is].
    
    Let's be as realistic as we can here;  little planes just don't
    fly very well, the small engines are cantankerous and unfriendly
    causing you to spend an inordinate amount of time on the ground
    fiddling instead of flying/learning.                            
    
    I wholeheartedly second Charlies recommendation that you seriously
    consider going to a larger engine/airplane combination.  Take all
    those troublesome little motors to the next club auction and peddle
    them.  You can apply the money toward the larger project.
    
    Even the .20 is too small for my taste but, if it works for you,
    keep it but don't do anything smaller.  I personally, would recommend
    you consider nothing smaller than a .40 size ship.  Bigger planes
    fly better/easier, are easier to see and the engines are nearly
    automatic to start and run.  You'll spend yer' field time flying
    instead of fiddling!
    
    Also, the larger birds are easier to build and rig, area nearly
    as durable as the little stuff and are only slightly more expensive.
    In my opinion, the extra expense is more than made up for by the
    dramatic increase in useability and friendliness.
    
    Adios amigo,	Al
    
    P.S.  It's never too early to learn taildraggers.  Matter of fact,
    the earlier the better as you won't have developed a lot of bad
    habits and dependencies from the trikes.  Once becoming proficient
    with taildraggers, trikes and anything else are a piece of cake.

Hate to admit it, but I think you folks are right, at least for
this stage in the game.  Usually I go to my clipping file for new
projects, but in this case its yielded nothing interesting.  What
are the characteristics of a good second plane?  I've gone round
and round on that one -- maybe one of you experienced instructor
types can make a recommendation.  A large factor for me is the
ability of the plane to fly in moderate 12-15 mph winds.  This
has kept me grounded with the Eaglet more than once. 

I have a feeling that I've stumbled, nay, charged into a not
unusual blocking point for new flyers.

Is a low wing ship practical at this time?

It seems that I should go for something more lively than a
primary trainer like the Eaglet, but not the average sport ship.
Also, I just don't want to spend time on the usual box-fly model
that abounds at the club.  This is not from a desire to be
different, its just that I don't like most of the sport ships on
the market.   I've been attracted by semi-scale type models, such
as the Sure Flight J3 Cub, which uses a .15-.19 engine; up here
I'd probable hang a .19 or slightly larger on it.  This is a
foamie, which makes for durability and fast building -- never
thought I'd see the day when fast building was an advantage!

Yes, cost is partly the problem.  I got my trusty old Tower
catalog out last night, and created a table of possible
plane-engine combinations; surprisingly the larger combinations,
in the .25 to .40 size were only marginaly more expensive than
the smaller .15 to .30 size, and there were more of them.   One
outstanding example is that the OS .35 costs only four dollars
more ($58.95) than the OS .20 ($54.99).  I'm not through with the
table yet -- this is a wonderful decision making tool that I've
used many times at work. 

Another part of the problem is that I want to have absolutely
trouble-free stick time, which is hard to come by in the smaller
sizes.  I figure that I'll spend most of this next season doing
figure 8s and touch and goes.  After the fiasco last summer,
where I spent most of the time fooling with a balky engine (which
was caused by an incorrectly installed fuel tank), I don't want
to even slightly experience that again!  By the way, the
Eaglet/OS .25 combination has worked like a charm since then. 

    John,
    
    Now yer' talkin'!  Depending on yer' learning curve, you could well
    consider some more interesting looking ships than the box-fly types
    you referred to.
    
    Maybe the best to consider at this early learning stage would be
    the Goldberg Sky Tiger.  Its a snappy looking low-winger with a
    flat-bottom wing [not necessarily my philosophy, but...], plenty
    of dihedral and a friendly look about it.  Fact is, it looks kinda'
    like [and I'd bet on it] it was developed by turning an Eaglet/Eagle
    upside down a'la the Falcon/Skylark.  Come to think about it, the
    Goldberg Skylark is a nice looking ship with time-proven flyability
    and it has a semi-symmet wing that'll stay with you as you progress
    into advanced training and aerobatics.  In this latter category
    probably also fall the Black Baron Special and Peashooter from
    Coverite.  Just don't underpower them...adequately powered [stay
    at the top of the recommended range], these ships will provide the
    stability/penetration in the wind that you desire.
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    John,
    
    I failed to comment on yer' reference to the Sure-Flite [all foam]
    J3 Cub [or others in their line].
    
    My experience has been that these are _NOT_ beginners airplanes,
    even though they tend to look that way.  The all-foam construction
    makes them heavy which demands more power...Dan Parsons had a
    Sure-Flite Cub a few years back as a knock-arond bird and it would
    barely fly on a .19; he put either a .29 or .35 in it to make it
    reasonably airworthy but, naturally, this elevated the wing-loading
    and airspeed beyond the beginner/novice level.  Yes, they build
    quickly and are pretty durable but I'd suggest a beginner avoid
    these planes at least `til the 3rd or even 4th airplane and then
    maybe try the little Spitfire or Aircobra as an intro to scale types.
    
    Adios,	Al

    
    	For a second plane, try the Bill Evans "Slow Motion" (I don't
    remember how he abbreviates it).  He specializes in flying wings
    which means you don't have to bother with making or aligning a
    horizontal stab.  And the thing is supposed to have a wide speed
    range and not very sensitive to wind conditions.  I forget where,
    but there was an article on the plane within the last year in either
    MA or RCM.  Even Al will be happy since the plane is a tail dragger!
    It is light enough that you may get away with your existing .20.
    
    	Good luck and have fun!

    If you are interested in a low wing trainer, another good choice
    is the Northeast 'Sport-Air 40'.  I have seen several of these
    at our field being piloted by fairly low stick time pilots.  They
    can fly slow for landing, but they move out at full throttle.
    Whatever you choose, don't skimp on power.  If the kit says 19-40,
    use a 40 or a 35.  Marginal power really detracts from performance
    and requires much more care to prevent stalling on takeoff.  Also,
    invest in a high quality reliable engine.  It is worth $ to avoid
    aggrivation or worse.
    
    Charlie
    

As these things happen, I started this discussion with a question
about SIG, and it grew into a discussion about second planes.
Which was my real question in the first place, I just didn't know
it!  Anyway, Al and I had some discussion offline in the mail,
and I thought I'd share it here (with his permission), because it
may be valuable for other novices.  Picking a first plane was
easy, compared to this one!


From:	CLOSUS::TAVARES      "John -- Stay low, keep moving"  1-MAR-1988 14:07
To:	MAUDIB::CASEYA,TAVARES     
Subj:	what else?

I was doing some price comparisons on suitable trainers. 
One thing that I've seen is that the Sig J3, which has caught my
eye, is very nearly the same price (when you consider an engine
combination) as the Goldberg Jr. Tiger.  Do you think its a
desirable plane for my purposes?  The Jr. Tiger looks like a
better plane to sharpen skills on, but I gotta build a Cub sooner
or later!  The name of the game right now is to practice,
practice as I was saying in the notes. 

Also, given a choice of an Enya .30, which is schneurle and BB,
and the plain bearing OS .35, which would you pick?  Your opinion
is an important consideration.

Sure have had rotten luck with engines.  I've learned my lesson
that there are no bargains in that field but I'll also betcha
that the next time someone offers me a cheap engine I'll
reach for my wallet before thinking.  I'll get both the .15s
running sooner or later; the Supertiger .15 is the prime
candidate for my muffler project, and it is a very nice looking
engine, even if I never run it.  It just kills me to go into my
shop and see all that useless machinery laying around.

Have a good day!

From:	CLOSUS::TAVARES      "John -- Stay low, keep moving"  1-MAR-1988 16:02
To:	PNO::CASEYA,TAVARES     
Subj:	RE: what else?

I'd missed the Skylark because it wasn't in this year's Tower
catalog.  I assume that its out of production, though other
houses list it.  I just thought to look into last year's catalog,
which I keep at work, and found it. May be able to get one, and
I'll try.  That is one sharp looking airplane, and would match
nicely with the OS .35.

The OS .35 I was comparing the Enya with is the FP model, which
the writeup does not specify as being schneurle.  From what I can
can see, the only thing in that category is the .40 SF, which is
priced at $114.95 from Tower -- I'm sure the Family Comptroller
would not like that in the least.  The Jr. Tiger is rated to a
.30, but I'm sure I could stuff a .35 in there with little
trouble.  

I don't really care for the other two choices you mentioned,
given that the two Goldberg planes are nice looking, and that I
was impressed with the Eaglet kit.

I picked the Jr. Tiger because it was in the largest category
that I can afford, or want to fool with.  One step at a time, Al;
up here it would mean getting a .61, which is more engine than I
can comprehend!  Would be nice to have one for a serious scale
project later...

From:	PNO::CASEYA       "RC-AV8R"  1-MAR-1988 15:29
To:	CLOSUS::TAVARES,CASEYA      
Subj:	what else?

John,

>				...Do you think its {Sig J3) a
> desirable plane for my purposes?  The Jr. Tiger looks like a
> better plane to sharpen skills on, but I gotta build a Cub sooner
> or later!  

* The J3 Cub is quite a gentle aircraft and might be suitable at some point in 
time but it requires some degree of finesse to keep it on its feet; it'll cart-
in a heartbeat if yer' not up to it in windy situations, particularly cross-
winds.  My personal opinion, based solely upon what I can glean from yer' re-
marks in RC_notes, is that you'd be better served at this point in time to go
with the Sky Tiger or [this is my preference] the Skylark 56 to hone and polish
yer' skills, reserving the Cub for the next plane.  Oddly, the Cub will feel al-
most too easy after mastering the forementioned birds, but that "is" the idea
after all, isn't it?  About all you'll have to learn with the Cub will be the 
conventional gear, coordinated turns and how to handle a lightly loaded high-
winger on narrow gear in the wind [which translates to flying the ailerons on 
the ground while coordinating rudder and elevator to control heading and pitch
attitude].  BTW, I wouldn't mess with the smaller Tiger Jr.  Go to a larger
bird that'll fly instead of "flit."

> Also, given a choice of an Enya .30, which is schneurle and BB,
> and the plain bearing OS .35, which would you pick?  Your opinion
> is an important consideration.

* I had several Enya's much earlier on and was always happy with them but also
acknowledged that they were somewhat less powerful than their contemporaries at
that time.  I honestly don't know whether things have changed or not but I sus-
pect that Enya 2-strokes are still a little lighter on power than other popular
makes.  I _KNOW_ that O.S. ranks right at the top, just below [but frequently 
equal to] the mega-buck engines in the power department and would stack them 
up against _ANY_ make in the user friendliness category.  I'm sure that the O.S.
.35 will be noticeably more powerful than the Enya .30.  It is also schneurle 
ported and the lack of ball-bearing suspension of the crank would be a minor 
consideration for me...oil-lite brass bushings work just fine if you'll just 
keep the dirt out of them; plus they're cheaper to replace.  All things con-
sidered, if it were me, I'd buy the O.S. but remember I'm admittedly prejudiced
toward O.S. in the first place.

> Sure have had rotten luck with engines.  I've learned my lesson
> that there are no bargains in that field but I'll also betcha
> that the next time someone offers me a cheap engine I'll
> reach for my wallet before thinking.  

* What you've run into is precisely why I absolutely refuse to buy used engines/
radios, PERIOD!  In the [not so] long run, yer' always dollars ahead buying what
you want/need new and unused/unabused.  Most of the time, the reason some fast
talker's selling something at a [seemingly] bargain price is because he's had 
problems with it himself.  Don't buy anything used unless it's from a trusted
friend and you have personal knowledge of the item...otherwise yer' just buying
someone else's pain in the a**!

* my advice remains to sort out all the known troublesome stuff you've got and 
peddle it at the next auction, even if you have to take pennies on the dollar.
That'll go a long way towards solving yer' problem, clearing the air [not to 
mention the shop] and putting a buck or two into yer' jeans at the same time.
Bite the bullet and get that monkey off yer' back so you can get started on some
productive, satisfying building/flying.

Adios amigo,	Al

From:	PNO::CASEYA       "RC-AV8R"  2-MAR-1988 07:52 
To:	CLOSUS::TAVARES,CASEYA
Subj:	RE: what else? 

John,

As far as I know, the Goldberg Skylark is still around...I never heard of it 
going out of production and, even though it's a 20+ year old design, it's still
very attractive and is a verrrrry good flyer.  All it really is is a Falcon 56
[another _good_ ship] turned upside down into a low-winger.  Construction is 
very straightforward: box fuse with blocks to add shape; pre-shaped leading/
trailing edges with no lead edge sheeting, only a sheeted center-section to
contend with.  I can't imagine you having any problems with it.

I could be wrong but I'd assumed O.S. had gone schneurle with all their engines.
Check the left side [opposite exhaust] of the case and see if it doesn't have a
rather bulging intake port in the casting.  If it does, it's schneurle ported.
If, however, the port casting is rather shallow, then it's a conventional loop
scavenged engine.  

If it's schneurle ported, it should handle the Skylark OK but I might be a 
little hesitant about putting a loop scavenged .35 in it.  A .40 is really the
way to go if you can swing it.  Otherwise, the Tiger with the .35 might be the
wiser choice.  The one thing you _DON'T_ want to do is end up with an underpow-
ered bird, especially at your altitude...it'd be infintely more difficult to fly
and much more vulnerable to wind, having a propensity for falling out of the air
due to its lack of ability to fly comfortably above stall speed in _ANY_ con-
dition.

Pico, Como and others offer less expensive schneurle ported .40's and, while I 
have little knowledge of these [the Como's I've seen seem OK], they might be 
worth asking into locally...could be a way out for the time being.

Adios amigo,	Al

From:	CLOSUS::TAVARES      "John -- Stay low, keep moving"  2-MAR-1988 09:25
To:	PNO::CASEYA,TAVARES     
Subj:	RE: what else?

Ok.  I haven't found the Skylark in the Tower ads, but Mutchler's
I believe lists it.  I really think its out of production.  Is
the Falcon 56 an acceptable substitute for a novice?  I'm
inclined in that direction since the .40 size is a more
attractive engine/plane investment.  Can I slow it down like an
Eaglet? That's really the question, though I expect to be out of
that stage of training by the time I get it in the air.

I was at the club meeting last nite, and asked several
instructors for their recommendations on a second plane.  One
said the PT-40, the other recommended another, similar plane.  I
don't place much stock in those recommendations, since I believe
I would outgrow this type plane very fast.  I've taken an
objective look at my flying, Al, and I'm really not *that* bad
for the stage I'm at. Besides, these are the guys that wanted me
to "put more pressure" in my tank when I was having all the
problems, bless their hearts!

Finally, you were right about the schenurle porting on the OS FP;
the ad I saw didn't list it, but all other ads did.  Thanks
for the tip on spotting that feature.

This morning I was looking at the RCM ad for the Fox .40 BB
standard.  This is a very attractively priced engine, and seems
the equal of the OS, if one were to believe the comparitive test
in their ads.  I like the swing muffler feature of that engine.
Opinions?

Its occurring to me that this conversation is becoming valuable
and should be transferred to the notes file.  Thanks for your
time so far.

From:	PNO::CASEYA       "RC-AV8R"  2-MAR-1988 09:49
To:	CLOSUS::TAVARES,CASEYA      
Subj:	RE: what else?

John,

Yes, the Falcon 56 would likely be very suitable as an advanced trainer just a
little farther down the line [as would be the others we've discussed, with the 
possible exception of the Sky Tiger as it's flat-bottom wing would limit aero-
batic performance severely].  The Falcon is a shoulder wing, semi-symmet ship
that flies very nicely in all flight regimes and, yes, you can slow it down
as needed.  If you can find one, I'd still recommend the Skylark as you can kill
two birds with the same rock by going to the low wing which is also more attrac-
tive.  As you say, yer' skills will have increased adequately by the time you 
get it flying.

From all the testimonials in RC_notes and the good press Fox is receiving late-
ly, the .40BB might well be a good choice as well.  My distrust/dislike of 
earlier Fox R/C engines is common knowledge but I have to defer to those who
have "current" experience with them regarding the current crop of engines.
Frankly, I'd be most pleased to be convinced that another American engine is up
to the imports.  I _DO_ admit that they've always been verrry powerful; it was
the poor carburetion that gave them the bum rep.  If ol' Duke's got that re-
solved, the Fox engine should be just fine.

If you've kept all this correspondence, by all means put it into notes.  As you
say, there may likely be some general interest in the discussions we've had.

Adios,	Al

    John,
    
    Feel free to insert the last coupla mail messages regarding yer'
    [thus far] final decision here.
    
    I've just done some checking at the local shops and [unfortunately]
    you are correct; the Goldberg Skylark was discontinued last year.
    But, there's still a good chance that you could find a kit at one
    of the mail-order houses or on the shelf of some little local hobby
    shop.  Also, One guy I talked to at our largest hobby shop said
    he saw two Skylark kits at a recent club auction so there's another
    possibility for ya'...put an ad in yer' club newsletter for starters.
    
    I'll continue to beat the bushes locally.  If I find one, do you
    want me to lock it up fer' ya'?  It might cost a few bucks extra
    to buy retail and ship to Colo. Springs but I think it'd be worth
    it.
    
    Further comments on performance of the Falcon/Skylark: The semi-
    symmetrical wing will give you almost full aerobatic capability
    when yer' ready for it.  As I recall, however, the long tail-moment
    makes spins almost impossible, not a bad characteristic for the
    learning pilot.  With throws set up slowly, the plane flies very
    gently and is friendly/forgiving as it needs to be for a pilot's
    second plane.  It _can_ be slowed quite a bit but not as much as
    a flat-bottom winged bird [like the Eaglet/Sky Tiger].  This should
    not present any problem for you if you do yer' homework on the Eaglet.
    Don't develop any bad habits like dragging around low/slow with
    the nose up and the transition to the Falcon/Skyllark will be painless,
    even unnoticeable in this regard.
    
    BTW, the very first R/C ship I ever flew and one the I learned on were
    both Senior Falcons so I have some reason to know whereof I speak. 
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

    John,
    
    I've called every hobby shop I know of in the city and, no Skylark.
    I'll put out the word through the local grapevine and see what develops
    but am less optomistic than I was a few hours ago.  RATZ!!
    
    Strange that they {Goldberg] would discontinue the Skylark but not
    the Falcon 56.  The people I talked to confirmed that the Falcon
    is still in production, BTW.
    
    You know what though?  It'd be sinfully simple to convert the Falcon
    to a Skylark, essentially just building it upside down.  All you'd
    have ta' do is turn all the formers over so the rounded portions
    [if any] were at the [new] top, add hardwood main gear trunion blocks 
    to the underside of the wing, install the horizontal and vertical stabs
    on the [new] top side, add a new canopy and VOILA!...Skylark.  Oh
    yeah, you'd also have to bend new main gear legs.  The canopy'd
    need changing as the underside of the Falcon's canopy is contoured
    to fit the airfoil of the wing [to which it's attached] while the
    Skylark's canopy is flat bottomed to fit the top of the fuse.
    
    We used to do this all the time with Ugly-Stiks.  Then Midwest spoiled
    the fun by introducing a low wing Stik themselves.            
    
    Put the word out in the local grapevine and here in RC_notes and
    you might scare up a Skylark but, failing that, get started on the
    Falcon, stock or Skylark conversion, and prepare to really enjoy
    yer' flying.  
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

Say Al, do you remember the Monty Python thing about the fellow
who wanted a budgie, but the pet store owner had only cats?
Well, that sounds like the pet store owner's version of how to
convert a cat to a budgie! 

The Skylark is still listed by Mutchler's, for what its worth.
It will be a few weeks yet before I order, so I'll check there
first.  Thanks for the ideas; I'll check around the club and some
of the local shops, though by budget (as opposed to budgie)
dictates that I pay a mail order price for it.

Here is the rest of the conversation; I hope I haven't duplicated
or missed anything:

From:	PNO::CASEYA       "RC-AV8R"  2-MAR-1988 09:49
To:	CLOSUS::TAVARES,CASEYA      
Subj:	RE: what else?

John,

Yes, the Falcon 56 would likely be very suitable as an advanced
trainer just a little farther down the line [as would be the
others we've discussed, with the possible exception of the Sky
Tiger as it's flat-bottom wing would limit aero- batic
performance severely].  The Falcon is a shoulder wing,
semi-symmet ship that flies very nicely in all flight regimes
and, yes, you can slow it down as needed.  If you can find one,
I'd still recommend the Skylark as you can kill two birds with
the same rock by going to the low wing which is also more attrac-
tive.  As you say, yer' skills will have increased adequately by
the time you get it flying. 

From all the testimonials in RC_notes and the good press Fox is
receiving late- ly, the .40BB might well be a good choice as
well.  My distrust/dislike of earlier Fox R/C engines is common
knowledge but I have to defer to those who have "current"
experience with them regarding the current crop of engines.
Frankly, I'd be most pleased to be convinced that another
American engine is up to the imports.  I _DO_ admit that they've
always been verrry powerful; it was the poor carburetion that
gave them the bum rep.  If ol' Duke's got that re- solved, the
Fox engine should be just fine. 

From:	BSS::TAVARES      "John -- Stay low, keep moving"  2-MAR-1988 11:29
To:	MAUDIB::CASEYA,TAVARES     
Subj:	

Thanks again for your help; you've really cleaned up a knotty
area for me.  I'm currently at the Falcon 56/Fox .40 stage.  I
think that this combination will give the best "bang for buck",
though if I can find a Skylark, I'll get one instead.  That is
one pretty airplane!  I can tell you that I never expected to
wind up with such a combination, given my head-set a couple of
days ago.

From:	PNO::CASEYA       "RC-AV8R"  2-MAR-1988 11:40
To:	BSS::TAVARES,CASEYA      
Subj:	SOUNDS GREAT!

JOHN,

I think you've made a good decision/choice; the
Falcon/Skylark-Fox .40 combo should provide you with a very
viable machine, one that will stick with you intoadvanced
learning and aerobatic stages.  Go fer' the Skylark if you can
find it,I'm almost positive it's still available, but the Falcon
will be just about as good...just not quite as pretty, though it
can be dolled up nicely too. 

The only mods I'd suggest is to delete the beam mounts in favor
of a metal mountand bolt the wing on rather than use the
rubberband method. 

Glad I could help get ya' off the die..., adios,	Al

    John,
    
    No, I don't recall seeing the Budgie-to-cat Monty Python skit though
    it doesn't require too vivid an imagination to visualize it.  Con-
    trary to what you "must" be thinking, the conversion I mentioned is
    extremely simple, as you could see if you had a set of Falcon 56 plans
    in front of you.
    
    Goldberg never made a _senior_ size Skylark to go with the Senior
    Falcon.  We always wondered why as it was a much prettier ship than
    the Falcon.  So, since you couldn't _buy_ a Senior Skylark, we made
    one out of a Senior Falcon, just as I described a coupla' replies
    back.  It really was quite easy, few new parts had to be made and
    the toughest part was installing the main-gear blocks in the wing
    and bending the new main gear [which wasn't all "that" tough].
    Hardwood gear blocks are readily available or easily made and the
    gear itself consists of only a coupla' 90-degree bends in a piece
    of music wire.  I believe even a novice builder could easily handle
    this simple conversion.  One thing though, you'd want to use a Robart
    incidence meter to set up the wing-to-stab-to-thrustline settings
    the same as they were on the Falcon.  Of course, building the Falcon
    56 stock would be easier, faster and maybe even wiser at this stage
    of the game.
    
    Obviously, the best shot is to obtain a kit.  Were I you, I might
    call Mutchler's just to see if they, indeed, do still stock the Skylark
    and get `em to nail one down for you if'n they do.  Keep us updated
    as yer' project progresses.
    
    Adios,	Al
                

    i've built and flown a falcon, but never a skylark.
    given that, my $.02 is build the falcon as is.  its
    aerobatic enough and can take a beating.  i agree the
    skylark is prettier.
    kevin

Yes, my inclination at this point is to build as-is, only because
I wouldn't want to chance having a plane that had even the
slightest bad tendencies.  I really lost a lot of time last
summer, almost three months, dealing with a frustrating problem.
It was no fun to go the field each week only to get skunked; I
nearly quit.

I asked Al if he knows of anyone who has plans for the Skylark
that I could borrow for a short time to reproduce and scratch
build from.  How about anyone else out there???

Also, I've been looking thorough my clipping file for other
similar designs. What I've been looking for is models with a
description that the plane has a wide speed range, or can be
flown and landed slowly, yet is capable of high performance.
I've found two designs so far, one is called Long John from a 70s
vintage RCM, the other is the more recent Hots.  Neither of
which, by the way, look like intermediate ships, though they are
specifically described as such. 

I just talked to Mutchler's.  The lady that answered, who by the
way has a delightful midwestern accent, said that the Skylark was
out of stock, but they didn't remove it from their ad because its
rumored that Goldberg make another run of the kit.  Anybody in
Chicago who can look up Goldberg's number for me?  I'll call 
and hassle them a little -- maybe I can order the plans only!

I also asked about the Fox .40 standard.  She said that the
engine is back-ordered and will have a price increase to $49.95
when they get it in.   Apparently the Duke's comparison test ad
that impressed me also impressed a lot of other folks.

    John,
    
    I can't find a phone number but I can provide the address from which
    you should be able to obtain the phone number through information:
    
    		Carl Goldberg Models Inc.
    		4734 West Chicago Avenue
    		Chicago,
    		Ilinois  60561
                              
    Just call 1-312-555-1212 for Chicago directorey assistance.  Oh
    H*ll, never mind...I did it myself-the number is:
    
    		(312) 626-9550
    
    Give `em a call and let us know right away what you find out, OK?
    
    Adios amigo,	Al

By golly Al, you're not going to let me slip back to my little
models easily, are you?

Ok, here's the Scoop from Group: I talked to an "engineer" (eat
your hearts out guys) at Goldberg.  The Skylark was discontinued
because it wasn't selling.  Goldberg intends the Skytiger to be
its replacement.  As a side bit of info, the Eaglet 50 wing is
used on the Jr Skytiger, and the Eagle wing is used on the
Skytiger.

The Skylark plan is orderable from them for a nominal cost (about
$5), which is my next step.

    John,
    
    GREAT!!  Go fer' it!  The only out-of-the-ordinary items you'll 
    have to acquire are the preshaped lead/trail edges and the landing
    gear.
    
    Most hobby shops carry the lead/trail edge stock with their bulk
    balsa so this shouldn't be a problem...if push comes to shove, shape
    em yer'self.
    
    The main gear is 3-simple bends in a piece of music wire so no sweat
    here.  The nose gear would require a wire bender to wind in the
    shock coil(s) or, you may find a "blank" nosewheel strut which is
    simply a length of music wire with the coils wound into the middle.
    You merely bend in the axle and cut the other end off to suit.
    
    Too bad about the Skylark not selling.  The Sky Tiger is an OK bird
    for its purpose but it's nowhere near as good as the Skylark. 
    
    Adios amigo (no procrastinating, now),	Al

Well, I got the purchase authorization from the Family
Comptroller, so they're on the way.  I like to scratch build
anyway, so its just as well.  

Its starting to snow outside, so no flying tomorrow, though in
Coleraddy the weather changes hourly.