Skylark 56 (oz1842)
About this Plan
Skylark 56. Radio control sport model. The Skylark could be built as either a single or twin engined model. This plan here shows the single version. For .19 - .40 engines. Plan does not show internal formers.
Quote: "Skylark is a sister ship to our famous Falcon 56 (oz2424) but is a tested and proven low-wing! For multi-training it's tough and right to learn on before you try the 'contest' birds. And if you're a rudder-only fan, you'll really like Skylark's handling. But the real surprise is that the Skylark is an optional twin! With the extra parts in the kit, you can build it either as a sleek single or as an exciting twin engine job. It's tested and proven both ways, and the highly 'prefabbed' fast-building kit has full basic info on building and flying. Flies and maneouvres with one emgine out. Begin one of your most memorable experiences in R/C with the Skylark!"
Note for the twin-engined version of this plan see Skylark Twin (oz1843).
Direct submission to Outerzone.
Update 13/10/2019: Replaced this plan with a clearer copy, thanks to bobn. Derived from the same raw scan, but this new version is easier to read, much less noise, paper folds, etc after cleanup, also now the finished file is at 400 dpi.
Note this here is a later version of the design. This plan includes a boxout section with text as follows:
Quote: "Latest Improvements: Parts of this plan have been updated to incorporate important changes. The kit now has 1-piece sides, 1-piece main landing gear mounts, and our new nylon fittings (replacing other horns, links, retainers etc., where shown). Because the ship is generally flown with ailerons, the wing dihedral has been reduced to 3 in. Wing structure has been strengthened by the use of 1/8 plywood spar joiners. Nose of fuselage has been widened (though not shown on plan) to take larger engines. Some information on the plan may appear obsolete, and should be ignored."
For an earlier version of the Skylark plan, see Skylark 56 (oz11620) listing.
Supplementary file notes
Previous scan version.
Did we get something wrong with these details about this plan (especially the datafile)?
That happens sometimes. You can help us fix it.
Add a correction
Do you have a photo you'd like to submit for this page? Then email email@example.com
User commentsMissing former detail can be derived from the Jr Skylark plan, re-scale to print off the relevant tiles from the PDF file.
anon - 25/01/2013
As far as formers go, a plan for them is not needed. Just use the side and top views (height and width) then make them. Nothing hard about that. Cheers all,
Gary Button - 16/02/2013
Hi Steve, The Skylark plan does say 19 to 40 engines, but the engine pic is of a Cox 15 with throttle.. which got me thinking. So I searched and found that there is a box in the top right hand corner labeled "EQUIPMENT USED IN TEST MODELS" which quotes OS and Cox 09 and 15 r/c engines (and no others!) Built light and just wanting a gentle free-flight or single channel style rate-of-climb a 15 should have been OK. Although I am very impressed that it would carry the weight of 10 channel reeds with that engine. But 09's ? that must be for the 'optional' twin version. But looking at the sizes of the wood it would be very difficult to build light from the kit. The quoted 3.5lbs would be a bit o.t.t. for a 15. I used to reckon 2.5 to 3lbs in single channel mode would be OK. So it is a bit of a mystery. In the old days in the UK single channel would be used as an advertized option on planes with "up to multi", with extra dihedral shown on the plan; same kit. That was because multi in the UK in the '60s was waaaay too expensive, 6 channel reeds built from a kit was just possible, but rare. Is it possible that this design started out being kitted like that? I am thinking of using today's very light radio, the model built very light, and a low power HP 20 4-stroke for nice retro flying (relaxed!). After all, one can always do a long dive for any aerobatics. Cheers
Jim - 26/03/2014
I built and flew one of these until it was oil soaked, and wore out. It had an O.S. 25 on it and it flew fantastic and of course was aerobatic, but still would land at a walk. We put the radar on it one time, and it was a 70 mph + machine. I also built one of these as a twin and it was even more fun to fly, but quite a bit faster.
Slickporsche - 08/08/2014
Hi Mary/Steve. More vintage photos ... my father's Skylark [more pics 003, 004]. Merco 35 R/C Red Head engine, radio Controlaire. Madrid 1965.
JesusAbellan - 02/11/2016
Hello, For your consideration to post with your plans is an attached is an image of a Goldberg Skylark 56 built from plans [main pic] and a link to the build thread on RCG https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?1843803-Skylark-56-%C2%96-1967-Flashback-Build
Mike Dailey - 04/11/2020
Add a comment
* Credit field
The Credit field in the Outerzone database is designed to recognise and credit the hard work done in scanning and digitally cleaning these vintage and old timer model aircraft plans to get them into a usable format. Currently, it is also used to credit people simply for uploading the plan to a forum on the internet. Which is not quite the same thing. This will change soon. Probably.
This model plan (like all plans on Outerzone) is supposedly scaled correctly and supposedly will print out nicely at the right size. But that doesn't always happen. If you are about to start building a model plane using this free plan, you are strongly advised to check the scaling very, very carefully before cutting any balsa wood.
© Outerzone, 2011-2020.
All content is free to download for personal use.
For non-personal use and/or publication: plans, photos, excerpts, links etc may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Outerzone with appropriate and specific direction to the original content i.e. a direct hyperlink back to the Outerzone source page.
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site's owner is strictly prohibited. If we discover that content is being stolen, we will consider filing a formal DMCA notice.