Lew Mc Farland's Shark(s)

I am familiar with the Shark 45 and Shark 35. I saw a picture of Lew At a VSC with another variant. This one had less turtle deck and almost a bubble canopy. Is this a bigger version than the "kitted" Shark 45?
You guys out there know.
TIA
Bill

Perhaps the Dolphin?

Hi George,
No, this is a triked gear, with all the "outlines" of the Shark 45, but it has a changed canopy area. Otherwise it looks just like a Shark 45. I have heard of a 110% or something like that Shark 45, just haven't seen it unless this is it. Looks like the plane that Lew would have flown on a World's team
Thanks, Bill

>I am familiar with the Shark 45 and Shark 35. I saw a
>picture of Lew At a VSC with another variant. This one had
>less turtle deck and almost a bubble canopy. Is this a
>bigger version than the "kitted" Shark 45?
>You guys out there know.
>TIA

The airplane Lew flew "in the day" was significantly larger than the Jetco Kit. How much, what else was different, etc, is an open question.

I'm not sure which model you are referring to, but I beleive the red/white/blue model with the diagonal trim on the tips is the 1963 NATs winning airplane, refinished.

'61?

All,

When I talked to Lew when I was building my Shark he referred to that one as a Shark +10%, and yes the decking on it is different. I beleive that one had the removable tips for transportation to the 1966 or 1968 FAI Internats. Lew said he doesn't like computers but has one and reads the forums occasionally. Maybe he will post something about this particular airplane.

I can only assume that the Shark 45 +10% would be referred to as...

...the Great White.

Are there any profile Sharks out there?

Bill

Hi BillP,
As far as I know, only the Shark 15 existed as a designed profile.
However, it would be simple enough to build a Shark 45, or especially, a Shark 35 as a profile. A Shark 35 35 with a LA 40-46, Brodak 40, Aero Tiger 36, Thunder Tiger 36, Magnum 36, or any of the newer 36-40 engines should be a killer ship!
(In fact, I might just make two sets of ribs for my Shark 35 so that I can build one!)
Bill

LAST EDITED ON Oct-08-03 AT 04:07 PM (CDT)
 
>I am familiar with the Shark 45 and Shark 35. I saw a
>picture of Lew At a VSC with another variant. This one had
>less turtle deck and almost a bubble canopy. Is this a
>bigger version than the "kitted" Shark 45?
>You guys out there know.
>TIA
>Bill
>
>
>Dont worry about the mule going blind 'til you get the cart
>loaded!
Bill Here is the shark that won the nats and its the Shark +10%. I took this picture just before he flew it at Tifton Ga about ten years ago. It is powered by a ST/46

OK, so who has plans for this plane? I love this.

That's the one!
OK, so now I know, and I'm with Randy Powell!!
Who's got plans??????
Thanks to all who responded!
Bill

Bill L.,
A 35 profile Shark sounds great. Are you building a 35 from plans...who has them?

Thanks,
Bill P.

I'm using a set from Tom Dixon. Bob Whitely said that when talking with Lew, that they are "pretty close".
These are the only "35" size plans I know of. (??)
I do not know if they were ever published in a magazine.
HTH
Bill

I've seen a 35-size profile Shark. Sorry I don't remember who had it. It was a blow-up of the Shark 15 profile.

And here's another one...Kimura, a Japanese Co (sort of like Pilot, also Japanese), made a series of neat little .15 full fuse stunters. One was a miniature Shark, about 36" span.

I may remember wrong, but I think that even McFarland's AMA number was duplicated on the wing.

It wasn't a real accurate rendition, but it definitely was a Shark copy.

>I'm using a set from Tom Dixon. Bob Whitely said that when
>talking with Lew, that they are "pretty close".
>These are the only "35" size plans I know of. (??)
>I do not know if they were ever published in a magazine.

This airplane is an absolute *killer*. Whitley regularly kicked butt with it in both Classic and real stunt (and I know because I was frequently the kickee).

There was Shark 35 published in American Modeler. I don't think it was a full several page article like most planes were but it had the plans. I have the magazine here but it is somewhere in about 12 years
of them and I would have to take time to go through them until I found it.

>I'm using a set from Tom Dixon. Bob Whitely said that when
>talking with Lew, that they are "pretty close".
>These are the only "35" size plans I know of. (??)
>I do not know if they were ever published in a magazine.
>HTH
>Bill

American Modeler, July 1961 has a full page 3-view drawing of the Shark 35 to about 1/8 full size. The drawings show structure details, wing and stabilizer airfoil sections are laid out on a 1/2" grid. The drawings appear accurate enough that could be blown up to make a technically correct Classic legal design. The plans state span of 52", length 40-3/4", area 575 sq in, stab area 105 sq in. Plans also showed 30 degrees flap travel for 35 degrees elevator travel. Bob Whitely was very competitive with his rendition against any Classic or Expert/Open competition for several years.

Interesting that the 35 size was published before the 45 size by three months.

Hi Keith,
Bob's "Mini Mako" was the inspiration for me to get the plans and start one.
Got a great running OS 40FP and also a great McCoy 40. What's your suggestion?
Bill

>Bill L.,
>A 35 profile Shark sounds great. Are you building a 35 from
>plans...who has them?
>
>Thanks,
>Bill P.

Funny you should ask, but I just happen to have a plan for a "35 size" shark that is a Shark 45 reduced to a 42 inch span. I would really consider it more suitable for a 20 to a 35 size engine. Perhaps a reduction to 50 or 52 inches would have been more in order for a "true" 35 size. I may have to see what I can do about that.

Now THERE is a canopy treatment! (And a paint scheme.)

Gorgeous. A work of art.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forego their use." -Galileo

Was published in American Modeller, October 1961, if that helps you Bill.

and just to continue the nostalgic element, this was Ken Taylor's version from 1962, built by manually scaling up the mag plan. Because we fly on grass, the trike u/c was changed to wide torsion wing mounted.

KenD,
Ken T. did an awesome job on that Shark!
Bill

LAST EDITED ON Oct-09-03 AT 01:01 AM (CDT)
 
>Was published in American Modeller, October 1961, if that
>helps you Bill.

Ken,
I went and pulled that copy and there was only the Shark 45 in that issue. At least it gives me a point of knowing which half of my old mags to look in.

The Shark 35 is in the American Modeler July 1961 issue. The Shark 45 is in the AM October 1961 issue.

>The Shark 35 is in the American Modeler July 1961 issue.
>The Shark 45 is in the AM October 1961 issue.

I'll bet Pond's had a copy of the plans, but they are in the AMA archives now and who knows when we will ever see them again.

Does anyone have an actual copy of the Shark 35 plans as published by AMA or a copy of the July 1961 issue that they can make a scan or photocopy from?

Another option would be to take Pat Johnston's CAD of the Shark 45 and reduce it in size to about that of the Shark 35. Of course, the wood sizes would be off, as would rib placement, etc., but at least it would give the correct outlines.

I know Jetco kitted the Shark 45. Didn't they also kit the Shark 35?

Hi Bob,
AFAIK, Jecto did the 45 and a profile "15".
Never saw or heard of a "35" kit.
According to Bob Whiteley and Lew Mc. the Dixon plans are pretty good. I believe the AM issue is referenced on the Dixon plans.
And since these are classic legal (Bob W. NATS win) I got them to use.
Of course, a CAD set would look much nicer.
The Shark "plus 10" is the next step.
Bill

>Hi Bob,
>AFAIK, Jecto did the 45 and a profile "15".
>Never saw or heard of a "35" kit.
>According to Bob Whiteley and Lew Mc. the Dixon plans are
>pretty good. I believe the AM issue is referenced on the
>Dixon plans.
>And since these are classic legal (Bob W. NATS win) I got
>them to use.

Interesting. I took Pat Johnston's plans and made an 88% copy of them. This was the ratio it took to get from 58 5/8" span to 52.5". Keeping the same aspect ratio, the total wing area for the reduced Shark was 540. Add one inch to the inboard panel (Pat built his with equal span) and you add about 11 sqi for a total of 550sqi. The reduced Shark has a fuselage length of about 39.5 inches. Stab/elevator area comes in at 105. So, it looks as if Lew kept the same basic moments, areas, and ratios between the two.

Note - wing area was difficult to judge - especially with rounded tips and flaps, until the advent of CAD. I have drafted up some stuff in CAD from original plans and found that the estimated areas sometimes 10% off. Usually, the older estimates were higher than the actual as calculated in CAD. Considering the similarity in linear dimensions between my 88% Johnston Shark 45 and what you quoted from the Dixon plans, I would suspect that the wing area calculation back when the plans were first published was just off a little bit. I may order a set of plans from Dixon just to check them out and see how close they come to what Pat drew.

In the pre CAD days, you'd just cut out your wing plan forms out of something that is weighable, and compare it to a wing-similar rectangle or trapezoid or something that is easily calculated, area wise. Then you ratio-ed it for your answer. Not perfect, but close.

.
well guys with all this talk about the shark 35,45 and even the mentioning of the 15
I guess it's safe to let you all know that The shark 15 is going to be kitted

I'm not trying to sell it right now
I'm just letting the cat out of the bag.

watch for it over in the classifieds

anyway here's the prototype sample parts

Here is Lew McFarland and his original Shark 45.