Mini Mako/Shark 35

Just watching Bruce's VSC dvd - what is the relationship between the two models mention above?

Hi Tony,
Bob just named his Shark 35 the "Mini Mako" since a Mako is a species of real shark and it sounds cool.
His is a reallty great flying ship! (of course that might be because he is flying it!)
Bill <><

OK, I'm probably going to get my tail busted again, but here goes! The Mako shark and the Shark .35 are the same plane. Lew first designed the 35 sized and almost instantly went to the Famous 45.

The 35 was never kitted but the 45 was. There are so many versions of the Shark on the various plan services that you can get a real headache trying to figure out how to build one. I have a friend who has 5 different sets of plane and none of them are the same. Good luck!

It's a great plane in the 35 size and I built mine from the article in MA way back when. I LIKE IT!

Tony,
Somewhere around here it was posted that the one Bob Whitely built (35) was from Tom Dixon plans. If I remember correctly??

Greg,
That's what Bob W. said on one of Bob H.'s VSC videos, and that Lew told him they were pretty correct.
When I retire, I might make some of the Shark 35 kits. With Lew's permission, of course.
Bill <><

LAST EDITED ON Apr-08-04 AT 10:10 PM (CDT)
 
Bill,
Put me at the top of the list. I have seen it fly many times by Bob and it is a real killer with the right pilot. I don't know how it was set up or even what motor he was using. But I remember telling my friend to watch Bobs flight because his plane didn't turn. It just comes out of a wingover to the 5 ft level and changes directions. Really neat to see.

Thanks for the kind words from everyone. Maybe I can help a little bit here. My .35 Shark is indeed built from Dixon drawings. I have built the .45 size a long time ago and felt it was an excellent model. When I learned there was a .35 set of plans I decided to see if it would fly as well as the big one. It does! It's been a Nat's winner in Classic a few times and has done very well in other contests. Here is some info for those who may want to try it out. Weight not to exceed 44ozs. I used a 4" bellcrank, 1/8" flap and elevator horns and carbon pushrods. Any good .35 or.40 engine will work. My engine of choice is an AeroTigre .36. Make sure everything is adjustable including a slider elevator horn. 2/3 to 1 is about right on the ratio. Yeah, Lou did say it was about right as I built it using the Dixon plans. Let me know if I can be of any more help. RJ

>When I learned there
>was a .35 set of plans I decided to see if it would fly as
>well as the big one. It does! It's been a Nat's winner in
>Classic a few times and has done very well in other
>contests.

Yes, thanks for the memories - memories of my super-high-zoot TP model getting beat by some crummy classic plane....

This airplane was so good it was almost like cheating.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-04 AT 12:22 PM (CDT)
 
>Just watching Bruce's VSC DVD - what is the relationship
>between the two models mention above?

See for your self.

Here they both are at VSC 2K4

[photo not recovered: 40763b1d55d25129.jpg] Bob Whitely's Mini Mako "Built from Dixon drawings. Weight not to exceed 44ozs. I used a 4" bellcrank, 1/8" flap and elevator horns and carbon pushrods. My engine of choice is an AeroTigre .36. Make sure everything is adjustable including a slider elevator horn. 2/3 to 1 is about right on the (flap/elevator) ratio." [photo not recovered: 40763b2f55df31ad.jpg] John Ashford's Shark 35 "Built from a short kit is available from Tanks Hanger Aircraft Models. (Kyle Tankersley). I bought just the ribs, Fuselage sides and doublers. Power by Brodak .40. 1-1 (flap/elevator) ratio."

Cy.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-04 AT 06:56 AM (CDT)
 
If any of you want to build one, a short kit is available from Tanks Hanger Aircraft Models. (Kyle Tankersley). I bought just the ribs, Fuselage sides and doublers. Don't know if he has plans or a more complete kit. Kyle's work is first rate. All laser cut and they fit perfectly. If I were to build another one, I would use a two inch spinner and make the fuselage a little wider. Two reasons for this. You don't have to make your own tank because there are commercial tanks available for 2" inside dimention on fuselage and the 1-3/4" spinner is a bear to fit an 11-4 or 11-5 prop.

Mine (the second photo above) is set up 1-1 ratio and powered by a Brodak .40. One should use extreme caution with wood selection as it tends to be very tail heavy with a light engine. I had to add 2 1/2 ounces of nose weight to mine to get it right. I love the way the plane flys. It is the best stunt ship (for me) that I have ever built. Rock solid and does corners as described above with no effort at all. It weighs 49 ounces as pictured but the Brodak hauls it with no problem. I use 3 inch bellcranks from Tom Morris but I'm not a serious stunt pilot (PA-I).

On another note, I found if most interesting that the "numbers" are exactly the same as Bob Palmer's Hurricane. Wing area, moments etc are within 1/16th of an inch (wing area is 500 +or- a smidge)on both. Edit: (Shark and Hurricane)

I highly recommend.

Hi John,
NOW you tell me!! hahahaha
I just got a set of ribs (a different plane) from Kyle!
Wish I had of known, would have got that short kit while I was at it.
Well..... I do know his phone number.
Real nice job on the Shark.
Thanks for the info!
Bill <><

LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-04 AT 01:08 PM (CDT)
 
JOhn,

The 35 size shark has 620 sq. And it is bigger than the Hurricane.Bob and I was comparing the shark and my Vum-18 and they were almost the same size.The Hurricane is 590sq.and 56 wing span. the shark I believe is 55in.The shark has also alonger tail moment.Hope this helps.

Gordy

Hey Gordy,

Sure not trying to start an argument here, but mine just aren't that big. Hurricane span is 53-1/2", Shark span is 52-1/2". Spinner backplate to back of rudder is 37" on both. Backplate to Flap hinge line 19". Flap hinge line to Elev hinge line 14-3/4", on both.

I did get the Wing Area wrong in my earlier post. That's what I get for trying to remember with my advanced CRS condition. I get 535 on the Hurricane and 540 on the Shark after measuring again this morning. These are just for the ones I built.

Mr. Palmer and I compared mine with his original at VSC-13 and they were very close. I communicated with Mr. Palmer quite a bit when I was in process of building my Hurricanes a couple of years ago. Old story, Veco changed quite a few things when they kitted it and he was not a happy camper but couldn't do anything about it because the kit was already in production when he became aware of the changes. To the best of my knowledge the original plans are not available. Veco plans are out there as are Tom Dixon's Plans and maybe some others. Leaves one in a quandry when trying to build these planes.

The Shark just may be the Classic with the most versions as I alluded to in an earlier post. Mine was built with Tank's ribs and fuse doublers but I did most of the work off of the Original magazine article. I have searched for the past 20 minutes and can't find the magazine so can't tell you when it was. Either MA or Flying Models. I am not enough historian to have these facts cataloged and my shop is a mess so I just can't find it this morning. I do know that besides the original article, Tom D, Len, Kyle, Blue Sky models (Tom N.) all have plans for the Shark .45 and all of them are different. Some of these folks may have plans for the .35 (I don't know)

So it is sort of a crap shoot. I subscribe to the theory that "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it might be a duck" In this case: "If it looks like a Shark..."

This post probably won't help anyone but it is dealing with the era of Classic planes and I know of very few that weren't built to the individual taste, either in construction or appearance. Speaking from a long time "Sport Flyer's" standpoint. I never built a kit exactly like presented in the instructions and back in the 50s-60s, I didn't know anyone who did. We came up with some reasonably good flying airplanes but they all had individual touches. I'm glad to see this still happens with the old designs occasionally.

Is this a fun hobby or what?

John,

Mid 1950's, I built exactly according to the instructions. Not having many contacts with other fliers back in the 1950's, I believed that the kit manufacturers should know what worked and I followed their instructions to the letter....Veco Smoothie, Sterling Ringmaster, PDQ Flying Clown, etc. Only later, after hitting the ground a few times, did I find out that you could make changes successfully while rebuilding and still have something that flew acceptably well...............TD

John,
I was looking on the Veco Hurricane box and the Advertise on the box is 56in.wing span and 590sq. Bob`s Shark is 620 so I don`t know what to think.I`m confused know,but what`s new huh.I was going to build the kit.But,I haven`t done that yet.

Gordy

LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-04 AT 09:42 AM (CDT)
 
Well now....... Gordy, welcome to the blissfully happy club of Old F@&$s". LOL!! We're ALWAYS confused!
I have the Dixon plans that Iceman used, but I haven't measured them. I do remember the ads for the Veco being a rather large 35 size plane from my recollection. Either way, they both are great flying ships, no?
(please don't misconstrue this as fuel to an argument!)
Bill <><

EDIT: Gordy, got any drawings for the Heinz?

Bill,
Yes, they are great planes. I was just trying to get the numbers right. Hard to do at my age. No, I don`t have any plans to the Heinz yet.I `m still waiting for John To Get His Rear Moving In The Right Direction. It will take time I`m sure. He`s busy doing other peoples plans so I have to get in line.

Gordy