Hi again Steve, When I say "It did not fly as well as I'd hoped", I probably should have said, "I could not fly it, as well as it could be flown as I wasn't confident with it, because as at the back of my mind I had visions of it snapping in two again, but this time in flight". But saying that, it flew well enough for me to consider entering the Nationals with it in 2003 as I had seen one used at the 2002 Nats. This is what inspired me to get one in the first place. I hope I didn't come across too negative with the swallow, Its a fine machine and the EX probably more so.
As for your comment on the Irvine please see my future post on this NG.
Good Luck
Chris
>
> >Steve
> >I had one of the early ones, very weak fuz , mine snapped clean in two, on
> >its first but very light landing. I had to fit ply doublers to overcome the
> >problem. Good job it wasnt during a snap roll etc. It flew well on a OS 120
> >FS, but not as well as I'd hoped. Perhaps the .120 was too big and a .91 as
> >per design would have been better, as I had to add weight to the tail to
> >bring the Cof G back because of the heavier 120.
> >
> >All in all a reasonable plane for the money. A lot of people on this NG seem
> >to like them despite its weakness.
> >
> >If you do decide to get one, use a metal geared servo for the elevator, I
> >have heard of a couple of instances that the gears have been stripped when
> >using 3001's etc.
> >
> >PS. My son flies the Flair Lark on a Irvine 53 and a tuned pipe, Superb. No
> >problems with it over the last year.
> >
> >Regards
> >Chris
>
> Thanks Chris, that's useful info although a bit alarming regarding the fuz.
> When you say it was less than you hoped for with a 120 was it just the extra
> weight making it unresponsive or it had too slow a roll rate or what? >
> I like the Lark as well, and that Irvine 53 is a good engine.
> --
> Steve