Short video of a 1974 Micro-Mold Lark model helicopter, being flown without a fly-bar, or any electronic stabilisation, at the 2010 Scottish National Championships.
Flew one of these myself. Mine was based on the Mk2 Lark and modified in the same way with weighted blades. It was capable of loops and rolls and I demonstrated it at the Sandown Park model airshow in the mid to late 70's. Mine flew with Futaba M series radio and 16m servos. If I remember rightly the engine I used was an HB25 helicopter engine which had been removed from an old Graupner Bell 47G. Your right Peter - who needs gyros and indeed electronic stabilisation.
Nice to see this fly. I had an original Lark in 1978 and a flybarless Revolution 60 rigid rotor a few years later. The first helicopter to do multiple rolls. Thanks for posting.
Yes I recall reading something about it, in an RC mag. John Gorham, MR GMP Gorham Model Products was actually from the UK and perhaps that is how the Cricket came into view, when he came to the US. I love your video because it shows simplicity of older machines many people regard these days as junk. I still have a cicket and a Rebel and love them just the way they are. See my small tribute to these machines with an electrified version of the Revel in mini form at my site under Autogyros.
Yes, the cyclic was a bit laggy, but it could be quite powerful. The main thing to be aware of was that it varied with rotor speed. In normal flight it was fine, but as you throttled back to land (fixed pitch!), the nose would tend to come up, and you could run out of forward cyclic to keep it down! If it got too extreme, the only option was to open the throttle and increase the rpm - but that resulted in gaining height again! Oh, what fun we had! :)
The stability comes from teetering rotor hub design, similar to Bell 206. Basically the fuselage dangles from the teetering hub center like a pendulum and the gravity pull gives the steady reference for the fuselage to balance upon. The hub therefore provides good enough stability for general flying, but not that great for quick maneuvers or aerobatics. Also it may go unstable when you descend too fast or even push negative G, negating the gravity pull.
Actually, the Lark head doesn't teeter - its a rigid rotor design. Having said that, there is a small amount of play in the "bearings" which allows a very minimal amount of teeter. The designer did make a teetering head for it, but it didn't work. A combination of light blades and low head-speed meant there wasn't enough centrifugal force to keep the blades under control. Even with the heavy blades used for fly-barless, it was still almost unflyable with any appreciable amount of teeter. I locked mine up solid again, which made a huge improvement in controllability...!
just stumbled on this video, wow, we are so spoiled these days with electronic stabilization. Understanding how gyroscopes work is all that is required for good mechanical stabilization. I believe this helicopter may have been the original design before the GMP line came into view, perhaps. The swashplate and rotor looks very similar to the GMP Cricket and and Rebel. Could be vice-versa.
heavy helicopter for an 500 size electric of the time, but a good 450-500 heli BL motor will lift it these days. I still have the power supply also that made it fly tethered. It is amazing the technology we have these days.
Yes, its a bit twitchy! I have now fitted a gyro on the tail as my reactions and eyesight aren't what they were when I originally got this machine nearly 40 years ago! But there's still no "electronic fly-bar" on it - nor indeed is there room for one!
I also notice that the mechanics resembles the Ishimasha Skylark an electric double 05 motor that was made back around the same time as the Lark, prhaps tthe Skylark was also inspired by the Lark. I have an Skylark in mint condition and when I get a chance I will do a video of it as it was designed and with new BL motor.
I had a Lark, it was difficult to get it to transition out of forward flight though...I think I had too much main rotor pitch on it...Giros are for girls....lol.
The trick with any fixed pitch machine is to set the pitch so that it needs about 75-80% of the available power to lift off in calm conditions. It should only climb slowly until you transition into forward flight. If you don't set it like this, you will find it *very* difficult to get down - especially in a breeze! You have to slow the rotors up so much, that the cyclic becomes ineffective at keeping the nose down!
Actually, the Lark pre-dates the Cricket, which was largely regarded in the UK as a rip-off of the Lark (albeit slightly more sophisticated!). The Lark wasn't the easiest model to fly, but it was robust and CHEAP! And if you could fly one of those (no gyro, remember, back then!) you could fly ANYTHING! ;) It was one of the most popular helicopters here in the UK in the late 70's. -- Pete
I remember the Skylark, but only ever saw them fly on umbilical cables! The motors were not powerful enough, and the batteries too heavy! With modern motors and batteries they could probably be made to fly, but I'm not sure how robust they were!
For most of its life it has been flown without a gyro, but now that I'm a lot older, and neither my reactions nor my eyesight are what they once were, I use a basic CSM piezo gyro in it (rate only - no heading hold). I have owned it and flown it from new, nearly 50 years ago!
I had a Lark my first helicopter to me it was the biggest piece of CRAP you could buy the company that built that kit Micro Mould UK should be up on Fraud charges.
Well, that one in the video was bought for me for Christmas, by my wife, in 1974. It still flying today, nearly 50 years on, and still has many of the original parts on it. It is one of four that I now have. One is an original Mk1 (as mine started out) complete with HB25 motor, and two (Mk 2s) have been converted to electric. All still fly well. I can only conclude that you must have been doing something wrong...
@@Imagineering100 No, they were cheap - and intentionally so. When they first came out, they were a quarter of the cost of their nearest rival. So were the spares. At the time, a rotor shaft for a Schluter Cobra cost several £. For a Lark it was 75p! And you could actually straighten Lark shafts with your bare hands and carry on flying, albeit rather shakily! They were extremely popular where I lived - nearly everyone in the club had one at one time or another - and introduced a lot of people to helicopters, who would not otherwise have been able to afford it. The biggest mistake most pilots made was trying to "improve" them, as they refused to believe that anything so simple could fly. All that did was usually add weight. Built as designed, they flew very well, and could be repaired cheaply and easily, often with stuff from the local hardware store!
Great!!! I love vintage helicopters, but most amazing is your conversion to flybarless!!
Flew one of these myself. Mine was based on the Mk2 Lark and modified in the same way with weighted blades. It was capable of loops and rolls and I demonstrated it at the Sandown Park model airshow in the mid to late 70's. Mine flew with Futaba M series radio and 16m servos. If I remember rightly the engine I used was an HB25 helicopter engine which had been removed from an old Graupner Bell 47G. Your right Peter - who needs gyros and indeed electronic stabilisation.
brilliant work, I had a Lark in the late 70s. It was super stable but a handful without a giro.
Nice to see this fly. I had an original Lark in 1978 and a flybarless Revolution 60 rigid rotor a few years later. The first helicopter to do multiple rolls. Thanks for posting.
Yes I recall reading something about it, in an RC mag. John Gorham, MR GMP Gorham Model Products was actually from the UK and perhaps that is how the Cricket came into view, when he came to the US. I love your video because it shows simplicity of older machines many people regard these days as junk. I still have a cicket and a Rebel and love them just the way they are. See my small tribute to these machines with an electrified version of the Revel in mini form at my site under Autogyros.
Wow,,great set up . awesome skills,,flying with out Electronic Aids is really difficult
I had a Lark in the late 70s. No gyro and almost no cyclic response. It took a second or two before it responded to swashplate inputs..
Yes, the cyclic was a bit laggy, but it could be quite powerful. The main thing to be aware of was that it varied with rotor speed. In normal flight it was fine, but as you throttled back to land (fixed pitch!), the nose would tend to come up, and you could run out of forward cyclic to keep it down! If it got too extreme, the only option was to open the throttle and increase the rpm - but that resulted in gaining height again! Oh, what fun we had! :)
The stability comes from teetering rotor hub design, similar to Bell 206. Basically the fuselage dangles from the teetering hub center like a pendulum and the gravity pull gives the steady reference for the fuselage to balance upon. The hub therefore provides good enough stability for general flying, but not that great for quick maneuvers or aerobatics. Also it may go unstable when you descend too fast or even push negative G, negating the gravity pull.
Actually, the Lark head doesn't teeter - its a rigid rotor design. Having said that, there is a small amount of play in the "bearings" which allows a very minimal amount of teeter. The designer did make a teetering head for it, but it didn't work. A combination of light blades and low head-speed meant there wasn't enough centrifugal force to keep the blades under control. Even with the heavy blades used for fly-barless, it was still almost unflyable with any appreciable amount of teeter. I locked mine up solid again, which made a huge improvement in controllability...!
just stumbled on this video, wow, we are so spoiled these days with electronic stabilization. Understanding how gyroscopes work is all that is required for good mechanical stabilization. I believe this helicopter may have been the original design before the GMP line came into view, perhaps. The swashplate and rotor looks very similar to the GMP Cricket and and Rebel. Could be vice-versa.
you forgot to add ... who needs electronic stabilization... Thumbs Up!
nice flight! without any gyro.... flybar... wow!!
heavy helicopter for an 500 size electric of the time, but a good 450-500 heli BL motor will lift it these days. I still have the power supply also that made it fly tethered. It is amazing the technology we have these days.
Yes, its a bit twitchy! I have now fitted a gyro on the tail as my reactions and eyesight aren't what they were when I originally got this machine nearly 40 years ago! But there's still no "electronic fly-bar" on it - nor indeed is there room for one!
I also notice that the mechanics resembles the Ishimasha Skylark an electric double 05 motor that was made back around the same time as the Lark, prhaps tthe Skylark was also inspired by the Lark. I have an Skylark in mint condition and when I get a chance I will do a video of it as it was designed and with new BL motor.
I had a Lark, it was difficult to get it to transition out of forward flight though...I think I had too much main rotor pitch on it...Giros are for girls....lol.
The trick with any fixed pitch machine is to set the pitch so that it needs about 75-80% of the available power to lift off in calm conditions. It should only climb slowly until you transition into forward flight. If you don't set it like this, you will find it *very* difficult to get down - especially in a breeze! You have to slow the rotors up so much, that the cyclic becomes ineffective at keeping the nose down!
Actually, the Lark pre-dates the Cricket, which was largely regarded in the UK as a rip-off of the Lark (albeit slightly more sophisticated!).
The Lark wasn't the easiest model to fly, but it was robust and CHEAP! And if you could fly one of those (no gyro, remember, back then!) you could fly ANYTHING!
;)
It was one of the most popular helicopters here in the UK in the late 70's.
--
Pete
I remember the Skylark, but only ever saw them fly on umbilical cables! The motors were not powerful enough, and the batteries too heavy! With modern motors and batteries they could probably be made to fly, but I'm not sure how robust they were!
Rotor blades facing opposite direction? Or it is just my eyes?
I think its your eyes! ;) Its a perfectly standard clockwise rotation set up. The blades are cut-down Hirobo Shuttle blades.
great ! what tail gyro use ?
For most of its life it has been flown without a gyro, but now that I'm a lot older, and neither my reactions nor my eyesight are what they once were, I use a basic CSM piezo gyro in it (rate only - no heading hold). I have owned it and flown it from new, nearly 50 years ago!
@@pchristy102 Thank you !
Is this old machine a bit of a handful to fly being fixed pitch and no gyro for the tail?
Mantap
Salam knal
I had a Lark my first helicopter to me it was the biggest piece of CRAP you could buy the company that built that kit Micro Mould UK should be up on Fraud charges.
Well, that one in the video was bought for me for Christmas, by my wife, in 1974. It still flying today, nearly 50 years on, and still has many of the original parts on it. It is one of four that I now have. One is an original Mk1 (as mine started out) complete with HB25 motor, and two (Mk 2s) have been converted to electric. All still fly well. I can only conclude that you must have been doing something wrong...
@@pchristy102 I had others help me that where r/c Heli pilot they gave up They were crap.the shops gave up selling them.
@@Imagineering100 No, they were cheap - and intentionally so. When they first came out, they were a quarter of the cost of their nearest rival. So were the spares. At the time, a rotor shaft for a Schluter Cobra cost several £. For a Lark it was 75p! And you could actually straighten Lark shafts with your bare hands and carry on flying, albeit rather shakily! They were extremely popular where I lived - nearly everyone in the club had one at one time or another - and introduced a lot of people to helicopters, who would not otherwise have been able to afford it.
The biggest mistake most pilots made was trying to "improve" them, as they refused to believe that anything so simple could fly. All that did was usually add weight. Built as designed, they flew very well, and could be repaired cheaply and easily, often with stuff from the local hardware store!
@@pchristy102 They crap I had help from other heli pilots they gave up the shops stopped selling them because they were crap.