Early S-500 and Skyhawk circuits

Hello! Maybe someone can point me the right thread. I've looked and no luck. Okay, I've read in GGJaguar's info page the early S-500, Nighthawk and early '84 Skyhawks had the same circuit. Mid 84 being when Mr. Fender changed the Skyhawk circuit to further separate it from the S-500 tonally. What is this circuit referring to? I've read the Night-Skyhawk had the same pickup as the S-500 but with less windings and positioned differently.
Thanks

The difference in the later circut was regarding load resistance, I think the tone caps are a bit different in value, I'd have to check my diagrams to give you the exact changes. Your correct regarding the windings and placement of the pups, also the S-5oo pups had taller pole pieces to accept the extra windings which made a slight difference also. Another difference that affected the tonal differences of the two were the S-500s metal guard VS the plactic guaud on the hawk

Thank you for the reply. If the pole pieces were different then maybe it should have been listed as a different pickups between the two models??!! Or is the pickup info listing by magnet type rather the length of the poles. Would it be safe to say the G&L pickups have standardized by now for the single coil type and the MFD.

So I've a beat up 87 Shyhawk which I think's been messed with but still has the original pickups. The question is that if I changed out the pots to the same pots as the S-500 would this Skyhawk become close to the S-500 tone. I say close since I know the angle of the pickups are different. Thanks

Find some old CTS carbon composition pots, use the right value caps and give it a shot, it can't hurt. If you want to take it a step further get a custom made aluminum pickguard from Tone Guard for it.

Great! Thanks for the advice! The 5 way switch appears to be a strat type one and its because the knob is not your barrel shaped one but rather looks like a strat type. The screws are not phillips type either. So is a 5 way switch used on the G&L's the same as any other 5 way switch? Okay, thanks.. at least I can clean this Skyhawk up and get it as close to spec if I decide not to mess with it.

Alrighty then, I found the schematics for the old style S-500, it lists the capacitor values but not the pots? Are these 250, 500 or 1M? Thanks

The pickup placement does differ. The NightHawk/Skyhawk/Legacy share an almost identical placement. IIRC the S500 neck pickup is placed farther from the neck, the middle pickup closer to the neck and the bridge pickup is angled with the bass (low e) much more towards the neck. I have a PDF from Gabe showing these differences somewhere....

My 82's are 250 volume, 1 meg treb, 1meg bass the mid 80's hawk are 250. 500 and 1 meg

Thank you! I'll also check out the ones in my '87 and see what they are. Very interesting!! Now, having these different valued pots particular to G&L? I thought the pot values are usually the same, learn something new every day!! Again thank you for the info.

I was curious about your '82 S-500... would the pot values be the standard for hat era? Or were they changing all the time? The drawn schematic for early S-500 don't values on the drawing, by the block one has 500k for trem, 1meg for bass and 250 for volume. Maybe the questions should what works best with the S-500 MFD pickups? Thank you in advance!!

Tundra,

Which S-500 pups are you referring to? The '82 S-500 pups are absolutely different animals than the Nighthawk and Skyhawk pups. I have all three ('82 S-500, '83 Nighthawk and approx. '85 Skyhawk). The early S-500 has a much crunchier sound, even on the in-between positions. The pups have squared corners and will not fit into a Strat pickguard. The Nighthawk is close to a Strat, and the Skyhawk is closer still. I can't make out the fine print on the 'Hawk pickups, but it looks like they are the same between the two guitars. They were also designed to work as aftermarket pups for Stratocasters. I have to attribute the difference to the circuit. The Skyhawk just sounds more open and airy to my ears. They seem to be working better than my eyes.

I believe the S-500 remained basically the same until the late 80s, when it was reworked into a traditional Strat design.

I hope this helps.

Ken

Ken,
Thank you fro the reply. Great info you provided.. man that is kool you have all three! What I was referring to is the early 80's S-500, since the square MFD's are so different. Does your S-500 have the same pot values as Westdeducks? What size strings you use on your S-500?
Thanks

If you click at the photo, you'll get it full sized, so you can read the caps values, it's an S-500 from 1985:

http://i.wuell.net/gallery/view_photo.p ... d=IMG_4689

I've one too where the number of the pots are mostly readable, if there's some interest, I may put it to my gallery too.

Thanks for the pic link! I have the Old Style S-500 schematic and it lists the cap values as 222k for bass and .223 or .213k on the trem pot. The picture has 022k and 473Z. Anyway.. would each model or year have different values for the caps? Or maybe I'm not reading them right. I apologize for dragging this on.

Ken,
Thank you fro the reply. Great info you provided.. man that is kool you have all three! What I was referring to is the early 80's S-500, since the square MFD's are so different. Does your S-500 have the same pot values as Westdeducks? What size strings you use on your S-500?
Thanks

I'm not sure about the pot values. The S-500 plays so well that I haven't even verified the neck and body dates. I believe I'm playing 10s on her.

Ken

I would like to Thank everyone on this. As it turned out, the original tone pots had the same cap values as on the Early S-500 circuit schematic, so I was confident I put them where they suppose to be. The original plan had been to convert the skyhawk to s-500, but at the end I broke down and got a early 80's S-500 mahogany instead. I'll probably measure the pickup resistance so I know.
Now I'll need to find a thread that talks about what amp "works" best with this S-500 or amp circuit types, speakers, tube or solid state... all that good stuff!
Again Thank you.