Notices
Classic RC Pattern Flying Discuss here all pre 1996 RC Pattern Flying in this forum.

KAOS AND RELATED PLANES AND INFO

Old 04-19-2015, 01:00 PM
  #826  
Gray Beard
My Feedback: (-1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hemderson, NV
Posts: 14,396
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

I ran mine with the RC show case 1.40, as I recall it was made by Moki?
Originally Posted by lonestoner
thanks for the input. im not sure what engine yet im gonna end up with , but im leaning towards the moki/mark run of engines . due to the massive output they have , the kit . reccomends a 1.20 up to a 1.80 s stroke so anyways u all have a great day thank you so .
Old 04-20-2015, 08:50 AM
  #827  
MTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Whippany, NJ
Posts: 5,386
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by doxilia
Hey Matt,

That sounds like an interesting variation on the Kaos! A twin 40 cc with plug-in wings - nice. Are you planning on keeping the 300% thick foils...

I went down to 14% from the originals something which lends itself well to a plug-in approach as it leaves some fuselage below the wing on which the panel can make contact.

Where do you plan to put the pipes? Slung right underneath the fuse? If so, then plug-in panels sound like a must. Removing one pipe each time the wing is bolted on or removed is chore enough. Having to do two pipes...

BTW, which pipes work well on that engine? I am thinking of that very engine for another 2m build. Not sure if I can get the pipes into the design though.

David

David,

A liitle off the Kaos topic. Are 90 sized 2 stroke engines allowed in Vintage pattern events? I just started running the OS GT15 (gas) in my grandson's TeaCup (mod T-Clips). A sweeter runner I have not experienced. It's on muffler only so far (I will check it out on a pipe at some point too) turning a 14-8 apc at around 9000. Very good performance for an 8 lb airframe and extremely quiet (engine is soft mounted); I'd guess overall output to be similar to a well tuned glow 60 but not exactly a good comparison.
Old 04-20-2015, 11:43 AM
  #828  
Pork Chop
My Feedback: (5)
 
Pork Chop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I want to convert my Tower Kaos to electric. Any setup recommendations would be welcomed guys, I am new to the electric thing and not sure what to power her with.
Old 04-20-2015, 12:25 PM
  #829  
doxilia
My Feedback: (3)
 
doxilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal, QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Pork Chop
I want to convert my Tower Kaos to electric. Any setup recommendations would be welcomed guys, I am new to the electric thing and not sure what to power her with.
Alan,

Electrify Rimfire 46, 5s 3600-4500, APC 10x7/11x6e. Probably 75-80A switching ESC. It'll move out!

Performance similar to an OS 55AX.

Separate 2s LiFe/LiPo battery for the radio.

David

P.S. The key is in the Kv of the motor as well of course to its power rating.

Last edited by doxilia; 04-20-2015 at 12:28 PM.
Old 04-20-2015, 01:20 PM
  #830  
doxilia
My Feedback: (3)
 
doxilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal, QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MTK
David,

A liitle off the Kaos topic. Are 90 sized 2 stroke engines allowed in Vintage pattern events? I just started running the OS GT15 (gas) in my grandson's TeaCup (mod T-Clips). A sweeter runner I have not experienced. It's on muffler only so far (I will check it out on a pipe at some point too) turning a 14-8 apc at around 9000. Very good performance for an 8 lb airframe and extremely quiet (engine is soft mounted); I'd guess overall output to be similar to a well tuned glow 60 but not exactly a good comparison.
Matt,

glad to hear it! I've been interested in the GGT15 as it might reduce the engine weight somewhat given the lack of the ignition unit.

I'm not really the person to ask about regulations and restrictions imposed by the different pattern associations as I don't participate in them given I'm in Canada. That might change some day.

That said, I believe in order of restrictions, the VRCS followed by the SPA and lastly the CPA are increasingly tolerant (or decreasingly restrictive) to power and model specs. I believe the SPA restricts power to 1400 W (glow or electric) but whether gas power is allowed or not I don't know. If I'd have to guess, I'd say it isn't. But surely some SPA member can offer better insight on this. The CPA, would likely allow it provided the power output is comparable to a piped glow 60 which I suspect it is. There is more emphasis on model design in the CPA, from what I understand, than there is on power plants. I believe span is limited to 6' = 72". Scott can answer re the CPA in detail but I think the gas 15's might be doable.

David
Old 04-22-2015, 08:20 AM
  #831  
MTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Whippany, NJ
Posts: 5,386
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by doxilia
Matt,

glad to hear it! I've been interested in the GGT15 as it might reduce the engine weight somewhat given the lack of the ignition unit.

I'm not really the person to ask about regulations and restrictions imposed by the different pattern associations as I don't participate in them given I'm in Canada. That might change some day.

That said, I believe in order of restrictions, the VRCS followed by the SPA and lastly the CPA are increasingly tolerant (or decreasingly restrictive) to power and model specs. I believe the SPA restricts power to 1400 W (glow or electric) but whether gas power is allowed or not I don't know. If I'd have to guess, I'd say it isn't. But surely some SPA member can offer better insight on this. The CPA, would likely allow it provided the power output is comparable to a piped glow 60 which I suspect it is. There is more emphasis on model design in the CPA, from what I understand, than there is on power plants. I believe span is limited to 6' = 72". Scott can answer re the CPA in detail but I think the gas 15's might be doable.

David
Thanks for the info David. I had the GG15 on order for a month and a half and it just wasn't happening. So I opted for the GT15 and got it promptly so here I am. There is a 4 ounce penalty for the IBEC/CDI modules but no extra ignition battery required. It should make a very nice powerplant for Escapes, UFO's or slightly enlarged Kaos.

About 25 years ago we ran stretched pipe 60's (Rossi's and YS's) turning 12x12, 13x10 props at around 9500 give or take on the 70-74" spanned models of the day. The GT15 is putting similar output to those set-ups on its muffler but is quieter because of the soft iso mount.
Old 04-23-2015, 05:18 AM
  #832  
doxilia
My Feedback: (3)
 
doxilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal, QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MTK
Thanks for the info David. I had the GG15 on order for a month and a half and it just wasn't happening. So I opted for the GT15 and got it promptly so here I am. There is a 4 ounce penalty for the IBEC/CDI modules but no extra ignition battery required. It should make a very nice power plant for Escapes, UFO's or slightly enlarged Kaos.
I take it the GGT is quite popular then. If you get any feedback on them from users including pipe response and performance, please drop me a line. I'm thinking of inverted later classic applications more so than the early ballistic designs as inverted gas and 4-stroke seems to generally work better than inverted un-pumped 2-strokes (i.e., factory YS/OS engines). I'm actually putting the fine touches on an "aerobatic" P-51D I designed intended for 1400W of power. All power plants are doable but IC's have to work well inverted. Being a Mustang, 4-stroke 90 power struck me as the most logical although electric is also possible. I really didn't want to run an inverted 60 with SE on it as it is cumbersome and it wouldn't sound right to me. I'd rather do electric than that. But... a sensible gas 15 would certainly be a good option to a 4-stroke 90. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the gas 15's have the same mounting pattern (dimensions) as OS 60 size engines (FSR, SF, FX, AX), yes?

BTW, why is there no need for an ignition battery on the ignition GT? Are you using the same battery used for the radio?

About 25 years ago we ran stretched pipe 60's (Rossi's and YS's) turning 12x12, 13x10 props at around 9500 give or take on the 70-74" spanned models of the day. The GT15 is putting similar output to those set-ups on its muffler but is quieter because of the soft iso mount.
Sounds good. Let me know what you find on it once piped.

Thanks, David
Old 04-23-2015, 09:43 AM
  #833  
MTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Whippany, NJ
Posts: 5,386
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by doxilia
I take it the GGT is quite popular then. If you get any feedback on them from users including pipe response and performance, please drop me a line. But... a sensible gas 15 would certainly be a good option to a 4-stroke 90. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the gas 15's have the same mounting pattern (dimensions) as OS 60 size engines (FSR, SF, FX, AX), yes?

BTW, why is there no need for an ignition battery on the ignition GT? Are you using the same battery used for the radio?


Sounds good. Let me know what you find on it once piped.

Thanks, David
I will let you know.

I'm not sure if the GG15 is popular. That goes for the GT15. The first batch of GG15's sold off and they have been waiting for the next batch.

The GT15 ignition engine is electrified through a Tech Aero IBEC (ignition battery eliminator). It uses the airborne battery/switch for the radio to power the ignition. This device has key features that make it superior to any other IBEC on the market. But safety and convenience are two very important ones to me. Activates and deactivates the ignition from the TX. It weighs about 1/2 ounce and consumes about 100ma per 20 minutes. And at only 40$ it's inexpensive.
Old 04-23-2015, 01:53 PM
  #834  
Pork Chop
My Feedback: (5)
 
Pork Chop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by doxilia
Alan,

Electrify Rimfire 46, 5s 3600-4500, APC 10x7/11x6e. Probably 75-80A switching ESC. It'll move out!

Performance similar to an OS 55AX.

Separate 2s LiFe/LiPo battery for the radio.

David

P.S. The key is in the Kv of the motor as well of course to its power rating.
Thank you for the input David I appreciate it.
Old 04-24-2015, 06:52 PM
  #835  
doxilia
My Feedback: (3)
 
doxilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal, QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MTK
I will let you know.

I'm not sure if the GG15 is popular. That goes for the GT15. The first batch of GG15's sold off and they have been waiting for the next batch.
Matt,

thanks in advance for the info when you have it. I just read in MAN this evening that the only difference between the GGT and the GT is the head and glow plug. In other words, one can convert a GT to a GGT by picking up a new head and plug and dispense with the IBEC as much as it sounds cool. I guess 4 oz hit is not huge on a model that size. The glow plug is probably just more compact and doesn't expose what might be an unsightly spark plug ignition chord. Not a problem with a larger scale aerobat (or a cowled model) but a little more so on a classic. Tower is showing the GGT15 to be in stock at the moment.

I also noticed that they will have a GGT10 in late May! Maybe an interesting 45 methanol glow replacement?

It's becoming increasingly clear that OS put its R&D pennies into gas and electric rather than ethanol as it appeared they were planning to do a few years ago with their "green" engines.

David
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	OS GGT10.jpg
Views:	125
Size:	65.2 KB
ID:	2091783   Click image for larger version

Name:	OS GGT15-2.jpg
Views:	93
Size:	47.1 KB
ID:	2091784  
Old 04-24-2015, 06:54 PM
  #836  
doxilia
My Feedback: (3)
 
doxilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal, QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Pork Chop
Thank you for the input David I appreciate it.
Sure thing.

Post a picture of your conversion once done. I'm always interested in classic e-conversions of models that size.

David
Old 04-25-2015, 08:07 AM
  #837  
Pork Chop
My Feedback: (5)
 
Pork Chop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I will definitely post some pics. I've unexpectedly been bitten by the electric bug after buying my daughter a delta ray! I'm on the fence about selling all my glow engines now!
Old 04-25-2015, 10:23 PM
  #838  
MTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Whippany, NJ
Posts: 5,386
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by doxilia
Matt,

thanks in advance for the info when you have it. I just read in MAN this evening that the only difference between the GGT and the GT is the head and glow plug. In other words, one can convert a GT to a GGT by picking up a new head and plug and dispense with the IBEC as much as it sounds cool. I guess 4 oz hit is not huge on a model that size. The glow plug is probably just more compact and doesn't expose what might be an unsightly spark plug ignition chord. Not a problem with a larger scale aerobat (or a cowled model) but a little more so on a classic. Tower is showing the GGT15 to be in stock at the moment.

I also noticed that they will have a GGT10 in late May! Maybe an interesting 45 methanol glow replacement?

It's becoming increasingly clear that OS put its R&D pennies into gas and electric rather than ethanol as it appeared they were planning to do a few years ago with their "green" engines.

David
Agreed. I only wish that they would make some of these engines in rear exhaust. Their GT33 for example would be much simpler to set-up and operate in the tight confines of pattern fuses. Oh BTW, the carb on the GT and GG15 is the more conventional barrel type we are all familiar with. That combined with their pump in the back of thecase makes for very nice throttle response more in line with glow and no throttle curve needed. That's another item on the wish list for the GT33.

And my apologies again for the sidetrack
Old 05-04-2015, 08:45 AM
  #839  
bullseye000
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Batavia, IL
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default Solve a discrepency

I built my previous Kaos from a kit and have recently assembled one of the Tower Hobbies Kaos ARF. Made some modes installed my radio gear and started to balance it. I consulted the manual that came with the arf and it indicates a balance point of 3-1/8" from the leading edge. After thinking about it for a while something didn't seem right. I pulled out the plans and book from the kit and the balance point indicated on the plans and in the manual is 4" from the leading edge. Wonder where the 7/8" of an inch discrepancy came from. Most of the dimensions between the arf and the kit built are identical. I'm thinking they made the nose a little shorter on the arf to accommodate electric motors. Tower seems to be marketing the Kaos arf as a trainer. Wondering if they jammed the cg that far forward to try and tame it down. Why the change? Should I split the difference between the two suggested cg's or use the cg indicated on the plans?
Old 05-04-2015, 09:08 AM
  #840  
doxilia
My Feedback: (3)
 
doxilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal, QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Bullseye,

the first thing I'd check is what the root and tip chords of the two wings (ARF & kit) are as well as the LE taper and sketch them to scale. The TE taper will be given by the closing of the frame between root and tip. If you draw it at ~20% scale (divide all dimensions by 5), each wing should fit on a sheet of 8.5x14. This will allow you to make a proper first view comparison between the two wings.

Once that is done, proceed to find the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) of each wing. To do this, you need to place two lines the length of the root chord at the ends of the tip chord and vice versa (tips on root chord). Then draw two diagonal lines between the extremes of the added lines on either end of the root and tip chords. The intersection marks the location of the MAC on the wing. Then, locate the CG on the root of the respective wings (4" on the kit and 3-1/8" on the ARF divided by 5) and project this location with a spar parallel (perpendicular to the fuse centerline) line to the MAC. Measure the LE offset of the projected CG onto the MAC and see at what percentage these CG's are located on the MAC. Typically, the CG should be located anywhere between 25 and 33% of the MAC with the former being very conservative and the latter quite aggressive. For aerobatic models like the Kaos a 28-30% MAC CG is probably a good range.

You can compare the projected CG measurements vs the 28-30% MAC CG and see how much they differ. Whether kit or ARF, I would balance the model near the 28% mark for the first trim flights. You will likely be very close to or on the main spar of the wing.

Note that the model flies on the wing so regardless of the nose and tail moments, the distribution of mass about the wing must still check out. So whether an ARF has a shorter nose moment than the kit, it should not change the CG on the wing, only the distribution of mass about it. A shorter nose moement requires more weight in front of the CG in order to balance properly. For example, if one looks at WWI models with very short nose moments, the majority of the models mass is all kept up front with a very light tail. The converse is true as well for a model with very long nose moment or a heavy engine up front requiring more mass in the tail to balance. An example of this would be an SPA classic with an FS-91 up front. The tail boom of such models is typically stretched in order to counteract the heavier (than 60 2s) engine up front.

David

Last edited by doxilia; 05-04-2015 at 09:15 AM.
Old 05-04-2015, 11:23 AM
  #841  
bullseye000
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Batavia, IL
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Thanks David

The root and the tip are virtually identical. The shape of the arf wing tip is slightly different but who knows who sanded them out. The root and tip chord as well as the length and sweep are the same. The arf matches the kit plans. If I calculate the MAC and the cg the 3-1/8" cg position is ~25%. When I work it out on the plan version it's about ~33%. I didn't see any obvious changes with the design and couldn't help but be curious as to why Tower chose such a forward cg. I think the ~28% - 30% cg range sounds like a good starting point and that's what I'm going to use.

I pulled all the covering off the arf, so when I had it in the bones I decided to lay it over the plans to see how accurate they kept the lines. The only real noticeable difference was the fuse forward of the firewall, it was shorter. We guessed it was either to fit it in the box better or to accommodate an electric motor. Either way the wing was the same which is where doubt creeped in. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing the obvious. If anyone actually balanced it at 3-18" I wonder how it performed.

K

Originally Posted by doxilia
Bullseye,

the first thing I'd check is what the root and tip chords of the two wings (ARF & kit) are as well as the LE taper and sketch them to scale. The TE taper will be given by the closing of the frame between root and tip. If you draw it at ~20% scale (divide all dimensions by 5), each wing should fit on a sheet of 8.5x14. This will allow you to make a proper first view comparison between the two wings.

Once that is done, proceed to find the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) of each wing. To do this, you need to place two lines the length of the root chord at the ends of the tip chord and vice versa (tips on root chord). Then draw two diagonal lines between the extremes of the added lines on either end of the root and tip chords. The intersection marks the location of the MAC on the wing. Then, locate the CG on the root of the respective wings (4" on the kit and 3-1/8" on the ARF divided by 5) and project this location with a spar parallel (perpendicular to the fuse centerline) line to the MAC. Measure the LE offset of the projected CG onto the MAC and see at what percentage these CG's are located on the MAC. Typically, the CG should be located anywhere between 25 and 33% of the MAC with the former being very conservative and the latter quite aggressive. For aerobatic models like the Kaos a 28-30% MAC CG is probably a good range.

You can compare the projected CG measurements vs the 28-30% MAC CG and see how much they differ. Whether kit or ARF, I would balance the model near the 28% mark for the first trim flights. You will likely be very close to or on the main spar of the wing.

Note that the model flies on the wing so regardless of the nose and tail moments, the distribution of mass about the wing must still check out. So whether an ARF has a shorter nose moment than the kit, it should not change the CG on the wing, only the distribution of mass about it. A shorter nose moement requires more weight in front of the CG in order to balance properly. For example, if one looks at WWI models with very short nose moments, the majority of the models mass is all kept up front with a very light tail. The converse is true as well for a model with very long nose moment or a heavy engine up front requiring more mass in the tail to balance. An example of this would be an SPA classic with an FS-91 up front. The tail boom of such models is typically stretched in order to counteract the heavier (than 60 2s) engine up front.

David
Old 05-04-2015, 12:21 PM
  #842  
doxilia
My Feedback: (3)
 
doxilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal, QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bullseye000
Thanks David

The root and the tip are virtually identical. The shape of the arf wing tip is slightly different but who knows who sanded them out. The root and tip chord as well as the length and sweep are the same. The arf matches the kit plans.
K,

unless you have a rather strange looking Kaos (which I doubt if we're talking about the ARF), the root and tip chord cannot be identical. The Kaos is a double taper design with a tip chord which is shorter than the root chord. Also, the chord and the length for a wing section are the same - they are synonyms. The Kaos wing also has no sweep (like say the Blue Angel does) - it only has taper. A swept wing is one which has taper on the LE and the TE in the same direction. The Kaos wing is referred to as double tapered since the shorter tip rib is located somewhere along the length of the root chord with the LE and TE tapering toward the tip rib. A Dirty Birdy has LE taper only as the TE is straight with the TE of the root and tip coinciding. The shape of the actual wing tip is of little consequence and is primarily aesthetic.

In order to calculate the MAC properly and consequently find out where the CG should be located, you need to measure the chord (length) of the wing perpendicular to the spar at both the root (wing center) and the tip rib (where the wing tip begins). The LE taper is the offset distance between the front of the wing at the root and the front at the tip. The TE taper, as mentioned in my prior post, is the closure of the trapezoid shape of the wing. We're talking planform here (as viewed from above). The shape of the wing in terms of airfoil is of no importance in the CG calculation for this application.

It sounds like you might need to re-measure and make up a new sketch to confirm the positions of the MAC and the 28-30% CG position. If your drawing is off and you have located the MAC incorrectly, placing the CG at 30% of that chord could result in a model with the CG too far forward or backward - generally speaking.

I hope this helps,

David
Old 05-04-2015, 03:37 PM
  #843  
rglgatortail
My Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: pensacola, FL
Posts: 319
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

bullseye just balance the kaos at the back edge of the main spar and you are good to go that should be about 4 to 4 1/8 inches
Old 05-04-2015, 03:38 PM
  #844  
bullseye000
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Batavia, IL
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Sorry for the confusion. Yes the root and tip chord as well as the panel length of the arf are identical to the plan. I meant the shape of the tip is a little different than the plan. I wrote my own software to calculate the cg for given wing parameters many years ago. It still works and I can calculate the position for both the arf and the plan. My issue was with Tower using a starting cg of ~25% for a pattern model. I was wondering if there was a reason for the change in the recommended starting cg position. I'm going to disregard the arf directions and use the cg indicated on the plan version.

Thanks Much

Kevin


Originally Posted by doxilia
K,

unless you have a rather strange looking Kaos (which I doubt if we're talking about the ARF), the root and tip chord cannot be identical. The Kaos is a double taper design with a tip chord which is shorter than the root chord. Also, the chord and the length for a wing section are the same - they are synonyms. The Kaos wing also has no sweep (like say the Blue Angel does) - it only has taper. A swept wing is one which has taper on the LE and the TE in the same direction. The Kaos wing is referred to as double tapered since the shorter tip rib is located somewhere along the length of the root chord with the LE and TE tapering toward the tip rib. A Dirty Birdy has LE taper only as the TE is straight with the TE of the root and tip coinciding. The shape of the actual wing tip is of little consequence and is primarily aesthetic.

In order to calculate the MAC properly and consequently find out where the CG should be located, you need to measure the chord (length) of the wing perpendicular to the spar at both the root (wing center) and the tip rib (where the wing tip begins). The LE taper is the offset distance between the front of the wing at the root and the front at the tip. The TE taper, as mentioned in my prior post, is the closure of the trapezoid shape of the wing. We're talking planform here (as viewed from above). The shape of the wing in terms of airfoil is of no importance in the CG calculation for this application.

It sounds like you might need to re-measure and make up a new sketch to confirm the positions of the MAC and the 28-30% CG position. If your drawing is off and you have located the MAC incorrectly, placing the CG at 30% of that chord could result in a model with the CG too far forward or backward - generally speaking.

I hope this helps,

David
Old 05-04-2015, 03:39 PM
  #845  
bullseye000
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Batavia, IL
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by rglgatortail
bullseye just balance the kaos at the back edge of the main spar and you are good to go that should be about 4 to 4 1/8 inches
That's what I'm shooting for I used 4" on my original Kaos.

Thanks
Old 10-03-2015, 09:39 AM
  #846  
Jim_Purcha
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,917
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Just picked up a new Warlord 40 kit for Brent and I to build our the winter. It looks like a low wing version of the 4 Seasons 40. Old style build. Should be tough.

Jim

Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	P1060468.JPG
Views:	670
Size:	1.50 MB
ID:	2123332  

Last edited by Jim_Purcha; 10-03-2015 at 09:44 AM.
Old 10-05-2015, 04:39 PM
  #847  
Cbfn1
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

A good friend of mine gave me his 30 year old super kaos 60 with a ys .60 and pipe.
After a little work freeing up the motor, brightening up the trim scheme converting to 2.4it flys
great! 1st plane with a tuned pipe wow! I have to be very judicious with the power!
It's a very smooth flying and aerobatic plane.much better flying than the chipmunk that met its end.
anyways here it is
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpeg
Views:	226
Size:	991.9 KB
ID:	2123827  
Old 10-06-2015, 02:32 AM
  #848  
Falcon6667
 
Falcon6667's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Elberton, GA
Posts: 338
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

You'll find nose high landings are really great! also its slow inverted flybys are great!! enjoy it its a great bird, ALL the "Kaos" line are great flyers..you'll see a slight tail wag on a high speed dive with a tail wind, its normal..
Old 01-01-2016, 10:02 AM
  #849  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,509
Received 173 Likes on 149 Posts
Default

Earlier in the year I picked up a framed Kaos built from a Bridi Kit for a whopping 20.00. I immediately picked up a .61 FSR for it and then tucked them away for a couple months. After finishing a few other projects I pulled it out and began covering. I'm quite happy with the outcome. Truth be known it was an experiment on how well the color scheme was going to work as I plan to use the same scheme on a Reed Falcon. Unfortunately on initial run up it was discovered that the engine bearings are bad, will have to wait until the postman drops off the new set.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpeg
Views:	179
Size:	1.60 MB
ID:	2139057   Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpeg
Views:	156
Size:	1.57 MB
ID:	2139058   Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpeg
Views:	166
Size:	1.44 MB
ID:	2139059  
Old 01-01-2016, 11:00 AM
  #850  
RC_Fanatic
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sutter Creek, CA
Posts: 1,042
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Love the pilot, but don't you think a digital (glass cockpit) display would be more appropriate?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.