airbusdrvr

Do you ever look around the shop and think of a fun project. I have a couple of nice OS 25FP engines that for several years I've wanted to put on a small twin. On the Tower Hobbies site I saw the Twinstar, http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...&I=LXJPH0&P=ML . I have a well used Tower Kaos sitting in the corner, http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...&I=LXZT80&P=ML . I noticed the dimensions and weights are very similar between the two planes. If I were to decide to bash the Kaos instead of buying the TwinStar, what are the engine bulkhead offsets needed. I know the left and right engines need to be angled for single engine operation. Where or what is the amount? Is there a thread here on RCU that already discusses this?

See post #5 below for an update to this question.

Johnny C!

drvr,

I would recommend breathing new life into that old Kaos.

Look at my thread here about my Dazzler bash...

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_31...tm.htm#4225671

The primary things that I looked at were CG, & down thrust.

Down thrust can be easily duplicated from the existing firewall.

CG can be maintained by calculating the moment of the recommended single engine weight
vs. the twin engine weights. This will tell you how long the fuel boxes will be. This will
quickly lead you to what size fuel tanks. Mount these boxes to the wings as required.

I read here that the recommended out thrust should be 11 degrees, which is pretty radical. I didn't
plan for any, but decided at the last to sand my 1/4" thick firewalls & added 5 or 6
degrees. I haven't had an engine out yet, so I have not had to find out if I have enough.
The best thing is to have dependable engines so there no need for out thrust.

Don't go over board on the engine sizing, the .25's on the Dazzler are fast. My
flying partner used .32's on a Twin Stik & it scared him so much, he's only flown
it once.

I used the lost pantyhose method for my nose cone & cowls.

This was my first twin, I have built & flown my second, the third is on my bench now,
& I have two more in the planning/purchasing stages now.

PM me a phone number & we'll talk live, if you want.

Too much fun!

Johnny C!

maxpower1954

I wouldn't bother with any out thrust, especially on something with the long tail moment and large rudder of the Kaos. I have a Skylark 56 twin set up 0/0,
with two OS 15s at 4.5 pounds, and I can loop and roll it either direction with an engine out. If it were of any real value, full-size twins would have it and they don't (with the exception of the Japanese Betty bomber and a few Italian WW2 types.) Years ago on my scratch-built Boeing 247 I put a few degrees of out thrust in it, but I don't think it was critical. It also could loop and roll on one engine - the same OS 15s on the Skylark today came from that model. BTW, I still have it, in one piece!

If you know what the rudder is for, and from your handle I suspect you do, you won't have any trouble - two 25s should be plenty! Russ Farris

KI8FR

The twinstar has 4 to the right on the right and 3 to the left on the left. both have 2 1/2 down. You can go 0 / 0 and it will still work out good for you. but if one engine quits in the air you can still bring it in with the 4 and 3. the down will have to be set if it blooms a lot.

Have fun with it.

Paul

airbusdrvr

Well, I may have to revise my Kaos bashing. I went to test run my two OS 25 FPs prior to starting my small twin project and noticed I have two OS Max FP 20s instead of 25s. These engines may be to underpowered for the project. And if I considered ordering a Twinstar instead of bashing the Kaos, I hate to install engines that are at the bottom of the power range that is required. The Twinstar recommends .20 to .40 engines. Anybody with a twin in this size range running two .20 engines?

KI8FR

The twinstar will do just fine with the 20 on. I have 40s on mine and it is way over power. I get about 9 mi. of flight time with the 40. A frind had some 19s on his and does very well with it.

Paul

maxpower1954

Airbusdrvr (are you with Spirit; just a guess - I'm a US Airways bus driver myself) those OS 20FPs will be ideal for the Twinstar, or the Kaos conversion. I've been flying the heck out of a 1960s Goldberg Skylark 56 twin - it was a single or optional twin right from the kit. The specs are very close to the Twinstar, 56" span, 538 sq. inches, weight 4.5 pounds...a little lighter, I think. Running two ancient OS .15s from the 1970s, non-Schernele ported yet it has great performance. Remember, on a twin, in this case a total of .30 displacement drives two 8-4 props, if it were a single .30 it would be just one nine inch prop. I estimate the performance with both engines to be about a conventional .40 single. Also the accelerated airflow over the wing behind the props makes a difference. The Lockheed Electra/P-3 Orion is a good example of this...see attached picture of a sucessfull, RUBBBER-BAND powered Electra!

Even with an engine out, I can climb OK and with proper energy management accomplish loops and rolls (think Bob Hoover.) My personal opinion is an overpowered model twin can lead to major Vmc problems, and Twinman also agrees. 24 years ago, I scratch built a 55" span Boeing 247 with the same OS .15s I have on the Skylark today...for the first time in my modeling career, I eventually downsized it to OS .10 FSRs, and it actually was a better airplane in every respect...still climbed well one one engine. Russ Farris

david polley

Dear Airbus Drvr,

I had a very good friend of mine named Chuck Snyder, who custom built, and kit bashed two Super Kaos kits into a model of a British Twin Hornet. I have enclosed photos for you. He built it back in 1985 and flew the model ten years before I purchased it from him in 1995, and reworked the model and redesigned the engine installiation. I also reworked the landing gear because he had made it into a tail dragger. He used the original nose gear out of each kit which made the model almost impossible to take off of a paved runway. After playing around with it, I beefed up the landing gear and added 3 1/2 inch "Dave Brown Lite" wheels to stabilize the model on the ground, kind of like taking a model off of the grass, but now it is on the pavement. I flew that model until 2006 with two O.S. 45FSR ABC engines, that I had completely rebuilt myself. The model came in at around 9 pounds when I was done with it. On the day I was flying in our "Wings of War" event at the club field, one of the engines quit on a low pass because it ran out of gas, and it snap rolled over and went in destroying it (my fault)[&o]. Amazing how it lasted 20 years.
That indeed was a sad day, but the lessons I learned about tail draggers, and especially twin tail draggers taught me so very much, how to take off and fly these types of models off of the ground. I hope these photo's give you some insight. I have also enclosed photos of 2 other twin engine models. One is an old "Pilot" kit called a "Twin Ace" that I built myself and modified to look like a Japanese fighter to use in our WW II event. I fly it in our "Air Circus" with the Greater Cincinnati Radio Control Club. You can check us out at www.gcrcc.net I later changed the spinners on the Twin Ace to match up with the "meatballs" on the wing. I thought it looked pretty cool with the red and white spinners. I also changed the canopy to see the pilots better. It uses two O.S. 25 FX engines.
The other model is my Dehavilland Mosquito that I spent 2 years working on to get it the way I wanted it. I bought the ARF kit from Nitro Models. It is a China Model Products kit, that was a complete nightmare working over it to finally get it in the air. It has really beefed up landing gear and uses two O.S. 40SF engines on it. It comes in at around 12 pounds. If you look under "CMP Twin Mosquito" in the forum section Page 27, you can click on the link that will take you to "You Tube" and you can see it how it flew at our airfield. I had not put the cowls on it yet on the video, but 2 weeks ago if flew very well with the cowls installed. I bet it picked up an extra 15 miles per hour with the cowls. Another friend of mine who shot the photo's of the mosquito, Bob Duerr, got a shot of the mosquito in flight with a telephoto lens that didn't turn out too bad.
Hope this helped you with your project.
D Polley

airbusdrvr

David, you have some neat planes there. I decided to use my $25 off a Tower Hobbies order and bought the Hobbico Twinstar. That made the Twinstar cost me $84. For my first ever twin, I decided the easy thing would be to not "re-invent the wheel" and go with the ARG, I mean ARF. I should have it completed in a couple of days and if the engines run well, I may fly it early next week. My only reservation going into this is that instead of the pair of OS 25FP engines I thought I had, they are OS 20FP engines. I'm hoping they will have the umph needed to at least make this a twin trainer. Will report later.

david polley

Dear airbusdrvr,

So glad you enjoyed the photo's. I am a little worried about you using the O.S. 20FP engines.[sm=72_72.gif]
It has been my experiance that with a twin especially, you need power and speed to get it off of the ground quickly, and get it in the air with good stability. My concern is that the 20FP's will have to give you everything they have, just to get it in the air, and both engines will have to be running pretty close together to keep the model stable when climbing out to get into the pattern.[sm=punching.gif]
I went to the Tower Hobbies website and pulled up the video they had on the Twinstar and between the instruction manual they had with the model and the video I watched, it looked like they were using the O.S.25FX engines on it.

I am sorry "Hobbico", but if you put two 40 size engines on that airplane, the wings will fall apart.[X(]
Take it from me, I am flying my 12 pound twin mosquito with two O.S. 40SF engines on it, and it is almost too much to handle.

I know that you would be much happier with the 25FX engines on it because you can always bring down the throttle and cruise and get proper training at the same time vs the struggle of just trying to get it in the air and having your training experiance not be a very good one. I would not wish you to have a bad experiance with your first twin.[sm=what_smile.gif]

I have been flying my Japanese Twin since 2002 and I have two 25FX engines on it. I need the power because even though the model has a 60 inch wingspan, it weighs almost 7 pounds. When I covered the model with white "Worldtex" cloth, and used 4 cans of Rustoliem spray paint, it really made the model very strong, but a little on the heavy side. I do not see you having that kind of problem if you keep the weight at around 5 pounds, but I just feel you will be much happier with the 25FX engines on it. Your model will fly just like the one in the video, and as you progress in your training, loops and rolls will be a breeze, and you will look good doing them.
If you still want to use the 20FP's Make sure the CG or balance point is a little nose heavy. The 20FP's are on the lighter side, and you will have to add nose weight to make sure the model is stable. Tail heavy twins are a disaster......[sm=disappointed.gif]
I make all of my models a little nose heavy. They always land better for me. Of course this what works for me, and you have to stick with what you want to do. Please keep me updated and let me know how it all goes. Good luck.

I have also sent you three video links. The first two are videos my friend and fellow RC buddy Sam Parfitt took of me taking off and landing the Japanese Twin I built. He was still learning how to keep the camera steady and the video's are a little shaky at times, but you can see how well the model performed taking off and landing. The color of the model really stands out when I am taxing back to the pit.
The third video link is of my Mosquito in case you had not seen it yet...( Can you even imagine putting these same engines on your Twinstar) I hope you enjoy them, and let me know what you thought of the models in flight.

Have a great weekend.

David

http://rcuvideos.com/video/HPIM0170-AVI
http://rcuvideos.com/video/HPIM0174-AVI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZPewtLpsCE

maxpower1954

David, I really enjoyed the pictures of your twins, especially the Japanese Twin Ace/clone-real cool looking!

I think his Hobbico Twinstar will do just fine with two OS .20s I've been flying a 1960s vintage Goldberg Skylark 56 twin all year, with very close specs to the Twinstar - 56" inch wing, 538 square inches, weight with fuel over five pounds. Engines are two ancient OS .15s from the 1970s -plain old non-Schernele ported, low output types that powered my Boeing 247 twenty years ago. 8-4 Zinger wood props, 15% nitro fuel. Underpowered is the last word I'd use to describe it, unless it means an inability to manage an vertical climb.

It takes off from grass in 75 feet, 50 if I push it (and shouldn't) climbs at nearly a 30 degree angle, does fast, sweeping turnarounds and it loops from level flight at less than half-power. On one engine it will climb, albeit slowly, and with proper energy management do loops and rolls on one worn out 30 year old engine! People always assume from the performance I'm running .25s; they are amazed when I tell them .15s!

Remember guys, a twin differs from a single in two very important ways. First, the accelerated airflow behind the props over the wing produces lift at a much lower airspeed than a single (see Lockheed Electra example above.) Second, the efficiency of two engines, say the .20s, adds up - that's a total of .40, but performance is substantially greater than a single with a forty. The disc area total of two 8-6 props is much greater than a 10-6 on a .40.
On my Skylark, those two .15s are about the same as a single .40, or perhaps little more.

Ron, make sure you weigh that Twinstar, I'm curious how it will compare to my Skylark...Russ Farris

P.S. Sorry about the double post, I realized later I put almost exactly the same information here I earlier posted (the word of the day - pedantic)

PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

I like your Electra in the photo's-tell me something about it ??

airbusdrvr

Tonight I did a preliminary CG check. With the battery just forward of the wing(in the nose section) the Twinstar will balance fine. With everything in the plane but the receiver and a couple of plastic trim pieces it weighs 5lbs 4oz. So it should come in at or under the 5.5lbs in the specs.

maxpower1954

The weight sounds perfect, Ron. My advice (free for the asking) is run each engine seperately, until you are satisfied with the reliability - idle, transistion, and able to hold max RPM without sagging with the nose held up at about a 45 degree angle for at least six to eight seconds. Just think of it as setting up two single engine airplanes. With both engines running, with the nose up, richen the needle valve on the stronger running engine to the weaker one - both should be set slightly on the rich side; they will lean out as the tank level goes down.

In flight, roll response will seem sluggish because of the mass of the engines out on the wing. If you lose an engine (I reccomend not flying at the same time as other gas models so you can tell what's going on) on takeoff before the first turn, throttle back and take what you can get (like the Piper Apache I got my multi-rating in 30 plus years ago.) If you are flying around at normal cruise speeds it just will go a little out of trim. As you slow down, use the rudder to maintain directional control, don't bother using the trim. If you get below Vmc and lose heading control/uncommanded roll, just pull the power back as in the full-size Vmc recovery. Set up for a normal landing, and don't worry about turning into the dead engine - if you have proper airspeed above Vmc, it doesn't make a bit of difference...another aviation old wives tale dating back before World War II, when full-size multi-engine flying was as big a mystery as it is to R/Cers today.

On final, the sink rate will be higher with the power off than a single due to the loss of accelerated airflow and the idling prop discs blanking part of the wing. Carrying a little power into the flare is what I do.

I think you're going to love it...I'm building (if that's the word) a VQ Douglas A-26 Invader with two OS .46AXs, retracts and I'm adding spilt flaps. Got that twin fever again... Full pirep on the Twinstar, please. Good luck and superior airmanship will see you through! Russ Farris

maxpower1954

Plane Jim, that's not my Electra...it's a rubber-powered ship built by Richard Crossely of England. Span 25" inches, carved and hollowed entirely of one pound white foam; ready to fly it weighs three ounces! Indoors only, flight times from 20 to 25 seconds. Beautiful work, isn't it? He has won some major events with this free-flight model.

This winter's project for me is a park-flyer Electra, span 45" built with 2mm Depron foam, four mini-outrunners and a 1320 li-po battery; shooting for around 18-20 ounces RTFW. I'm using a German card/paper model of the Electra for the patterns, and vacuum forming my own nacelles, with plug-in landing gear. Russ Farris

Johnny C!

I beg to differ with Farris, on just one point.
I have found with my tractor twins that roll
response borders on insane if you set the
aileron throws anything near what would
be normal for a single engine model. The
direct prop wash over the ailerons make
them very responsive. Don't let that slip
by you.

Johnny C!

maxpower1954

Oops, I guess I didn't express that one very well - by response, I meant the slight lag before the roll starts and the tendency to overshoot when stopping the roll, due to the mass of the engine/nacelles. Johnny C! makes perfect sense; for an airplane with strip ailerons, the accelerated airflow should make it roll faster, though I can't really tell. The A-26 I'm building has barndoor ailerons outside of the prop wash.

I'm one of those guys who can't have enough aileron throw - I'm used to airplanes like my Mini-FuntanaX which has a roll rate of better than 360 degrees a second. That's just me, and my personal tastes. Russ Farris

Johnny C!

Russ,
I like high roll rates on everything, as well.
But my twin Dazzler is very quick, and as you
said, barndoors in the prop wash.

Later!

John

david polley

Dear maxpower 1954

In my world, the more power the better, only because you can always idle back and cruise, especially with twin engine models. I need the extra power on the Jap Twin Ace, only because it comes in at 7 pounds or a little more by now, and the extra power comes in handy when you need it. It really helps me with tail winds, and being able to run the engines up to get "instant" power, the way I have the throttles set up has really saved my butt on more that one occasion.

I wanted to get back with you about your Vintage Goldberg Skylark.[8D] Where did you find this older kit? Was it something you have had for many years, or was it a kit you found at some hobby shop that had it in moth balls for. I was interested because I built my first low wing trainer, a Goldberg Skylark 56 Mark II in 1980. I crashed that model because of radio interferrence that summer, so I built a second model in 1981 and have been flying that model 27 years now. I wanted to write you sooner about this model I have, but I could not find a photo of it until now, so here is the photo of my Skylark 56. I have had 4 or maybe 5 engines on it, 4 dfifferent radio systems, about 20 sets of wheels ( only because I use "Dave Brown" "Lite" wheels. They really help with tracking and especially "breaking" when the model lands on the runway), I have also recovered the wing 3 times now, replaced the canopy 3 times, replaced the rudder twice (spent fuel had seeped into the wood), and to top it all off, it has been my favorite model all of these years. Real smooth flyer. What you did to make you Vintage Skylark twin is really nice. Hats off to you for your fine workmanship.
So glad you enjoyed my photos. Did you happen to watch any of the videos?

Take Care,
David

maxpower1954

Hi David!

Actually, I'm totally with you on the power thing. I'm building a VQ models A-26 Invader, 68" span weight 10 to 11 pounds that's getting two OS .46AXs.

The point I was trying to make is a Twinstar at the relatively low wing loading it has should do OK with two .20s - in fact, I spoke to Ron on the phone (he's the guy that started this thread) and while he confirms it's no ball of fire, it climbs out at a 30 degree angle after a grass field takeoff and should accomplish it's mission as a twin trainer. Sure, .25s would be better but the .20s is what he had! I think he said it can maintain altitude at half-throttle.

For those of you not familiar with the history of the Carl Goldberg Skylark 56, here's a quick rundown. It was a low wing trainer, for those ready to move on from the Falcon 56, way back in 1963. It was designed from the beginning to be offered as a single or twin engine model; the parts and plans are included for both versions. I used to think this was the first commercially available R/C twin, but Berkeley had an A-26 Invader in 1959! The Skylark Jr. also was offered as a single or twin (.049 or two .020s.)

Designed before digital proportional radios, the plans showed reed and escapement type gear. In the early 1970s, the twin option seems to have been dropped. In 1978, the entire design was revamped - construction was greatly simplified and modernized (less dihedral, ailerons as standard, wider nose for bigger engines, bolt-on wing, ect.) This version survives today as an ARF.

OK, I'm involved in the Vintage R/C Society and I'm always looking for something different for the old time model meets - I built a Goldberg Shoestring two years ago, for example. I picked up an original Skylark 56 kit off Ebay, and went to work.

The plans showed two Cox .09s Medallions for power, and two ounce tanks, no way was I going that route! I picked my trusty OS 15s, but I had to widen the nacelles for 3 ounce fuel tanks, in retrospect I should have made them even bigger for four ounce, but I have a solid eight minutes flying, so it worked out. I reduced the dihedral to about three degrees and made the optional ailerons wider than the plans showed. I also used a Hitec HS-55 servo in each nacelle, the original had a maze of bellcranks, circa 1963. I tried to keep the look as original as possible, copying the kit box picture paint scheme and colors. After extensive flying, the only addtional mod I've made is enlarging the elevator by 1/2 inch. Now it does wicked inverted spins and snap rolls.

Amazing you still fly your Skylark after 27 years! Hey, I see a World Engines Expert in the picture; I still have mine, bought it back in 1977. Any Skylark is a great airplane, single or twin. Goldberg should come out with an ARF twin version, that would give the Twinstar a run for it's money. It would be an outstanding multi trainer; even in a stall with one engine at full power, it doesn't snap over - just loses heading control.

Yes, I watched your videos, especially the Mosquito - it really looks like it flies well! I didn't see any flaps on it guess it doesn't need them. I'm adding spilt flaps to the A-26 however - they aren't scale (those were Fowlers) but I have a fairly small field to work out of. I'm the only twin flyer there, how about you? Thanks for the kind words on my airplane. See you, Russ Farris

david polley

Russ

Just amazing[sm=omg_smile.gif] about the twin version of the Goldberg model. I never knew about the twin version. Pretty rare kit I would have imangined. Did the escapements in the plans call for using rudder only, or was it rudder and elevator too! Did they have reed and escapement devices for 4 channels in those days? I have no idea how they worked, but have heard about this type of equipment. Imagine the skill one needs to fly with that stuff. I also can not even imagine flying a 56 inch model with two .09 engines. This is beyond my thinking in this hobby. Very interesting though.

As far as the radios, yes they are both World Engines Expert Mark II radios. I have the flyer too in that photograph of the Skylark that was an advertisement on the back of Model Aviation in the mid or late 70's. As you look at the flyer, there is a cartoon of Dave Brown, who at the time was a National Aerobatic Champion. He worked with another great flyer named Tony Frackowiak. Dave Brown of course just retired from being the President of AMA. He is also a member of my club, The Greater Cincinnat Radio Control Club, or GCRCC for short. I think just about every member in our Club has either seen me fly the Skylark or flown it themselves. It is amazing that it has survived so many years. In the photo of the Skylark, the radio on the left is an original Mark II transmitter in it's original condition the way it was manufactured with the original transmitter board and encoder. This was a specially made transmitter that Tony used to first fly RC helicopters inverted. There were three special 4PDT switches installed on the front panel of the radio to switch and reverse controls that Tony needed to fly the helicopter inverted. I personally purchased the radio from John Maloney himself, then president of World Engines for $70.00 at an RC Mall Show in 1983. I really loved the sticks on those transmitters. I later found out that Dave Brown, was personally invloved in the design of those sticks used in the Mark II radios. Dave has flown my Skylark too, doing all of the different pattern tricks that they had done in those days. The transmitter sticks were one of the first to be truely linier in their movement.

The radio on the right in the photo with my Skylark is the same Mark II type transmitter, but the Encoder and RF board had been removed except the sticks, on / off switch, and meter indicator, and I built an Ace, Silver Seven transmitter kit and installed it in the Mark II transmitter box. At that time I was showing the difference between the two transmitters at the club meeting that night as we talked about our favorite "hanger queen". Of course the Skylark was my queen and I was telling folks how old it was and tried to tell a little history of where we have come in the hobby. The transmitter still works and is approved to use today. I still use it with another model I have that has a "Hitec" AM narrow band receiver in it. At the time I built the Silver Seven transmitter, I had also built the Ace "Model 91" dual conversion receiver to be able to start flying on the "new frequencies" of the day. The receiver was good to about 25khz of bandwith, which worked well in implementing the new channels, which at that time we were using all of the new "even" channels of what we use today at 72 Mhz. When we finally turned on all 50 of the new frequencies, I had to go to the "Hitec" receiver so I did not get bounced abound with glitches. I am sure you remember those days, but maybe not. I do not know how long you have been doing this.

We have many multi-engine flyers in our club. At our Air Circus this year we flew six B-25 Mitchell bombers in a recreation of the "Doolittle" raid over Tokyo. If you go to our website www.gcrcc.net you can see the video of how this went. You can also see our B-29 bomber that also drops a miniature Bell X1 rocket from the belly. We also have a beautiful B-17 we fly in the show, and a real nice C-130 paratrooper model that another member has. I am the only member that has a twin mosqiuto, and of course my Japanese twin Ace. The six B-25's flying together, is the first time I had ever seen that many twin engine models at one time in the air. Check out the web page and you will see how many talented individuals we have in our Club. It is pretty awsome.
The Mosquito does have flaps, and I do use them now to land the model. It use to "Tip Stall" on landing approaches and drop like a rock unless I kept the air speed up. I have a photo from the rear view that shows the flaps. As you can see they are split flaps and they work really well on this model. It is the first time I have ever had flaps on a model, and I can understand why now, after several very hard landings without using them.
Thanks so much for writing and sharing. Please check out our web page. You will find it very interesting.

Take Care

David

airbusdrvr

I really appreciate all the good advice I have received in this thread. Update on the OS 20FP powered Twinstar. A dozen flights with one engine failure right after takeoff coming back around to a smooth landing. The OS 20FPs with APC 8X5 props are adequate power for the Twinstar. In my estimation, it flies with about 85% of the performance of an OS46FX powered Tower Kaos(which I regularly fly). Fuel usage is very minimal and the ARF included 4oz fuel tanks are no problem. The engines tune very well and my JR X9303 transmitter setup for twin engine using left and right throttle curves makes engine matching very easy at all throttle positions. However, there continues to be some moderate inflight surging of one of the engines. Doesn't do it on the ground and only is noticeable in flight so I don't know which engine is is. I found two NIB OS25FP engines and will be installing those hopefully by next week. Will report on their perfomance a bit later. Overall, the TwinStar is a good value and flies very easily.

lvlender

My Feedback: (1)

Hey Airbusdrvr,

do you still have the Kaos build-instruction booklet that Tower included in the kit? I have a new Tower Kaos kit but don't have the build instructions. Can you help?

Kevin Savage
Las Vegas, NV

airbusdrvr

Here it is for free: http://www.towerhobbies.com/products...owa2052mnl.pdf

8178

My Feedback: (17)

Those like like ARF ones to me?