Skylark 70
10-11-2007, 11:10 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skylark 70
Haven't seen much information on the Goldberg Skylark 70, although did read a good review.
Would like to see some comparisons with the Tiger 60 and Four Star 60, and any other sport/aerobatic planes of this size. I am still flying a senior falcon just for the h... of it, and am also flying the Tower Kaor and the GP Revolver. I am thinking that the skylark 70 might be a good relaxing airplane, yet have some aerobatic capability. I'm too old for 3D (please, you are only as old as you feel advise. That would put me at 100+), and not interested in contests, yet like a plane like the Kaos that is pretty capable of lots of stunts.
Would like to see some comparisons with the Tiger 60 and Four Star 60, and any other sport/aerobatic planes of this size. I am still flying a senior falcon just for the h... of it, and am also flying the Tower Kaor and the GP Revolver. I am thinking that the skylark 70 might be a good relaxing airplane, yet have some aerobatic capability. I'm too old for 3D (please, you are only as old as you feel advise. That would put me at 100+), and not interested in contests, yet like a plane like the Kaos that is pretty capable of lots of stunts.
10-12-2007, 07:40 AM
#3
RE: Skylark 70
I wrote the RCU review of the Skylark 70 and I stand by everything I said in the review. It is a wonderful airplane.
I have flown the 4* 40 (But not the 60) and the Tiger 60. I won't make any comparisons to the 4* since I haven't flown the 60 size, but comparing it to the Tiger, I would call it a knotch more advanced.
It is easily as stable at the Tiger, but it is sleeker. The Skylark's airfoil has a sharper leading edge, so it slices through the air more easily. It will still slow down and fly very nicely at slow speeds, but it is a bit more maneuverable than the Tiger.
I would say that the Tiger is a little better when it comes to slow-speed flying, but the Skylark is better in the areas of speed and performance.
Similar to the Kaos, but not as advanced as the Revolver.
I have flown the 4* 40 (But not the 60) and the Tiger 60. I won't make any comparisons to the 4* since I haven't flown the 60 size, but comparing it to the Tiger, I would call it a knotch more advanced.
It is easily as stable at the Tiger, but it is sleeker. The Skylark's airfoil has a sharper leading edge, so it slices through the air more easily. It will still slow down and fly very nicely at slow speeds, but it is a bit more maneuverable than the Tiger.
I would say that the Tiger is a little better when it comes to slow-speed flying, but the Skylark is better in the areas of speed and performance.
Similar to the Kaos, but not as advanced as the Revolver.
10-12-2007, 12:17 PM
#4
RE: Skylark 70
MinnFlyer: Would you recommend the Skylark as a second plane? Or, would a novice be better off with a Tiger? The Goldberg models appear simple, and look forgiving. I've looked at their Heritage Cessna as a possibility. I like the possibility of flaps, and it looks like it would slow down very nicely for landing, unlike other planes with the tapered wings.
NorfolkSouthern
NorfolkSouthern
10-12-2007, 12:26 PM
#5
RE: Skylark 70
I'm not familliar with the Cessna, but as for the Tiger and the Skylark as a second plane, I can only say that it would depend on the individual.
For MOST people, the Tiger would be a better "second' plane, but for some fliers who are more advanced and pick things up quickly, the Skylark may be a good choice too.
I will also say that you can't go wrong with the Tiger. It's one of the best planes I've ever flown, and it's my first choice for a second plane.
For MOST people, the Tiger would be a better "second' plane, but for some fliers who are more advanced and pick things up quickly, the Skylark may be a good choice too.
I will also say that you can't go wrong with the Tiger. It's one of the best planes I've ever flown, and it's my first choice for a second plane.
10-12-2007, 12:47 PM
#6
RE: Skylark 70
I liked your review on the Skylark, and also the supplement on the OS 75 AX. There is not enough exposure to two-strokes like you see with fours. It gets a bit old reading all the praise reports found on Saito 72s, and similar products, all of which are above my price range. It's a sad fact that not everybody can afford one of those. I have a .46 AX and a .40 LA. Both engines will start at the first flip, and run reliably enough to get a plane back, and in a controlled fashion. And, they are modestly priced compared to, say, a .91 Surpass or that ilk. I often think of the .40 LA as having the ability to pull a stump, because I only need about 60% throttle for takeoff on my Superstar!
I have thought about kits like the Great Planes Rapture 40 for my .40 LA. However, it is a full build and it has been documented that the plane will land hot, and has less of a margin for pilot error as compared to the planes on Ken's list. I nixed that idea because of the build time and all the fancy tools, jigs, and hardware requirements. Not to mention, I don't like the idea of a tip stall when there's a lot of money invested in electronics and a nice engine, especially when setting up to land over a corn field. A lack of support from others on building it was also a contributing factor in my decision to stick with the more affordable ARFs.
I will be ordering the smaller brother to the 75 AX, the 55 AX. I plan on installing that on a Tiger 2. I think that plane will be worth saving for over the Winter, and having it ready for Spring. It will give me piece of mind knowing that my equipment and engine will be in service for a good while, and perhaps that will make the hobby considerably cheaper for me over time. Perhaps the Skylark will be worth considering, when I decide to add the 75 AX to my collection. Thanks for all the info!
NorfolkSouthern
I have thought about kits like the Great Planes Rapture 40 for my .40 LA. However, it is a full build and it has been documented that the plane will land hot, and has less of a margin for pilot error as compared to the planes on Ken's list. I nixed that idea because of the build time and all the fancy tools, jigs, and hardware requirements. Not to mention, I don't like the idea of a tip stall when there's a lot of money invested in electronics and a nice engine, especially when setting up to land over a corn field. A lack of support from others on building it was also a contributing factor in my decision to stick with the more affordable ARFs.
I will be ordering the smaller brother to the 75 AX, the 55 AX. I plan on installing that on a Tiger 2. I think that plane will be worth saving for over the Winter, and having it ready for Spring. It will give me piece of mind knowing that my equipment and engine will be in service for a good while, and perhaps that will make the hobby considerably cheaper for me over time. Perhaps the Skylark will be worth considering, when I decide to add the 75 AX to my collection. Thanks for all the info!
NorfolkSouthern
10-14-2007, 11:09 AM
#7
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Baltimore,
MD
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Skylark 70
10-14-07
Mike,
As per my email to you on 10-12-07, I am greatly interested in the Skylark 70 and I read your review in RC Universe. My concern is the potential weakness of the landing gear blocks. Over the past year, I have built two Skylark 56s. They were a dream to build and fun to fly, but both suffered landing gear block failures on their first trip to out nicely cut grass flying field. I later read seven reviews in RCU about the Skylark 56, and five had the same problem. When this problem was brought to Goldberg's attention, there were no positive replies. When I sent two emails to Goldberg over the last two weeks (they are now part of Great Planes), there was no reply. You wrote a wonderful review, but I am concerned that your review has Carl Goldberg artwork around the sub topics. Was your review completely impartial? Do you have contacts with Goldberg? If so, why won't they respond on the potentially weak landing gear blocks in the new plane issue? For $220 for the ARF, what assurances can you and/or Goldberg give me that the weak LG blocks issue in the 56s has been addressed and adequately corrected in the 70? Do you fly off a paved runway or grass? How many landings does yours have? Have you noticed anything unusual about your landing gear blocks? If I build the 70 and the LG blocks break inside, there is a large red or blue covering panel over the block. If I go in to repair the blocks, the recovering will most likely not match and will look awful. At least on the 56, after I repaired the blocks, I only had to replace white covering which wasn't so ugly. It is discouraging to spend $220 for a new plane, one that you really like, only to be hesitant about how well the main LGs are beefed up and glued inside, and on the first hard landing, there will be a four repair following at home. Please address these issues and/or ask for input from Goldberg before responding. Thanks for listening.
Mike,
As per my email to you on 10-12-07, I am greatly interested in the Skylark 70 and I read your review in RC Universe. My concern is the potential weakness of the landing gear blocks. Over the past year, I have built two Skylark 56s. They were a dream to build and fun to fly, but both suffered landing gear block failures on their first trip to out nicely cut grass flying field. I later read seven reviews in RCU about the Skylark 56, and five had the same problem. When this problem was brought to Goldberg's attention, there were no positive replies. When I sent two emails to Goldberg over the last two weeks (they are now part of Great Planes), there was no reply. You wrote a wonderful review, but I am concerned that your review has Carl Goldberg artwork around the sub topics. Was your review completely impartial? Do you have contacts with Goldberg? If so, why won't they respond on the potentially weak landing gear blocks in the new plane issue? For $220 for the ARF, what assurances can you and/or Goldberg give me that the weak LG blocks issue in the 56s has been addressed and adequately corrected in the 70? Do you fly off a paved runway or grass? How many landings does yours have? Have you noticed anything unusual about your landing gear blocks? If I build the 70 and the LG blocks break inside, there is a large red or blue covering panel over the block. If I go in to repair the blocks, the recovering will most likely not match and will look awful. At least on the 56, after I repaired the blocks, I only had to replace white covering which wasn't so ugly. It is discouraging to spend $220 for a new plane, one that you really like, only to be hesitant about how well the main LGs are beefed up and glued inside, and on the first hard landing, there will be a four repair following at home. Please address these issues and/or ask for input from Goldberg before responding. Thanks for listening.
10-14-2007, 05:19 PM
#8
RE: Skylark 70
I can't speak for Mike, but I sure haven't had ANY landing gear problems - until today
All four nuts holding the nose gear came loose and I flew 4-5 flights - but don't know when they ALL got away from the screws - but sadly (
) my take-offs were straighter than ever - so I just might leave'em loose <g>....the main gear is as solid as the day I installed them and I have well over a month of flying this bird and umpteen touch and goes - still solid!!!
So to those who haven't yet, glue in the nuts for the nose gear!
Jerry
All four nuts holding the nose gear came loose and I flew 4-5 flights - but don't know when they ALL got away from the screws - but sadly () my take-offs were straighter than ever - so I just might leave'em loose <g>....the main gear is as solid as the day I installed them and I have well over a month of flying this bird and umpteen touch and goes - still solid!!!So to those who haven't yet, glue in the nuts for the nose gear!
Jerry
10-15-2007, 09:07 PM
#9
RE: Skylark 70
REMitchell,
I too have many flights on the Skylark 70 and I have had NO issues with any of the landing gear. I have flown it on both paved and grass runways, but mostly grass and in many cases, very deep grass (Note video in review).
I have NOT really had any overly hard landings, but not all of them were as gentle as a butterfly either.
I can also state that I am in no way affiliated with Goldberg, or Great Planes. I am a regular flier just like you who does product reviews for RCUniverse. RCU gets a product from a manufacturer or distributor and assigns it to any number of people like me. I just happened to be the one who got the Skylark.
Also worth noting: The Skylark is covered with standard Ultracote. So if you ever did need to open it up, recovering won't be a problem.
I too have many flights on the Skylark 70 and I have had NO issues with any of the landing gear. I have flown it on both paved and grass runways, but mostly grass and in many cases, very deep grass (Note video in review).
I have NOT really had any overly hard landings, but not all of them were as gentle as a butterfly either.
I can also state that I am in no way affiliated with Goldberg, or Great Planes. I am a regular flier just like you who does product reviews for RCUniverse. RCU gets a product from a manufacturer or distributor and assigns it to any number of people like me. I just happened to be the one who got the Skylark.
Also worth noting: The Skylark is covered with standard Ultracote. So if you ever did need to open it up, recovering won't be a problem.
10-16-2007, 05:13 PM
#10
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Baltimore,
MD
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Skylark 70
10-16-07
Mike,
That covers all the issues I had. Sorry to challenge you but I needed to be sure on the issues I was concerned about, and your reply was excellent in answering my concerns. As you fly your Skylark 70 more, please add comments into RCU for folks like myself who are seriously considering this plane. Thanks for all your help.
Rick Mitchell
Baltimore
Mike,
That covers all the issues I had. Sorry to challenge you but I needed to be sure on the issues I was concerned about, and your reply was excellent in answering my concerns. As you fly your Skylark 70 more, please add comments into RCU for folks like myself who are seriously considering this plane. Thanks for all your help.
Rick Mitchell
Baltimore
10-17-2007, 06:45 AM
#13
Senior Member
My Feedback: (55)
RE: Skylark 70
Mike B.
A few questions please - I also read your review and the Skylark is now one of several that I am considering, the Skylark, GP Super Skybolt or the Dragon Lady. The more I think about it the less sure I am of which should be next. My present plane is a GP RV-4. Your review left me with the feeling that you genuinely enjoyed the Skylark. I do have a concern about a 14" propeller clearance on the Skylark as I plan to use one of my Saito 91 engines for the power plant and I fly from grass. I am in love with the Super Skybolt and the Dragon Lady is pure pleasure to look at. I want the next one to become another favorite. So - there you have it, any help would be well received.
Howard
On the coast of central Florida
A few questions please - I also read your review and the Skylark is now one of several that I am considering, the Skylark, GP Super Skybolt or the Dragon Lady. The more I think about it the less sure I am of which should be next. My present plane is a GP RV-4. Your review left me with the feeling that you genuinely enjoyed the Skylark. I do have a concern about a 14" propeller clearance on the Skylark as I plan to use one of my Saito 91 engines for the power plant and I fly from grass. I am in love with the Super Skybolt and the Dragon Lady is pure pleasure to look at. I want the next one to become another favorite. So - there you have it, any help would be well received.
Howard
On the coast of central Florida
10-17-2007, 09:35 AM
#14
RE: Skylark 70
Tough choice. I'm not familliar with the Dragon lady, so I'll reserve comment except to say that it sure does look nice.
Skybolt or Skylark... I really like them both but they are two very different planes. The Saito 91 will pull both of them nicely, although I did get a lot of grass stains on the Skylark prop.
They both have similar flying characteristics, But the Skybolt, being a Bipe has a bit more drag, but it's a bit more aerobatic. The Skylark is a bit smoother and precise.
My Skylark will be living about 50 miles south of you by next week in Port St. Lucie. If you like, I could put you in touch with my brother and you could take a drive down and see it fly.
Skybolt or Skylark... I really like them both but they are two very different planes. The Saito 91 will pull both of them nicely, although I did get a lot of grass stains on the Skylark prop.
They both have similar flying characteristics, But the Skybolt, being a Bipe has a bit more drag, but it's a bit more aerobatic. The Skylark is a bit smoother and precise.
My Skylark will be living about 50 miles south of you by next week in Port St. Lucie. If you like, I could put you in touch with my brother and you could take a drive down and see it fly.
10-17-2007, 01:30 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Whale Tail, RI
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Skylark 70
"Skylark 76".....circa 1980. Dad's first scratch build R/C plane @ age 60. 135% version of the popular Skylark, it flew for several years with a Kraft 61, was re-kitted twice and now sports an 80" wing with an OS 61 SF turning a 3 blade prop for power (and ground clearance!). Very very rarely flown anymore, but just a big plane with NO bad tendencies. Touch and goes are a dream, in fact after the touch with low idle and easing back on the stick she'll start flying again. Stalls are nonexistant.
Maybe if and when the new Skylark 70 shows up around our field we'll fly it more regularly.
Maybe if and when the new Skylark 70 shows up around our field we'll fly it more regularly.
10-17-2007, 05:06 PM
#16
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Baltimore,
MD
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Skylark 70
Rube,
Are you Carl's son? If so, what history can you tell us about the different Skylarks? Did you Dad design these planes? Tell us more!
Thanks!
Are you Carl's son? If so, what history can you tell us about the different Skylarks? Did you Dad design these planes? Tell us more!
Thanks!
10-17-2007, 07:40 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Whale Tail, RI
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Skylark 70
Oh no no no.........
No relation to Carl Goldberg, in fact Rube Goldberg is just my "handle" around here. Ifin you don't know the history of Rube Goldberg, you oughta look it up......
No relation to Carl Goldberg, in fact Rube Goldberg is just my "handle" around here. Ifin you don't know the history of Rube Goldberg, you oughta look it up......
10-18-2007, 05:13 AM
#19
Senior Member
My Feedback: (55)
RE: Skylark 70
ORIGINAL: MinnFlyer
Tough choice. I'm not familliar with the Dragon lady, so I'll reserve comment except to say that it sure does look nice.
Skybolt or Skylark... I really like them both but they are two very different planes. The Saito 91 will pull both of them nicely, although I did get a lot of grass stains on the Skylark prop.
They both have similar flying characteristics, But the Skybolt, being a Bipe has a bit more drag, but it's a bit more aerobatic. The Skylark is a bit smoother and precise.
My Skylark will be living about 50 miles south of you by next week in Port St. Lucie. If you like, I could put you in touch with my brother and you could take a drive down and see it fly.
Tough choice. I'm not familliar with the Dragon lady, so I'll reserve comment except to say that it sure does look nice.
Skybolt or Skylark... I really like them both but they are two very different planes. The Saito 91 will pull both of them nicely, although I did get a lot of grass stains on the Skylark prop.
They both have similar flying characteristics, But the Skybolt, being a Bipe has a bit more drag, but it's a bit more aerobatic. The Skylark is a bit smoother and precise.
My Skylark will be living about 50 miles south of you by next week in Port St. Lucie. If you like, I could put you in touch with my brother and you could take a drive down and see it fly.
I would enjoy talking to and meeting your brother down in Port St Lucie to see the Skylark fly - thanks. I am beginning to favor the Skybolt as my next project. I had a Lou Andrews Aeromaster back in the early 70's and really had a good time with it. This week end I am working in the TX impound for a vintage RC fly in and I am sure I will see several Skylark 56's.
The reviews are a real help in deciding what direction to take and what equipment seems to work well - we all appreciate them. I read both the Skybolt and the Skylark review that you wrote.
Thanks
Howard
