bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

Hi all, I'm interested in some flight characteristic comparisons between these two vintage pattern ARFs. I'd especially appreciate any comments or feedback from pilots who have flown both of these specific ARFs.

JCINTEXAS

Big Ed,
I am currently flying the Tower .40 Kaos with an OS .46AX It's an honest airplane with no bad habits. My only complaint is that the trim is starting to peel off the monokote. I sealed the edges with clear urethane, but it's peeling anyway. It's a good flyer but it needed the CG moved back about 1/2 inch from where the instructions said. I also would have like just a wee bit more room for radio installation. Can't tell you anything about the Skylark since I've never had one.
Hope this is useful info.
Regards
JC
"I've got 3-green"

Bob Paris

My Feedback: (13)

Hay bigedmustafa,
I've had both, and I've built and flown the SkyLark 56 for almost 30 years. I love the SkyLark, and it's a step up from the pure high wing trainers. The Kaos is a step up from the SkyLark, and a Birdi aerobatic trainer of sorts.

The SkyLark is a sweet flying machine, and in the older kits, they had a twin conversion in the kit. I've flown the SkyLark 56 with a K & B .40 and with OS Max .15's and .10's as a twin. I even made a stand off scale four engine ( OS Max .10's) Connie out of the kit. The wing secion is the same with the Falcon 56 and SkyLark 56...and both are very sweet flying airframes. I can't say enough good about the SkyLark 56, but I have no hands on experience with the ARF now sold.

Actually both are great models, with the SkyLark a good second plane to experience.

Soft landings always,
Bobby of Maui

bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

Thanks for the feedback so far to both Bobby and JC. I get the impression that the Kaos 40 ARF from Tower is a bit faster and more neutral of an airframe while the Skylark 56 ARF is more of a second airplane. I also get the impression from reading user comments and reviews of both ARFs that the Skylark 56 comes with better covering and may prove the more durable of the two ARFs.

I have a nice selection of sport planes in my hangar, and I was hoping for a more neutral, pattern style flyer. I am concerned about the reports of trim peeling off the Kaos 40 ARF so easily. I was hoping the Skylark 56 ARF would offer the same flying characteristics but with better covering; it sounds like the Skylark 56 isn't as fast or as neutral handling as the Kaos 40 ARF, however.

I'm looking for a good, everyday .40-size ARF that is more advanced than your typical "second" airplane, but without the fuss of a modern F3A plane with wheel pants and a cowling and whatnot. If anybody has a better suggestion than a Kaos .40 ARF with plenty of packing tape to hold down the trim, I'm all ears.

nrthwing

The skylark is a better built plane and flies better as well. The wing is thinner making it faster than the Kaos. And I believe the fuse is longer, giving it a more pattern like feel.

Mike

JCINTEXAS

Big Ed,
Have you seen the Streamline .50?
http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/n...roduct_id=2372

Streamline Pattern - The Streamline Pattern is a sleek and graceful sport/aerobatic aircraft, capable of the full gamut of maneuvers flown at pattern meets or IMAC events. A great practice airplane for those in competition, and a wonderfully smooth flying craft for the average R/C pilot. It has almost no coupling, and flies beautifully without loads of mixing required on other similar aircraft.
Specifications:
- Wingspan: 55 in (1400 mm)
- Length: 57-1/2 in (1460 mm)
- Wing Area: 703.7 sq. in
- Flying weight: 5 lbs
- Engine Required: .46-.52 2c, .52-.70 4c (not included)
- Wing Loading: 19 oz/ft
- Radio required: 4 Channels

bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

That is interesting feedback, Mike. Bobby of Maui indicated that the Kaos is the faster of the two airframes and describes the Skylark as more of a low-wing trainer. Obviously the flight envelope of both planes can vary quite a bit depending upon power and setup.

Skylark 56 ARF:

Wingspan - 56"
Length - 47.75"
Flying Weight - 5 to 6lbs.

Kaos 40 ARF:

Wingspan - 55"
Length - 48.5"
Flying Weight - 5.5 to 6lbs.

On paper, these planes seem more similar than different. I also know that the covering on the Skylark 56 ARF is better than the covering on the Kaos 40 ARF. What I don't know is whether the Skylark flies more like a pattern plane or a typical sport plane. I suppose I could buy one and fly it to find out for sure.

JCINTEXAS - I have indeed seen the Streamline 50 ARF. It is a nice looking airframe and very reasonably priced. I already own a Phoenix Seabee and a Thunder Tiger Imagine 50, however, and I was looking for a pattern plane without a cowling or wheel pants to fly from a relatively rough grass field. The Streamline 50 has both wheel pants and a cowling.

skylane42

My Feedback: (53)

Just as a point of interest.. the Kaos is a novice pattern/sport aerobatic designed for getting into pattern type competition. The Skylark is a advanced trainer/beginner aerobatic design. The Kaos uses a symetrical airfoil where the Skylark used a Clark Y airfoil which is a high lift type wing. You will be able to fly a Kaos inverted much easier than the Skylark. The Skylark will be more forgiving in the air than the Kaos.

Both are great flyers but you need to look at what type of flying you want to do. Yes they both will loop and roll but the one will do it better and easier than the other.

Crazy4Flight

My Feedback: (540)

I have flown both as kit built planes. And prefered the skylark.

Note the Skylark ARF has the same wood engine mounting rails as the original kit. Just what I saw at LHS.

My 1st skylark had K&B .45 Sportster. flew it off the private road in frong of my house. Chop the power and it sinks, haul back on elevator and set it into a nice flare for landing.

2nd Skylark kit built to 2nd hand and a .46FX hauled it around with authority. Sold it to a buddy who flew it for a couple of years till all the glue in it wore out.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Big Ed, in [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_6774839/tm.htm]this thread[/link] you're complaining that companies aren't making kits, now you're looking for a great sport flier in the ARF forum.

Do yourself a favor and snag one of those Ultra Sport 40's - It's the best sport plane EVER - period! (Exclaimation point)

Sherman

It's been years since I've flown the Skylark, but remember it as having been a good flyer. I am currently flying a Kaos, and I fly it a lot ( I'm retired, so fly often). I do not understand the bad rap that some give the Kaos. The covering is fine, despite those that say it is necessary to immediately strip off the covering and recover. This is simply not true. Also, the Kaos is very well built and rugged. It can take lots of rough landings, and is very aerobatic. A super plane in all respects. The only valid criticism of the Kaos is that some of the pin stripes can come loose (oh heavens to Betsy). I have a hunch that either the Skylark or the Kaos would be a good choice.

grassroots

I had a Kaos and it flew great.

I recovered mine out of the box, because the applied Tower Kote would pull away from the edges when trying to shrink the wrinkles out.

Of course all coverings will pull some, but this stuff came loose especially easy.

I have read several acounts of where the Tower Kote brand covering is not liked because it comes loose with use.

I have one model with loose China Kote in the hanger now when it's gone I am done with the cheap covered ARF's...

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

The Kaos 40 truly does possess pattern plane flight characteristics and will do all of the maneuvers from the pattern list of maneuvers of its original era. The Skylark will not. Spins and snaprolls are tough to perform with the Skylark, but only because the sizes of the rudder and elevator are a tad small. The latter turns out to be a nice characteristic for those that have just graduated from their original high wing trainer. This is not to say that the Skylark is not enjoyable to fly, it is, and it has a very nice personality all of its own. Both are top performers from a fun to fly aspect, as far as I'm concerned. Yes, I have owned and flown several examples of both models. That alone should tell you something.

While the Skylark will land a bit slower than the Kaos, the Kaos has a gentler, albeit slightly faster, stall. The Kaos also provides a bit more control at low speed and will easily land nose high, a typical Kaos characteristic that looks so nice.


Ed Cregger

Free Bird

I've been flying the Skylark ARF for a few months now. It's biggest shortcoming is the lack of rudder authority for stall turns, other than that it flies the pattern very well and would do well in sportsman. Mine is powered by a Tower 46 and the airframe really moves out. Spins and snaps are very easy to do, no problem there! I wouldn't consider the ARF version of the Skylark an advanced trainer/beginner trainer. To me it's an equal to the Kaos ARF.

bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

Have no fear, MinnFlyer, I have an Ace Whizard kit and a GP Rapture 40 kit both lined up for winter projects. I guess there's no reason I couldn't just build myself a US40, other than I probably won't have time for a third kit before springtime. I'll try to get an Ultra Sport 40 kit ordered before you and RC Ken snap up the last of them again.

I'm surprised that I keep reading such varying reports on the Skylark's flight characteristics. I do appreciate everybody's input!

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

Perhaps the variance in Skylark reports is due to a generational thing, of sorts.

When I flew Skylarks, very late Sixties and early Seventies, we avoided rearward balance point positions for fear of an inadvertent snaproll on landing. Don't forget (you probably haven't) that radios cost the equivalent of a month's pay back then, unlike today.

By moving the balance point rearward, the hesitation to snaproll and spin are considerably reduced. Folks today run balance points much further rearward than we did when radios cost a fortune.


Ed Cregger

Ed_Moorman

My Feedback: (1)

Here's the history of the planes, as I recall it.

The Skylark was originally a low wing version of the Falcon 56 and had the same semi-symmetrical airfoil. Later on, in the 1980s, as I remember, it picked up a symmetrical airfoil. It was really never meant to be anything except a second airplane that flew like the Falcon, but gave the pilot some low wing and aileron experience. Remember, the original Falcon 56 did not have ailerons.

The Kaos came out in 1970. It was a Joe Bridi design and was a follow on to his Sun Fli IV. It had a thicker airfoil, a longer fuselage and a sub fin. It had wood engine mounts with 3 degrees of right and down thrust and had cheek cowls. It became the #1 selling patterm plane in the US. As retracts became available, he did a slight redesign into the Super Kaos with a deeper nose for the nose gear retract and a slight reposition of the wing. At the same time, he cowled the nose and lost the sub fin. It look pretty much like the Tower Kaos does today. I had 3 or 4 of them, powered by OS 60s, and it improved my flying a great deal.

The follow-ons to the Kaos were the Dirty Birdy which went back to the thinner wing, then the UFO which had the thicker wing.

Some time in here, Joe's partner in the cabinet shop dies and he was forced to sell to pay off the widow, as I understand. Hobbico bought the lot. They got bad press for renaming the plane a Tower kit as they had done with the Andrews kits. After this, Hobbico/Great Planes has kept the original manufacturer's name. This way, they can also compete against themselves.

The Ultra Sport came out as a plan by Jim Feldmann in RC Modeler in about 1989. He stated in the article that he loved flying the Kaos, but wanted a more modern look to the fuselage. He added a turtledeck and forward canopy. Later on, after Great Planes did the kit, they swept the fin back.

I am attaching a page from my photo album of my modified Kaos I flew in 1972. It has the turtledeck and canopy. I copied the idea from a buddy in Ft Worth, TX, who flew his in 1971.

bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

Wow, thanks for the history lesson Ed! It's nice to hear this kind of information of how these designs have evolved over the years. Would you agree with MinnFlyer and RC Ken that the Ultra Sport is a better flying airframe than the Kaos?

Ed_Moorman

My Feedback: (1)

I would bet if both were set up alike and you flew them back-to-back, you probably wouldn't see much difference, if any.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

The original Skylark 56 lacked ailerons also. It was originally a rudder/elevator/motor (REM in the old days) model.

I do not remember the Skylark or Falcon going with a full symmetrical airfoil at any time. But my own building experience with both of these models was with the first versions (REM).


Ed Cregger

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

Big Ed, the Ultrasport IS a Kaos, but with an added turtledeck.

In windy weather precision flying, the Kaos will kick the Ultrasport's tail (less fuselage side area). For knife-edge flight, the Ultrasport kicks the Kaos' tail with more fuselage side area to provide lift. But, essentially, they are the same model.


Ed Cregger

WINANS

The Skylark ARF airfoils is not the same as the original Skylark kit airfoil. - I'd expect slightly different flight characteristics. ARF is more symmertrical, though I couldn't say that it is actually symmetrical. The Skylark kit was semi-symmetrical - likely a "curve of my shoe" rather than an actual Clark-Y.

shooboy

My Feedback: (52)

Well, I can't give you a comparison between the Skylark and the Kaos, but I can comment on the Kaos. I built and flew my own Kaos back in the day, 1983 to be exact, right before I joined the Navy. It was a great flyer and was great fun especially above half throttle when it transformed into a hot plane. I just got back into flying 2 years ago, and I wanted a Kaos once again. I was more than happy to see a Kaos ARF available. I've built and flown one and flown my buddy's and they have both been fantastic. His was powered with a great vintage Royal 45 and mine has an MVVS 45 with a tuned pipe. They both flew fast and were a riot, yet they slow down nicely for beautiful landings. I never have had problems with the covering or trim by the way. I've also had an Ultra Sport 40 that flew great also until I cartwheeled it last year when I hit a pilot safety fence. Have you maybe thought of trying to find a Sig Kougar ? Another great flying plane in this type of aircraft. I've got one in bind and fly condition with an Enya 45SS that I'd sell you if you were closer for $150 !!! I picked up a gorgeous Dirty Birdy last year, with e-Flite retracts and a Rossi 61 with a tuned pipe ! Plenty of power and speed, flys like it's on rails ! Nothing like a 100mph blast down the runway while being 5 feet off the deck !!! Shoo