ben flyn

Just maidened my Skylark 56 today (see in ARF section) and it flys so well. So does my Kaos. What newer designs fly as well as these 2 models?????

BTW I have an old Senior Falcon, that is also a great flier.

CCRC1

My Feedback: (13)

Look hard at the Top Flight Contender, but it is not available as an ARF, just a kit.
Most of the new designs today are focused on the 3D flying style. Fast flying, fly on the wing, graceful, smooth, fly on rails airplanes are not in demand. Look at the majority of the questions asked on this site about new airplanes. Will it Hover, will it torque roll, will it harrier and a oh yea, how big an engine do I need to make it hover???
Because the tried and true Vintage sport/pattern airplanes of the 70's and 80's do not exhibit this type of flying characteristic, they have fallen by the wayside. Its a shame to because they really do fly excellent with todays more reliable engines and newer radios.
Congrats to Goldberg for bringing back an old tried and true favorite.

kdheath

Older designs are attractive because they look and fly like airplanes. Most new stuff either looks like a CAP/Ultimate/Extra (meaning costly look-alikes) or looks like some half-starved refugee from a toy store. Blechh.

quint-rcu

My Feedback: (24)

I offer the Sig Somethin' Extra, the U-Can-Do-3D and the World Models T-34 as better flyers overall (I've had a Skylark 56 and a Kaos in the past). Most of today's pattern designs also top them for precision aerobatics. I liked ben flyn's other post of a fine looking skylark and I really like the underside of his wing. It's good to revisit neat planes.

I scratch build scale, yet own quite a few ARFs. - There were good flyers and dogs back when and there are still both today, it's just that there is more variety now. If you really think back to the days of the Heathkit (dial-a-crash) radios, the planes had to be easy fliers as compared to todays more 'unstable' but more aerobatic planes that take advantage of the newer control and engine capabilities.

quint

dicknadine

guess the Pride and Joy of the scratch designing , building and flying our creations are loseing favor with the guys. out of the box HOT RODS seems to be todays way to go. OLD TIMERS start to rebel and get back with it. dick

CCRC1

My Feedback: (13)

The U-Can-Do (.46 or .60) cannot match the speed of the older designs because of its large control surfaces. I am not knocking the airplane as a 3D machine, but even the manual tells you not to fly it it high speeds. I bought one right after they were released hoping it would fly like similar to a Kaos. Disappointed, I sold it 3 weeks after I got it.
I agree that the modern designs in the pattern area are excellent aircraft, but look at the price tag on them. Very few competitors are using .40 to .60 size aircraft (1.40 YS seems to be the preferred engine) and the majority of them are composite construction. You will spend as much on a modern pattern ship as you will on a 33% 3D machine.
I have heard good things about the Widebody .40 and .60 sized aircraft but I have never flown one or personally seen one fly. Look in the pattern section for some feedback on the Widebody.

BobHH

My Feedback: (18)

I believe that the earlier designs had quite a bit of stability built into the design. This could be attributed to the reliability of the radio gear at the time or the background of the various designers. Most of the early designers started off with free flight or such so the ability to design a self stabilizing design came naturally. People have asked me what make my older designs fly so well in all types of weather and conditions. I still have to point to the built in stability from single channel to multi. Those older guys were very talented and must have had plenty of patience!! My favorite maneuver with my Sr Falcon is to line her up for a full power low pass down the middle of the field about 2 feet high. Then hold the transmitter up in the air as she flies the complete length of the field straight as an arrow with no input at all. I have not found any one having a model so stable as to perform this feat. Its good to see some of the old design back even as an ARF!

Bob Harris
Early RC Models
www.earlyrcmodels.com

ballgunner

My Feedback: (1)

When I started flying power in the 30's the drill was to get as many RPM's as possible, give the model a shove and hope the wind didn't take it too far away. Those airplanes were designed to fly themselves under less than perfect conditions. No RC. That was just a dream. The reason the older designs fly so well with RC is that they would probably fly almost as well without any type of radio. I'm not knockin' RC, I love it. Some of my designs would probably still fly free flight but chasing them isn't the fun it used to be.

8178

My Feedback: (17)

I think most all of the newer R/C aircraft look like the old 80s vintage Lanier Stinger with tapered wings so nothing is ever new. I think the Lanier Stinger was a great aircraft but I don’t understand why everyone wants to copy it. And does anyone know what the heck is the deal is with all the stupid tail wheels. I’ll take my Kwik Fli taper wing or Kaos or a Skylark over any of them. Thank god for Carl Goldberg and all he has bestowed on us. I’m sure is looking down on us with his big smile!

ben flyn

AMEN to that!!!!!!!

jdcool4

My Feedback: (3)

i have flowen the kadet LT 40 an its very stable in flight it dont like to land it jus floats along an i have a cap 232 sport that drops like a rock if you go to slow but i had a old jester by lanier that flew great

papermache

My Feedback: (35)

Ben,
It's true that the older designs fly better because many of them were originally or were one generation removed from Free-Flight. Their inherent stability made them good flyers. The reason they fly so well today has a whole lot to do with the equipment we have today as opposed to then.
if you don't believe me, think back a bit. Remember "rudder-only" flying with a rubber-powered escapement? Remember tuning a reed set (if you had the money to afford one)? Remember glow plugs that didn't? Those were the days when you were ecstatic if you got your plane down in one piece somewhere on the field.
Next time you get nostalgic for the "good old days", remember to play the tape all the way to the end. Then maybe you'll be thankful for cheap, fully proportional, multi channel radios and engines that actually start and run well.

papermache

ben flyn

Yep Your right! It's sure a pleasure to fly in today's world than yester-year! I guess I started this thread to get more manufactures to build some of the great models.

50+AirYears

Best of both worlds. Yesterdays planes with todays engines and radios. Better looks and reliability at the same time.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

It is Romance !

I am loaded up with kits that I couldn't afford when I was younger.

Thanks to Ebay and this machine here, I can go back and relive my youth, only richer.

I fel in Love with my Ercoupe and its history and the story of Fred Wieck, the man that designed it for the Erco engine company in 1937 !! What a story, what an airplane.

I love airplanes with a story !! It is romance I tell you !!

Wasn't Carl Goldberg a genius. I read about him in few NASA tech briefs years ago. And Glen and Hazel Sig. Those were real airplane people. You felt good about buying thier kits . Pica just closed thier doors, so I hear. That Is just awful..I just built thier T28 a couple of years ago. One of the country's last great kit companies out of business.

I'm building Glen Sig's Bonanza right now. It scored very high in the 78 Nats. You or I or anyone could go buy the very kit that wowwed the Nats. How great is that?

Airplanes mean different things to different people. To me, in my life in the dawn of aviation, or at least in its first century, airplanes and flight attracted some amazing characters. I have read dozens of autobiographies of the men and women that expanded the realm of flight in the early 20th century. That period is pure romance. The planes mean so much. The stories are so rich .

Nothing against Patty Wagstaff, I think she is great. But there are way to many Extra's at the field and not enough people that know who Jimmy Doolittle was, or Eddie Richenbacker or Bob Hoover or dozens of other important figures. The stories, if they knew them would cause them to set there CAP232's on fire and go build an Orion or a Lockheed Air Express or a Vega, if they heard of Wiley Post.

WE NEED TO TEACH THESE KIDS HISTORY.

smacfe

Every few years I build another KAOS just to remind myself of how these airplanes flew. In fact I just recetly crashed my latest one - hit a lamppost doing one of those horizon to horizon knife edges!! And therein lies the difference. The old airplanes were designed when aerobatics was defined by the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds. Precision and smoothness (ie. stability) was the important factor, and flying styles focused on conservation of momentum. We worshiped Bob Hoover for doing rolls with a glass of water undisturbed on the glareshield of his Shrike Commander. Pattern contests in the '70's were actually exciting to watch when the "Inspection Pass" was part of the pattern. How cool was it to see Don Lowe do a mile long slow roll with a Phoenix 5, or Jersey Jim Martin do the Serrated Knife Edge with a Banshee, or Norm Page's unbeleiveable slow motion 4 point roll at the '73 Nats with his Mach 1. Where's my Rossi dammitt!!!
Today, aerobatics is based on the Aresti box which stresses snap maneuvers and INSTABILITY! Now, the most exciting thing at a pattern contest is watching the grass grow. Fortuneately there is pylon racing, where aircraft stability and smooth flying are the goal. A well trimmed Q40 flies like these old airplanes, albeit at 185 mph! But as long as the eyes hold out we can still give the youngsters a run for the money!!

8178

My Feedback: (17)

You can still enjoy the best pattern aircraft ever made and flown at http://www.seniorpattern.com/ Let the dream live on!

xplayer930

hmm, so what ur saying is that the new planes stink and 2days pilots have no skill. I wanna see one of you guys take a $2500 plane get it into a hover, then torque roll it 6 inches off the ground, its tougher than it looks. AN on top of that my 35% giles isnt an arf its a hand built work of art. I hear so much garbage at my filed cuz i fly 3D.

papermache

My Feedback: (35)

Xplayer,
I just read through this whole thread again to see if I missed something. I saw absolutely no reference detrimental to the skills of today's pilots, and most of the references to the 3D type planes of today are of a comparative nature. Sure, you'll always get somebody who thinks everything that's different than what he flys stinks, but I think that most of these guys were simply comparing pattern styles and bemoaning the way things have changed over the past few years.
I fly sport, old-timer and scale. I don't hover anything, nor do I have the intention of doing so. My preference, that's all. If I had $2500 to spend on this hobby, I would probably end up with 2 nice sport scale planes that don't hover. Again, my preference. I'm glad you have a hand-built plane, and I hope you built it. I build all of mine. Again, preference.
Again, I wouldn't say anything against the skills of today's flyers because I AM ONE OF THEM!!! So are all the other people who answered this thread.
Next time read the whole thing before you jump to conclusions.

papermache

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Most 2day pilots are still flying trainers. Usually takes about a week to 3D.

ben flyn

Sure can! Let me fly yours[X(]!

ELTIGRE

i would roger that about teaching history. believe it or not a large percentage think the US started WWII -and lost!!! 3 D is ok ---if thats what you like . but the points about the skills of the designers of yesterday is well taken. goldberg had great flying planes (if a bear to build sometimes) Sig designs and the company philosophy hardly needs an intro--except perhaps to younger flyers? and Pica (started by the scale god himself -Dave Platt, are part of modeling history that should not be lost . as to wether they actualy flew BETTER, is subject to some interpretation. many scale jobs (the rare ones that actually were built)back then did not fly too well in many cases. today with out knowlege of techniques and glues etc etc, different story. it is fun to try the old designs with modern stuff just for the memories.

sajjad

I started building model aircrafts since 1957. We mostly had kits from UK. Companies like KeilKraft and Frog etc built them. They were lighter aircrafts without any radio control anf just kept on soaring. Material used for covering was tissue paper which we shrank with water and later brushed it with dope or a clear acrylic. It also took much longer to build as well because we did not have super glue or epoxy at that time. Cement took hours to dry and you had to wait long before starting on the next step. I still have some old books from that era. Some show pictures of radio control systems using tiny vaccum tubes and bulky batteries. There are some small plans as well.

Does anyone have web addresses of model suppliers in UK?.

skylarkmk1

Hi guys, skylarkmk1 here. As you might guess, my first multi channel (3) plane after soloing was the Goldberg Skylark original, with semi-symmetrical airfoil, lots of dihedral. Rudder, Elevator and Throttle with an Enya .35 (low compression head) and later an Enys .45. I flew this plane until I could not get the mono-coat to stick anymore and was forced to retire it. I could bring it tail low, touch the mains, go the length of the runway and take back off with out touching the nose wheel. Alternately I would take it up to flyspeck height, shut the engine down and trim for large circles and just let it find its own way in the sky as a glider. I would correct for drift every so often or do a dead stick loop and/or roll just for fun and then land it on the runway. I flew it a lot and was totally familiar with it and even won some fun fly contests with it.
Later I built a Mark II Skylark (symmetrical airfoil, sharper L.E., less dihedral, etc.). While it looked nearly the same, used the same engine and radio, it did not fly the same. It would not slow down like the MkI, nor glide as well. It would roll better (aileron), taxi better (steerable nose wheel) and many thing better, but it was not as much fun to fly. I had more fun with a Bridi "El Camino" (a Kaos look alike) and a high wing plane called the "Hoss Fly". I still have the MkII but do not fly it much (every few years maybe). I also have built more than one of the Jr Falcon and the Jr Skylark as 2-3 channel and have had more fun with them than the MkII.
I guess what I am saying is that not all upgrades or modernization of an existing plane are good. I would like to see the symmetrical airfoil brought back with upgraded construction to lighten (wider fuselage, conventional D-tube wing, no maple engine mounts, longer landing gear, no inset center sheeting on the wing, etc.). Drop in one of todays newer radios with their lighter weight and a good sport ".40" (.32 to.46 or electric) and I think we would have a winner. Not for 3D, but for sport or as an advanced trainer. Guess I am going to have to dig into the balsa pile and scratch build a new MkIA.

big max 1935

My Feedback: (9)

The plane that comes to mind for me is the old Top- Flite Contender ,built two of the original ones that were both .60 powered & were really a winner in our South Dakota winds . Built the new released one when it first came out & was shocked at the parts count ,what a pain with every thing built up ,where was the good old sheet balsa surfaces? Lite-ply & sticks ! If I wanted to build a old timer I would have dug the plans out to a Powerhouse . A lot of the older designs used a LOT of thick balsa sheet & blocks with a little real plywood thrown in . They could take the rough landings & the winds with out any trouble at all . The old Kaos , Quick fly , Contender & the Lancer all built fairly fast & to me could not be improved on for doing what they were designed to do & that was have fun! MAX H.