beto9

My Feedback: (1)

I bought a Goldberg Tiger 2 ARF. I like the "tigers" and wanted to have a smaller plane than the Tiger 60 to bring to the field.
The ARF is very complete... even the fuel tank comes assembled for a two line setup.
No real problems assembling it...
All finished, now, lets balance it...
D I S A S T E R ! ! ! ! ! !
The plane is soooo tail heavy that it makes you cry!
No error in construction, remember, is an ARF!
I was fitting it for an OS .50 FX. The instructions say to have the propeller backplate 4 1/8" from the firewall. This way it clears the sidewalls by about 1/4".
Well, I tried setting the engine farther and farther ahead until I run out of mounting bar.
Then I thought that maybe I could fit an OS .72 FS (4 cycle). Being heavier, it would work... Again, I run out of mounting stock.
So, now I have decided to go back to the .50 FX, mount it as far ahead as I can, add a ply backplate behind the mounts and still have to add weight, a lot, in the nose PLUS putting a heavy spinner (bronze) on the engine.
Yes, I tried everything, placing the receiver battery underneath the fuel tank.... nothing balances this beast.
When I built the Tiger 60 from a kit I noticed that it needed weights and a heavy spinner up front... but nothing compares to this plane.
I wonder... did Goldberg, back from the dumps, ever tested the construction of this ARF, which is new in their stable of models?
Albert

Ernie Misner

Hi Albert,

What we need to confirm is if the listed CG point is truly accurate. A couple of ideas here - is it on the spar or not? Does it call for a point that is 30% from the leading edge.... more or less than that? Run a search for the Tiger plane and see what others have done. I'm assuming you mounted the battery and receiver as far foreward as possible. Why don't you give Goldberg a call? Often we go through what you are going through only to find that it will fly like a noseheavy dog and then need to move the CG way back...!

Ernie

Denjones

I have the Tiger 2 ARF and the first time to the field our safety instructor/flight instructor wouldn't let me fly it because he thought the CG was off. I'll admit that with the fuel tank empty the tail dropped like a rock when stationary. I was so flustered because I thought I'd set it up properly! I stopped by the LHS and bought the GP CG checker and sure enough the CG was correct (making sure to check the low wing plane upside down). I took it back to the field and showed the instructor, fueled up the plane and sure enough the tail dropped while stationary but when taxiing (sp?) and flying, it's as true as my US40! Trust the instructions. Mine flies great w/o any additional weight using a OS46FX and a Tower muffler.

Ernie Misner

>>> I'll admit that with the fuel tank empty the tail dropped like a rock when stationary................

Hi Den,

I am confused. If the tail dropped like a rock, was the instructor using a different CG point than you were when you checked it???

Are you thinking that Beto9 is okay with being tailheavy if he has it on the factory marks and it is still tailheavy? We need to clarify at exactly what point the plane should balance properly.

Ernie

Denjones

It balanced perfectly upside down on the CG machine at the suggested distance. The difference was when it was sitting on its wheels. If the plane is balanced per the instructions it will fly great. My instructor didn't have the CG machine at first but just my word that it was set up correctly. When he saw the tail drop he paniced. I had to bring the CG machine to the field to prove to him that it was set up correct.

Ernie Misner

Hi Den - makes good sense. Thanks!

I take it you like your Tiger 2 with the 46. Is it aerobatic when you want it to be?

Ernie

Denjones

The Tiger 2 although it's listed as a low wing trainer is really enjoyable to fly. It can be pretty aerobatic but I've had trouble getting it to knife edge but I'm going to open up the control surfaces this spring. It flies true and straight and when you want to "wring" it out, it'll take what you can thow at it.

E75

My Feedback: (1)

If the Cg is correct, and the airplane flys well, but still drops the tail on the ground, it's the location of the main gear that makes it do that. My son's Eagle 2 trainer is very light on the nose gear when sitting on the ground. It's a Good Thing! When nosedragger planes have the main gear too far back, the planes don't rotate on takeoff as well. They have to get going much faster to get that nose up. They also slam that nose gear down on landing. That's one reason why Hobbico and Tower trainers are substandard when compared to Trainers like the Sig and the Goldberg .
As far as the Tiger 2 goes, if it seems tail heavy on the ground but good in the air, bend your main gear back a tiny bit until the plane will just about balance on the main gear with a very slight preference toward the nose. It will rotatate and land like a dream.

airwethead

I built the kit, but the ARF should fly the same. I was aware of the landing gear issues before I started the kit. Rather than mess with it, I just built mine as a taildragger. Check it out at:
http://www.angelfire.com/vt2/airwethead/tiger2.html
This plane is very forgiving on the CG. Mine is now WAAAY tailheavy, something I do not normally do, and the plane flies like a true aerobat, but lands like a low-wing trainer ought to.

glowplug

My Feedback: (1)

I had the same "tail dropping" on my Tiger 2......balance was fine, but the tail just wanted to drop. As somebody stated, the main gear is farther forward on the Tiger 2. To correct mine, I adjusted the nose gear so it was a bit shorter than the main gear, and the plane has a slight "rake" towards the nose........this is fine on paved runways, but I noticed on grass runways it's much more difficult for the plane to build up speed. I'm probably going to convert mine to a tail dragger soon.

Mike