So, I've accomplished (and when I say accomplished, I mean I've had some crashes, but nothing that stopped me from flying for the day) my Duraplane Dura Trainer. I'm working on the Goldberg Tiger 60, and I'm about 1/3 of the way thru the kit. I'm here fishing for some advice, because I know there's a plethora of information on here that I can use to properly build this kit, maybe learn from some mistakes, and get some advice on transitioning from my Duraplane to the Tiger 60 as far as flying goes. Thanks in advance!!

I guess I really didnt understand your true question. The kit is really a straight forward build and a very good airplane. I believe you could actually learn to fly on this airplane instead of a trainer, given the proper engine. The only problem I know of is that the tail is heavy as built per the instructions. Now I used a Saito 91 four stroke in mine and it was a wonderful flying airplane. I would recommend that you use a 4/40 rod for the elevator as I got in a high speed dive and while pulling out the doglegged 2-56 wire sraiightened out and you guessed it----- Big crash. You will love it. It might be possible to cut some circle holes out of the heavy horizontal stab and still be strong enough. Its your choice.

Well I didn't really have one true question. I was hoping maybe to just get as many inputs as possible from anyone who's had experience with this model. Your comment about the plane being tail heavy is exactly along the lines I was talking about recieving from everyone. I appreciate it. I was thinking of building this model as a tail dragger, but if the tail is already expected to come out heavy, I think I'll stick with the Tricycle.
Thanks

I actually had a Fultz double wire strut on mine and a fours stroke and had to add lead weights to mine. I believe the tail dragger is much more fun to fly and less trouble though. Why not add a larger battery pack in the nose or something like that which is usefull rather than a lead weight. You will love the airplane. Maybe move the servos etc a little forward. I had a friend who also built one and the same result. Tail heavy. Now maybe ligher wood in the elevator.

Well, some advice I got from some fellows at the field is that the tail section, mainly the area just before the elevator and rudder may be too thin to support the plane as a taildragger. I figured I'd add some re-inforcment inside with some fiberglass. With Mounting the servos farther foward, and I use a helicopter battery pack and eleminating the linkage to the nose wheel, I could possibly over come the tailheaviness. I thought about using pull-pull on the elevator and rudder.

I wouldnt add any more material in tail except a small piece of lite plywood for the tail wheel bracket to attach to. My friend had a tail dragger and it worked well. I will attach a pic of it for you to see it will be ok. Remember lite is better!

I really appreciate this input. Very nice looking picture. One question. will the original location of the main landing gear still allow the airplane to rest on the tail wheel if built in the taildragger configuration, or was the main gear bent or re-located for the tail dragger configuration to work.

Relocate the the landing gear so that the center line of the landing gear wheels are at the leading edge of the wing.

HOpe this helps.

I had no problems with the plane being tail heavy, I built it as designed with a nose wheel, and powered it with an OS 90FS.

Quote:

It might be possible to cut some circle holes out of the heavy horizontal stab and still be strong enough. Its your choice.

When I built mine (last winter) the Horizontal stab was built-up, and not heavy at all.

A few things I would like to mention are, first, taper the rudder and elevators. It makes a much nicer look. And if your kit was like mine, the small sections of trailing edge stock that are used on the wing (everywhere except where the ailerons are) were too thin to mate up with the wing, So I just added some 1/16th sheeting to thicken them up a bit.

Also, I eliminated the torque rod between the elevators, and used a seperate pushrod for each side.

I sure agree on the two aileron servo requirement. Glad to hear the horizontal stab is now built up. My experience was with the older kit. Looks like they have fixed it! I always wondered what it would fly like with the outer wing sections removed. Like a clipped wing cub? Anyone ever do that?

Has any one had any trouble with the main gear coming through the wing on a hard landing? If so how did you reinforce the gear blocks? I am at the point of sheeting the wing, and if I need to add anything, I would rather do it now. Thanks in advance, Loren

My yes, I forgot that one. I made a set of lite ply ribs where they support the landing gear block. Another friend told me to do that and I never had any problems. I certainly had a few hard landings at that time also. Easy fix.

This site is great. I apprciate all the input I've gotten so far from everyone. SO, reinforce the landing gear. A tail dragger is definately feasible with a little relocation. I already have assembled the elevator with the torque rod in the middle to join the halves. So, I'd have to buy more stock to make a two piece elevator. I read on here that the wing hold down blocks should also have some reinforcement. Right now as I get a little farther along, I'm starting to think about the engine. Any Suggestions there?

I've never had a prob with the gear blocks, maybe that's something else they fixed. It's not too late to do the twin elevator thing, just cut the torque rod that you installed and put two threaded rods onto the elevator pushrod, then run a Nyrod for the rudder. That's how I did it.

As far as engines go, a 4-stroke 91 is SWEET!

Mine had a four stroke 91 Saito, never have to adjust anything and not too bad a price for what you get.

I was just looking at the Saito engine line lastnight. I was looking at the .70 series. I don't know about that .90. This is basically a second airplane again. But hey, if a little power is good, and alot of power is better, then too much is just right!!!

I still like the 90 Saito for it and its not too powerfu. Just right.

I plan to put a .61fx in mine. Will this do the plane justice? Loren

It will fly it but not like you probably want the plane to fly. I like a lot of power and therefore would opt for at least a 75 2 stroker or a 90 four stroker. Mine had a OS 60 plane bearing model originally but no power!!!!!!!!!!

I think I'm talked into a .90 sized Four Stroker. Most likely a Saito. I've heard alot of good thing about them, and I see 2 or 3 on a regular basis at my Club Field.
I was wondering, and maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but how about the flying characteristics? What's it like, and what is it capable and not capable of?

I have a Tiger 2 which is the little brother of the Tiger 60. I'll share some of the things I did with mine. (btw the maiden flight will probably be next Tuesday, or Thursday depending if I hurry or not.)

I didn't reinforce the landing gear like suggested, but I did epoxy it in. Reinforcing it lightly defiantly won't hurt it.

One thing I don't see mentioned is to defiantly reinforce the blocks that your wing bolts go into. I added some triangle stock to mine. It seems to be holding up well.

I also removed the wing tips like someone above suggested. Instead of using that triangle stock I just cut some 1/4" balsa and glued it on. Maybe this is a mistake, but I really don't think it will effect the plane that much. If it does affect it, it will probably be in a good way. If you guys want, I'll reply to this post after the maiden flight and let you know how everything went.

My Tiger flew very easily. It has good power and excellent reliability with the Saito 90 enigne. You never have to worry about a flameout. I always used 2 stroke fuel in mine. I never have used four stroke fuel as I dont think it has enough oil content. IN fact I think Saito and I know YS specifies more oil. YS will void warranty if the oil is less than 20 percent. I am not sure but Saito is 18 I believe. I know that works well anyway.

The plane flies so well it could be used as a trainer! Yet does good aerobatics and flies upside down with ease. Good luck you made a good decision.

I agree, you will love this plane. It handles almost like a trainer, but it will do some great tricks. The 90 4 stroke is a great choice too, although I would go with an OS

Thats a pretty sweet looking 60 Dickj.
I learned to fly on a Skytiger (the original Tiger) Actually my dad brother an I all learned on it.
I had a tiger 60. Only thing I did different than plans is made the wing about 1 rib shorter My final span was just under 70". Tried to make it a little quicker on the roll. I and really didn't lose any slow flight performance. Any way you slice it the Tiger series has all been excellent flying planes. Where I use to fly every one (the 4 or 5 guys left) had either a tiger 60 tiger II or several of each.

Do any of you still have plans for a Tiger or SkyTiger? I actually like the looks of the SkyTiger the best but will build either one. I know they have rekitted this airplane but I really want to scratch build an airplane and feel that the lines on the Tiger series are fairly straight forward for a first time scratch build.

Thanks,
Jim