Got it down to two choices also looking at prices so please don't upgrade me. Looking at either tiger 2 with os .46 ax or great planes big stick 60 with os.61 fx. Rally want to know pros and cons of each to make decision Thanks.

Im not much of a tiger 2 fan so I would say the big stick. To me the Tiger 2 is just not pretty, but thats just my personal preference.

A comparable plane you didnt mentioned is the SIG Four Star 40 or 60 the kit is real cheap like $80 but the ARF is a little high at $209. They fly and look GREAT!

A comparably priced plane that will fly better than the 2 you mentioned is the U CAN DO 40, its as easy to fly as a trainer on low rates but you can crank up the throws and do funfly/aerobatic/3D stuff that will far exceed the others. The 4 star is going to track and fly like a pattern plane, and very aerobatic as is the Big Stik. The U CAN DO is going to takeoff and land like a feather, doesnt track quite as well but flies like a trainer(better than a trainer) on low rates (12 degrees throw) or an aerobatic beast at high rate (45-60 degrees throw)

Just some alternatives for comparable/maybe better planes in your price range....


Mike East

The Tiger 2 is an excellent plane. As a matter of fact, I just converted one to a twin with 2 OS .46AX's.

Any of the planes mentioned will do you just fine. Normally, we recommend removing 1 rib on each side of the 4-Stars. They tend to be very trainer-like when kept stock and roll faster and more axial with the shorter wing, but don't lose any of their landing characteristics.

The Big Stick (any size) is also trainer like, especially with its dihedral. It will roll with rudder, making knife edge harder. It also tends to try to roll out of outside maneuvers. A better choice is the Ultra Stick 40 or 60 for about the same corresponding price. It still rolls in knife edge, but not as much. I keep a Big Stick for breaking in engines, but I put anhedral in the wings.

The Tiger 2 is a tri-gear whereas the 4-Star is a tail dragger. Both take off and land excellent. The Goldberg hardware is good. My Tiger Twin weighs 9 pounds with a 31 oz/sq ft wing loading!! It still lands nicely-fast, but no snapping tendencies. I have slowed it down to nothing at altitude and it still doesn't snap.

Bottom line is you can't go wrong with any of them.

Final note: The AX is an excellent engine. Forthe larger size, I'd get a .75 (GMS or Tower) or a .91 (Magnum, OS, ST) before I bought a .61.

Looks and flight wise I would go for the T2. Re: "The Tiger 2 is a tri-gear whereas the 4-Star is a tail dragger. Both take off and land excellent. The Goldberg hardware is good." < If the T2 kit is like the ARF then you have the kit will have the option of either trike or tsil dragger. Or start with trike and convert to tail dragger later.

My first thought was to ask what size plane are you already flying and where do you want to go. If you've already got a .40 size plane then staying in that size range lets you reuse engines, props, etc. This will save some money. However, if you want to move up to a larger size then .60 is certainly an option. For the engine choice, you could save some money if you went with the K&B .61 Twister instead of the OS. It's got similar power and weight, but quite a bit less money. It's model number 6170 on this page: http://www.mecoa.com/kb/aero/aircraft.htm

Tiger 2. Looks nicer, flies better & has more potential for bashing/upgrading (note Ed's twin). It doesn't have to be a trike -- it is an easy conversion to tail dragger & it flies even better (less weight & drag).

Which one do you like better! That is the queston to ask.

If you go with the stik, build the wing flat (no dihedral). It will be the most fun you will have. I have built many that way and they all fly great, have no tendancy to snap or roll or do anything bad, but they will do anything you throw at it in the maneuver category. My first choice of the two 10 times over. Put a second gear on it at the wing bay for floats and set the mains just under the front of the wing. It makes a better tail dragger than a trike, and has no bad tendancies on the ground, and rocks on floats!!!!

The tiger is fun, but the stik is more agile and handles better at low speed. It will do a lot of the maneuvers, but the stik will do them better.

Both are fun, but you gotta build the one you like the best. I will probably always have a stik ready to fly though. If you go that way and have questions about gear placement and stuff, yell and I will shoot you some pics. I even made glass gear with longer legs for the floats and longer props.

actually like both of them equaly but was worried about wheels being on the wings of t2 but I supposed they could be reinforced somehow. I theink trike is the way for me to go right now I am more comfortable since I learned on a nexstar. Will be keeping engine on trianer though already have electronics for next plane and they may be some times for me to just fly old trainer and relax. Thanks for all ya'll posts.

Knight: I have a tiger 60 and love it. True these planes don't have the best looking color schemes on them on the ground, but put it in the air and do a hammerhead, and it's the prettiest thing you've ever seen! Buy the kit and cover it the way you want (make your own scheme) I myself do not do kits, only ARF's, so I am at the mercy of the vendor when it comes to colors. The big stick 60 is also an excellent plane. I bought one for my brother for christmas and he put a Saito 100 on it and absolutely LOVES it. Both of these planes handle very well in windy conditions too. Either choice you make, you will be extremely satisfied.

Personally, I prefer the wheels on the wing. True, if you break it, the fix is a little more difficult, but then, you're not supposed to break it are you?

Plus, if you DO break it, remove some bottom covering, fix it, re-cover, and it looks good as new.

As far as comparison, the T2 is more stable than the Stik, but the stik is more aerobatic. And I would put the 4* somewhere between the two.

If you go with the T2 tail dragger version. The front landing gear bolts to a plywood plate that is mounted in the fuselage just in front of the wings. It means that the plane doesn't need the wings on to stand by itself.