Mr67Stang

Let the copy cats out...
http://www.texasrcplanes.com/explorerl1.html

CGRetired

My Feedback: (1)

Hey Stang.. that certainly does look like it, doesnt it.

Since I have all three Tigers.. Tiger II, Tiger 60, and Tiger 120, I can speak with certainty..
Dick.

krossk

My Feedback: (27)

Speaking from Tiger II and Tiger 60 build experience...
There's a slight difference in the shape of the front cheeks and the built-in engine mount is different,
but other than that it sure looks like a dead ringer to me.

bingo field

It is uncanny, but the wing is a little different, semi instead of fully symmetrical. The basic fuse shape is just about dead on. Somebody needs to buy one to see and comment on it, as it is about 30% discounted from the Tiger II.... Updated skin looks nice too.[8D]

bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

I think Nitro Models has this same ARF in both a .40 and a .60 size:





$69.99 for the .40 size and $79.99 for the .60 size

I think if I wanted a Tiger II/Tiger 60 on the cheap, I rather get a Kyosho Calmato Sport .40 or .60. Same covering problems as Nitro Models ARFs, but with better hardware!

The VMar Arrow ARF at $109.99 would also be a pretty good substitute; it's reputed to be one of Richmond RC's better ARFs.



The VMar Arrow looks like a cross between a Four Star and a Cloud Dancer. That sure as heck can't be all bad!

krossk

My Feedback: (27)

That second pic from Nitro Models has some definite differences. The fuse has a slightly different nose profile, different wing tips, the dorsal fin is shorter, the elevator is a single piece and the rudder does not extend below the elevator. But the first pic is a definite knock-off.

flyinrog

My Feedback: (1)

Well, they say now even Cessna wants royalties from RC models copying them....there never was a real tiger, what better to reason to copy?

Montague

I don't have any pictures, but there's a guy at my club who has a plane called a "Sonic" that also looks exactly like a TigerII, but has a different color scheme than all the above.

cracker39

I'm definitely considering buying this plane (it's Father's Day after all and I deserve a present even if I have to buy it myself). I'm a noobie and the guy teaching me to fly sent me that same link. I was planning to build a low wing tail dragger trainer with a semi wing that I designed, but I can't build it for $65.00 plus shipping. By the time I buy all the wood, covering and parts, I'll have spent more than that. Currently I'm on an Alpha 40 and this will be my 2nd plane. With the RX, chrystal, servos and batteries from servocity.com, it should come in around $165 total cost...NOT BAD AT ALL.

bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

If you want a really nice flying low-winger for an inexpensive price, please consider the World Models Super Sports 40 from Airborne-Models:



http://ecsvr.com/abm/shopexd.asp?id=63

For $79.99, the WM Super Sports will give you similar flying characteristics to the Tiger 2, and will likely come with better hardware and covering than a generic knock-off probably will.

cracker39

True, that's a good price and probably better model. But, the Explorer L has more wing surface and I need all the help I can get. Besides nearly all of them are made in China anyway...Both of these are.

bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

The Cadillac DeVille and the Dodge Neon might both be made in Detroit, but that doesn't make them the same car.

cracker39

The wife of the owner of Texas RC Planes, where I ordered the Explorer L, saw this thread this morning and the owner sent me a personal email to wish me a happy Father’s Day, thank me for ordering, and to tell me about the airplane and his company. Here is part of his email:

“The airplane is not a cheap airplane but is the same or even better quality of the $130 airplanes. The Lufkin area modelers club has flown this plane and it performs better than ever expected. The quality is excellent and the covering is as well or better than anyone's. Price is even better. As we are a new company with little overhead and ordering 40'hq container lots, we can pass the savings to our customers. This kit comes from CY models in china. They mfg. airplanes for U.S. companies with there own color designs.�

Mr67Stang

Alright, then. It sounds as though you have found a guy willing to verbally stand up for his product. Now it's up to you to, once you get the plane, tell us how it performs. And I do not mean after the first flight. Give it a good running of flights and see how it holds up to things like less than perfect landings and if the glue joints start to seperate due to engine vibration and such. I have mistakenly given praise to planes after flying it once or twice to find that it developed problems later but far to soon to be acceptable wear and tear.

cracker39

Good Points. I wish I could fly and review it and maybe will let my instructor fly it a few times to see how it performs and holds up. He says that I need a few more weeks (maybe months?) on my highwing trainer before I'll be ready for this one.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Well, the one from Texas RC may LOOK like a Tiger, but it has a semi-symmetrical airfoil - the Tiger is fully symmetrical

rcslim

MISTAKE ON WEB SITE, AND IS NOW UPDATED. WING IS SEMETRICAL. SO SORRY FOR MISTAKE.

Mr67Stang

Obviously cracker39 saw the post I made last night (17 June) to have responded like this but his post and my responce post have somehow disapeared???? I normally get an email from the moderators if a post was removed due to being inapropriate ore something but I received no such email. I think it's important here for those reading this thread to know that the folks at TexasRC actually contacted cracker39 wished him a happy Fathers Day and answered some of the questions that have come up here reguarding this plane. I will assume it was an RCU server glitch since I did not get an email from the moderators.

rcjetflyer0718-RCU

My Feedback: (1)

""This is the radio controlled, glow powered Almost-Ready-to-Fly Goldberg Tiger 2 ARF sport airplane kit.The wing sports a semi-symmetrical airfoil along with strip ailerons.The Tiger II promises to be a great second plane after a beginner learns to fly"

Direct quote from Tower web site

Its been a few years since I've own a Goldberg Tiger. I retired 2 of the Jr Tigers, both had been recovered 2-3 times. If they still offered the Jr Tiger I would buy another 1 in a second.
The reason for the post is I remembered the wing to be called a modified Clark Y Ive never heard it refered to as symmetrical.

bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

With apologies to the owners of http://www.texasrcplanes.com, I was thinking of our friends over at http://www.nitroplanes.com when I mentioned the World Models Super Sports .40 ARF along with the phrase, "better hardware and covering than a generic knock-off..."

Considering the reputation of the Super Sports 40, it's an amazing product for $79.99.

I will also be anxious to hear feedback about the CY Models ARF from http://www.texasrcplanes.com

acam37

My Feedback: (16)

I have one that I am building right now. Here is a side view of the wing. It looks symmetrical to me. One main difference between this ARF and the Tiger is you have a little more work to do to put it together, such as cut out the canopy and build the elevator and rudder pushrods. If you have put a few planes together, then you should have no problems with this one. It would probably be easier to use golden rod instead of the dowels, but I am going stock with this one to see how it holds up.

da Rock

The title of this thread is "is this a tiger II"

My TigerII has a semi-symmetrical wing.

Don41

I have seen precisely two ARFs since returning to the hobby 6 months ago (about a 25 year layover). I've always been a kit builder but volunteered to assemble a Phoenix Decathlon ARF. The kit's pathetic covering and sloppy assembly in general confirmed my preconceived notion about ARFs. I also volunteered to assemble the subject of this thread for my brother and I was very much surprised at the quality of the covering and model construction (what you can see) in general. How it flies? We have not yet tried it.

(Anyone that builds kits has to be wondering how they do it,,, I surely do.)

PS: Anyone about to buy that Phoenix Decathlon should note that I had to spend a LOT of time re-shrinking the highly wrinkled covering only to see it return to the previous wrinkled state ten days later,,, even though it had never been out in the sun.

BTW: Cheap or not I will still build my own _ even it it does cost three times as much (:-)

cracker39

Sacgate, you said "I also volunteered to assemble the subject of this thread for my brother and I was very much surprised at the quality of the covering and model construction (what you can see) in general."

Am I correct in that you were referring to the Explorer L in that statement? If so, I can agree with you . Based on my limited experience...I haven't done any actual building or covering yet...but the finish is really nice and the construction seems to be as gppd as in my Alpha 40 trainer...or maybe somewhat better as I don't see where any hot glue was used (like in my Alpha)...it looks like CA to me. The edges of the covering is tacked down nicely...no loose spots...and the covering is stretched tight. Overall, I'm impressed with what I got. I repeat...I couldn't build it from scratch for what I paid for it.

Mr67Stang

I assume this is an, "I just opened up the box and this is what I saw" report.??? No hot glue??? Okay, you've peeked my interest.