I just finished a review of the Carl Goldberg Products Protégé ARF and I am so impressed with this plane that I thought it was worth mentioning here in the beginner's forum.

It is a 60-size, flat-bottom wing trainer that flies great and is rock-solid.

Assembly is a breeze due to several factors: The control surfaces are all pre-hinged. The tail section bolts in place, and the tank, engine mount and pushrods are all pre-installed. You can literally open the box on Saturday morning and fly it Saturday night

And aside from its great characteristics as a Trainer, it will also do a lot of really good entry-level aerobatics. (It reminds me a lot of the Tiger 60)

This is a great choice for someone who wants a "Trainer that they can grow with"

Ken: You should add this to your list of good trainers

Mike,
The list has been updated. Thanks for the info.

Ken

looks pretty nice, looks similar to the Hobbico avistar, and probably flies similar too,

Very nice looking.
No rubber banks so the wing must bolt on?
Not much dihedral so that loop must have been nice.
Does the gear have much spring to them?

Yea, I really wish it had the option of using rubber bands for the wing.

The gear is as good as any I've seen on this type of plane.

Mike, this looks a lot like the Midwest Aerobat.. high wing aerobatic aircraft. Frank Granelli, from Sport Aviator, did a review on the Midwest Aerobat a couple years ago and based on that, I bought one and really enjoyed flying it. I ended up crunching it in, broke the horizontal stab, which was bolted in place with nylon 16-10 bolts, if I recall and had a rubber band mounted wing. I glued in the horizontal stab but it would never stay on for some reason. But, it was a great flyer while it lasted..

From the pictures, this one looks like it has a bolt down wing and very little dihedral.. is that a correct observation? Also, is it a flat bottom wing or a semi symetrical wing config?

Maybe this can restore my loss of confidence in Goldberg (based on the Tiger 120 fiasco several of us have experienced - over a pound of lead weights in the nose to make the CG!! )

Dick.

All of your assumptions are correct Dick.

BTW, I reviewed the Aerobat for RCU Magazine a few years ago and it was one of my all-time favorites. I was very disappointed when they went under.

I'm glad you mentioned the Aerobat because that is what this plane reminds me of. It's like a 60-size Aerobat.

The Protégé has a flat-bottom wing, and the Aerobat had a semi-symmetrical wing, but that doesn't seem to matter much in the way of performance.

So yea, that's a good analogy - Picture the Protégé as a 60-size Aerobat - It's an excellent plane all around.

Builds quick, flies great, and it's got a good price for a 60-size plane ($189)

BTW, A KIT version is also available for $95

Thanks, Mike. Looks like I may just take a closer look at that one... add to my hanger I guess... ha.. to tell you the truth, I live in a Town House.. no garage, so my downstairs bedroom is a work room. I have it so full that my downstairs bathroom shower stall now houses 3 aircraft.. the Tiger 120, the Venus II, and the Tiger 60. The Excelleron 90 is still in the back room as are most of my electrics. That room is a mess. A grenade would actually improve it. (the new and as yet uncomplete Seagull Super Star and the Hobbico Super Star RTF are all back there to)

Sorry for digression.. but I had to say it. Jeech.. yet another plane. My girlfriend will never understand..ha. And, yes, I recall your article on the Midwest Aerobat. In fact, you recommended that I read your article after I read Frank's. Very well written, and informative, as all your articles are.


Back to the subject matter.. what engine is that?

Dick.

I used the new OS .55AX which is a killer engine (Coming from a 4-stroke junkie that's saying a LOT!)

The only bad thing about using the 55AX is that it is too small to fit in the pre-installed mount, but a 61 (or better yet, a 91 Surpass) would fit without having to rework the firewall.

Hey, sell your New Jersey Townhouse and move to the Midwest like I did. For what you could sell a Townhouse in Jersey for you could buy a 5 bedroom house with it's own flying field in the backyard out here

[&o] (price of homes in NJ and the taxes)

Mike-

Call me an idiot, but isn't that option available for anyone with a couple of pieces of dowel rod and a drill?

Yes, but there's one other very important piece of equipment they will need... A brain

Seriously though, to someone with a lot of building/modifying experience, it's a no-brainer, but to someone without that experience, they could easily put the holes in the wrong place, or not think to reinforce the hole area with plywood.

Also, depending on where the holes are placed, the TE might need reinforcing to keep the rubber bands from crushing it.

So yes, it's an easy modification to make (Certainly easier than converting a rubberband wing to bolts) but you still need to know what you're doing.

Good points.

I thought for sure you would take advantage of that opening and call me an idiot.

He was being polite..

Well now, that would be a first!!!!! [X(]

Ken

[:@]

Shaaad - up

Mike: We are having an Aviation Enrichment Symposium here at the FAA Tech Center next week. I have been invited (the club via me, as President) to participate. We usually put on a static display of various types of RC aircraft. This year, I am trying to add a 'build' demonstration to the symposium. I talked to the owner of our LHS and he is going to try to get me a Protege in time for the Symposium next week and I am going to put it together during the display time. Should be both fun and interesting and may get some interest in RC from the 'crowd'.

I need to dig out some servo's and an RX to put in this thing now.. jeech.. The LHS had a new OS .75 AX in his showcase, too. Hmmm...

Dick.

A 75AX is WAY more than it needs.

The 55AX was a very good match, and BTW, one of our rookie fliers who soloed last year was present when I shot the video. He liked it so much that he bought it from me right then and there. He is now flying it with an OS 70 Surpass and that is also an excellent combo.

Hi Mike.

Alright. I will check that out too. The LHS had one the Surpass on display too. Also had the Sato 75 I believe, right next to the OS.

Dick.

I would have to agree with Mike here. I'm in the process of reviewing the 75 AX and all I can say is that it's a real stump puller. I replaced the 61 FX on my Kaos 60 with the 75 AX and it turned an already great plane into a true unlimited vertical powerhouse. A 75 AX will be WAY too much on a 60 sized trainer.

Ken

Ok.. I saw that nice shiney new .75 AX sitting there.. looked like it may have had my name on it. I must have read it wrong

I will opt for the smaller engine...either the .55 or the Sato 70 (cuz that's what he has in stock). I was thinking about what I say yesterday and it he did not have any OS four strokes on hand but had a pretty good line up of Sato's and OS 2 strokes.

DS.

BTW, even with everything shifted forward, with both the 55AX and the 70 Surpass, there were several ounces of nose weight added.

So don't worry about using a heavy engine

Ah.. the Goldberg ARF syndrome.. (just like the Tiger 120 that needed over a pound of noseweight to reach the CG.. ) I don't quite understand why they can't engineer them so that we don't have to add so much nose weight to them like that. It can't be ALL the problem of wood selection, can it?

The Tiger 120 flys like any other Tiger. They are great in the air and land as smooth as a baby's behind, but I just can't figure why, if they make such a nice flyer, that they can't get the tail weight right. And mine has the OS 1.20 AX on board. A friend built one with the OS 1.60 FX and STILL needed nose weight. Go figure.