OK, folks. I got the Cessna together, and fully operational. After several successful takeoffs and landings (with the cowl off, adjusting a new engine after run-in), I noticed a bit of a problem. Going up, the Cessna lost the effectiveness of its ailerons and tip-stalled. I ran it into the safety net and a post when it swerved too much to the right (it needed a few repairs to the wing, the wing saddle, and a new windshield). We decided that the engine was a bit under-powered.

I got all that fixed, and the engine running properly. I flew it without even having to trim it, it was as strait as a board. Ailerons were quick, rudder was very effective. A lively, yet quite controllable machine. Well, I decided to practice a few takeoffs. Going up, the plane started to bank on one side and I corrected with the ailerons. By then, it was about as stable as a canoe with a high center of gravity. It nosed in, and I got the opportunity to spend another weekend with it, making repairs of course. A couple guys at the club were somewhat encouraging, they said for me to not give up. Fix it, get it back up again, and don't make the same mistake. The problem this time was air speed: I rotated too early and was not going fast enough for the controls to be effective. Of course, all the "good" stuff happens just after leaving the ground affect (pilots know that stuff). Anyway, it's all fixed and ready to rock and roll again. It's looking good, sitting there on my bench!

OK, so we get to the meat of this post. Which machine is a tougher one to fly? A Goldberg Tiger 2, or my Cessna? Which one is going to be the first to tip-stall with too much elevator? Will the Tiger 2 drop like a rock once you let off throttle, or will it glide nice and level in the event of a dead stick, giving enough time to get back to "civilization"? In other words, which plane is LESS forgiving? The low-wing Goldberg Tiger 2, or the Cessna? Any takers? If it's true that the Cessna's got a meaner temper, then I'm sure the Tiger's gonna be a cake walk!

NorfolkSouthern

Norfolk,
This is an easy one. The Tiger II is going to be more forgiving. The Tiger II is a great plane and it's one of the planes I recommend for pilots moving on to a second plane. It's quite capable in aerobatics, but when it comes time to calm down it becomes tame like a little kitty!!! On landing approaches it comes in almost like it's on a wire. Stalls are quite predictable on this plane and you won't be suprised when it does stall.

Hope this helps

Ken

Thanks, Ken. Well, since I already have the Cessna (it's taught me a lot, worth every penny), I'll keep at it. Meanwhile, I'm going to plan on another investment in a Tiger II for a general all-purpose sport runabout. Which engine would be best? Could I go to Tower Hobbies and order up another OS .46 AX or do I really need to go with something larger? I have an OS .40 LA off of my Hobbico Superstar that I can use as a spare, but I'm not sure if it would give enough power. This is going to be interesting....

NorfolkSouthern

whoa!!!!! hold on a sec...any airplane will stall and loss of control response is a sign of a stall.
Airplanes react different to a stall. A friend of mine flies a Cessana and his rolls hard right with no warning. The tiger will be no cake walk. but shouldn't roll as she stalls. the nose will probably just fall.
I teach to use full throttle on take offs as speed + altitude = life.... when you go around give her the throttle, as you climb and airspeed decreases you must add power.
Have you hooked up with an instructor?

I own both the Tiger 60 and the Tiger 120. Both fly like they are on rails and perform very well. But, they are not beginner aircraft. Both are low-wing type aerobatic 'trainers' but the word trainer is a bit obscure in this case. You really should learn to fly something that is more of a trainer (see Ken's list at the beginning of the Beginners forums) and use one of those. The Cessana is not, by any means, an trainer.

JetMech said it. Speed and altitude are your friends. During take off, keep the throttle at full and let it climb with only a little elevator. Excessive elevator will produce a stall and cause you lots of problems, depending on your altitude. Climb gently and turn right or left to "get in the pattern" then level out, reduce the throttle for a cruise speed, then trim the roll and climb/descend adjustments for hands-off straight and level flight (aileron and elevator, and if necessary, rudder). As soon as you change throttle settings, all bets are off for the previous trim settings and it will require another trim adjustment (albeit slight, it will still climb if more throttle and descend if less throttle).

CGr

Both the Cub and Tigers take off like kittens when you advance the throttle with some degree of control. Slam the throttle and they both will do what any airplane that isn't flying yet would do. Follow the prop wherever the prop chooses to go. The prop, after all, is already flying and has grip on the air, whereas the airplane isn't flying and won't fight back until it's got the airspeed that makes the surfaces work.

As for using ailerons to steer on takeoff and landings............. When the airplane is taking off, it's pushing the angle of attack envelope. Use the ailerons and the downgoing aileron almost guarantees that wing stalls. Use the rudder on takeoffs for sure. Rudder turns are safer for a struggling wing that almost at stall angle and barely at flying speed. Takeoffs or landings.

As for "forgiving" on takeoffs, the Tigers are going to have an advantage over the Cub beyond the aerodynamic differences. They're tricycle geared airplanes. The wing is not being pulled forward at almost stall AOA on the early takoff roll. Any tricycle geared airplane has a built in "forgive" that's working for you every time you advance that throttle stick. You still want to advance the throttle under control, but with tricycles, you do have more margin. Tigers are the winners in this comparison. The wing isn't going to start out pitched up, slowing initial acceleration and probably already stalled.

The Tigers are great learning tools for newbies. They also teach the guys what a safe approach should look like...... nose never needs to point up, shouldn't pitch up, on approach.

Very informative, Rock. Thanks.

On take-off don't worry about setting a climb to altitude record. When I send my King Kobra off (far from a trainer, and not forgiving like a Tiger II), I clear the end of the runway at only 25' at best. I let the plane build up speed (in this case to 50+ mph, the Tiger II doesn't have to be this fast due to its slower stall speed), and then make the first turn at no more than 45 deg bank just to avoid an accelerated stall. I fly my student’s trainers the same way - build airspeed straight ahead to make sure the plane has adequate airspeed and is well above stall speed before banking. Over time you'll learn to feel what the plane is doing and sense when it’s getting close to a stall, but it takes some experience to get to this point.

Hogflyer

Well, I consulted with the instructors at my field again. They all said that my flying is good, and that I really should make another go at it. I got the engine started and taxied down the runway. Everything looking good, I got it wound up and off I went. I steered, and let the PLANE decide when it really wants to get airborne. And it did: TWO takeoffs today, NO incident! Tracking was nice and strait, roll response was perfect. It loops with the best of 'em, and the low passes are majestic. Setting up for landing, it comes in a little hot yet still manageable. It goes where I point it. I finished to evening with NOTHING to fix. NOT even a prop to replace. Yay for me, no epoxy mess tonight!

For a second plane, I would tend to agree that the Cessna can be a little scary, it's a bit difficult to recover from a tip stall when there's not enough air speed at takeoff. All I have to do is keep that in mind before I pull up, and I think I should be good to go. Otherwise, everybody said that my piloting looks great and recommended that I stick with my Cessna.

Anyway, so now I need to pull that OS .40 LA from my trainer. How would one of those work on a Sig 4-Star 40? I'm thinking I'd like to have one of those, either yellow or red (I wish they would make one in BLUE). The Tiger would be nice, but I've been told I would really need an OS 55 AX for that, probably because the Sig is lighter. So, is there any experience running a .40 on one of those out there? Any info would help, thanks.

NorfolkSouthern

The .40 well pull the 4* around but I don`t think you`ll be happy with it. My kit biult 4 * has a Saito .56 and seems to be a prefect match.

If I'm not mistaken, both the Fourstar 40 and the Tiger were introduced when engines came in .40 and .60 and not much in between. No doubt thousands of these planes were flown for years on bushed .40-sized two-strokes. My own Tiger II flew just fine with an old O.S. .40.

That said, the modest power of the .40 does require the pilot to pay more attention to things like flying speed, angle of attack, and control response. For those reasons I think you're getting a great education with the Cessna--it's making you a better pilot--although I wouldn't wish all those repairs on anyone.

Thanks for the encouragement, nickj. Fixing the Cessna after a couple spills was an education in and of its self. I learned how to fabricate portions of ribs and spars, and then learned how to repair a bit of covering, to make it less noticeable. Then, the fuselage was a study in the strength of 30 minute epoxy, and I found that 5 minute will work fine for repairs in a pinch. Titebond would have been nice and sandable, but the epoxy works faster without much difference in weight if you know how to use it. You don't have to clamp it as much.

I'm learning how to fly on the wing with this plane, not the prop. Those skills are only achieved by actually doing the task. When you can fly on the wing, then you can be better prepared to deal with mishaps. Not only that, you also get a better selection of engines to choose from. It's been a good experience for me, and well worth the amount I paid.

Here's a link to my Cessna, in case others haven't visited my other thread: http://www.greatplanes.com/airplanes/gpma1228.html

NorfolkSouthern

There are more ways than one to skin a cat. Actually, let's say, there are more than one cat to skin.

See the picture of my two almost identical 46size Tigers? One isn't a Tiger2.

The Tiger2 in the picture is the ARF and weighed in at 5lb 13oz ready to fuel. That's not a light airplane for that size, nowadays.

The airplane in the foreground is a KYOSHO Calmato Sport. It weighed 9 ounces lighter than the Tiger2 when it was first rolled out. Just over 5lbs is better than almost six.

The Calmato can be gotten in RED, BLUE, or that yaller. They are truly almost ARFs. The surfaces are hinged. The hinges are glued in, that is. The control horns are already installed. The motor mount is screwed to the firewall. It's really close to actually being an ARF. Mine was one year old a couple of months ago. In that year and a couple of months, I had to do one thing to get it to last that long with almost no maintenance. I ironed it all over the first time I touched each part. KYOSHO's need to be ironed out of the box. Do that and they give no problems from then on. The P40 in the above picture is a KYOSHO I got a month after I built the Tiger2.

I've gotten both my LHSs to order the KYOSHOs I've built. It takes either one of them about 3-5 days to get them.

Wow - the Calmato looked like an identical twin of the Tiger. Very nice. How do they compare in flight? I already have a low wing sports plane, the Hangar 9 Pulse XT. The Pulse XT is a relaxingly stable and floaty plane - a bit too tame for me, but is a great 2nd plane for most. Like the Kyosho, the H9 ARF is a simple bolt on design with things like hinges and control horns already done for you.

About the only difference between the two was the Tiger slowed a bit more on up-lines. Which made sense, because it was over a half pound heavier. Both airplanes were tame with the mfg's CG and throws. I didn't settle for either the suggested CGs or the throws.

Actually, they both started life with a 46AX. And both didn't have enough throws to snap, and both barely held knife edge. CGs were moved, throws were increased. And they both got 55AXs. They're not tame for sure, but still are very dependable on approach. No worries. Do anything you want. Don't bite.

MFG's throws are simply starting places for experienced flyers. Newbies often think they're magic and airplanes get treacherous if the mfg's throws are ignored. Not even close to true.

After you get the suckers through the maiden outing, it's time to sort 'em out. Ask 'em what they like and they'll tell ya'. You don't talk to your models?

Move the CG first thing. And increase the throw on any surface that won't cut whatever you want to cut.

I betcha' that Pulse has more in it than you're getting. Any airplane you think is too tame needs to be tested. Still flying the suggested CG? Will it snap quickly enough at the top of a loop to not affect the size of the loop?

Thanks for the notes. I'd certainly recommend the Calmato to club members looking for a low wing sports plane after they get tired of their trainers. You're right, I'm still flying the Pulse with the mfgr's CG. Its probably a tad nose heavy as I need lots of up elevator for inverted flight. The throws are at recommended max, which is just about right for relaxed. smooth flying. Now the Pulse has a rather pronounced dihedral with a semi-sym airfoil. This makes it a bit awkward to fly inverted as it becomes an anhedral wing and requires attention and constant correction. In this regard, fully flat and symmetrical wing designs like the UltraStick are easier as it flies neutrally whether upright or inverted. I also find my UltraStick ( 60 ) to also roll more axially than the pulse. Of course, the US looks rather crappy but it more than makes up for its fugliness in flight. All of my club mates who have flown my US and Pulse actually prefers the US. All these planes are great planes for beginners who have already learnt basic orientation with a trainer.

Any airplane that you start off with the CG moved forward "to make it safer" or "easier to fly" can have it's CG moved back with complete confidence if you understand what's happening.

When you balance any airplane with a far forward CG, you actually make the elevator response sluggish. If you then get used to that elevator response, you're digging yourself into a hole.

If you ever move the CG back, you need to keep in mind that the elevator is going to become more powerful and you're going to need to reduce it's throws to get back that slow, sluggish feel you've probably convinced yourself is "safer" and probably have become comfortable with. If you do move the CG back, AND reduce the elevator throws, you'll learn that stability isn't the same as noseheavy. And will have learned one of the lessons the better flyers found out long ago.