paully_321

Anyone have any thoughts on this...I have a 4* 40 and it is a bit "light" for my liking. I don't need speed and the 4* gets blown around a bunch.

I'm wondering if the 40 Tiger 2 would have the same problem and if there are any issues anyone has on this to make someone opt for one over the other.

Thanks!

Paul

tessmar

I flew the 4* 40 for many months before losing it to "dumb thumbs." I now have a Tiger 2. While both planes fly well the Tiger has better hardware with it (solid pushrods, for example) and is a dream to land and take off. The dual ailerons also make for more precise placement and response. In my opinion at least mine flies better than the 4* I had. However, it is not slow by any means. You did not mention your engine. I used the OS 46AX on both with an 11x6 Master Airscrew prop (not good enough to keep from breaking APC props yet) and the Tiger is faster than the 4*, particularly in landing. But it lands very level and clean and sticks like nothing I've seen other than a World Models T34.

You might want to think about a different prop to slow things down rather than a new plane. The 60 size planes will probably fly better than the 40s in either case, but I don't know that they will be any slower. As to winds, I have flown both the 4* and Tiger in winds up to around 20mph with no problems, though again the Tiger seems easier to align with our narrow (20') field in cross winds.

beachbrada

My Feedback: (17)

Ive never flown the Tiger II but I do own the Four Star .40 and I know what you're talking about. I've read that the Four Star .60 does alot better in stronger winds. Have you ever heard of the Pacific Knockabout? Its kind of like the Great Planes Cherokee. I had one and it fly's very well on windy days. Its a .46 size plane but it weighs more and is a bit bigger than the Four Star .40 It fly's very similar to the Four Star except that it will hold a knife edge a whole lot better. It also rolls better too. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it didn't do outside loops as good as the Four Star. But other than that this plane is a blast to fly, its just as fast as the Four Star, and lands just as slow. Pacific Aeromodels make the Knockabout recommend the OS .46AX for the plane. I got this engine to go with it and it flies fine with it, but if I ever got another one I would put the 55AX or bigger on it. If you're wondering what happened to my Knockabout, I crashed it about two weeks ago. I lost the elevators, the pushrod came loose from the elevator control horn. Here's a link to the website if you want to check it out: [link]http://www.pacaeromodel.com/Knockabout/Knokab.htm[/link] And also here's a really good video of the plane: [link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr5K6mxqYI4[/link]

paully_321

tessmar,

It's not that I WANT a slower plane, I just usually fly them at about half throttle. So, speed is not something I am purposely seeking. Also, did your tiger 2 fly better (with a little wind) than the 4* at about half throttle?

I have 2 OS 46s so I would put one of those in there...I'd have to buy a 61 or steal the OS 61 out of my HobbiStar 60.

All factors...

da Rock

I fly a 4* every so often. I fly a Tiger a lot. The present Tiger is a 60, but the one before was a TigerII ARF.

There really isn't a lot of difference between 4*s and TigerIIs in how they fly. Wind or not, they're a lot alike. The 4* is a tail dragger and all my Tigers have been tricycle. There is a difference there for sure.

Have you considered a Kyosho Calmato Sport? It's available in either 40 or 60 and the one I had was 40 size. I preferred it to the TigerII. The Calmato Sport was significantly lighter, still just as strong (I flew the heck out of it.), a tiny bit cleaner aerodynamically, and cost less. It also came with a bunch of things already done, like the surfaces already hinged. It's a lot closer to being an ARF than most ARFs are. Of the TigerII, 4*, and Calmato, the Calmato was the best flyer out of the box.

overbored77

My Feedback: (11)

The Tiger series are excellent flying planes. I have had both the .40 and .60 size and
have flown a 1.20. both of mine have flown in winds up to 20MPH. The 46AX on my tigerII
is enough power for good aerobatics, but the .61 on my tiger .60 is a bit lacking in the
Vertical department. I changed that to a .91 and all is well now. If you are looking for something
that handles wind a bit better I would reccomend the 60 with a .75 engine.

CGRetired

My Feedback: (1)

That 120 of mine does pretty well in the wind.. it ought to with that pound of lead in the nose!!!

But, even with that, it is a fine flying plane. My real complaint is that I can't keep covering on the thing. It keep peeling off.

CGr

OzMo

My Feedback: (3)

Most pilots who are familiar with the Sig's 4* planes agree the 60 size plane is a much better flier. idon't have any experience with the
Tigers except Goldberg and Sig both have great reputations for quality. A consideration might be that a 60 size plane is easier to SEE

DGM

I have flown both the Goldberg Tiger II and the Tiger 60. My Tiger two flies with a ST 45 and the Tiger 60s I flew with a saito .80. All three flew well although the II is quicker and more snappy if you want it to be. the Tiger 60s were more "sedate, but not much. Both sizes will slow down very well and can be flown at 1/3 to 1/2 throttle with ease. You can land them on the two main and keep the nose wheel off the ground for most of the runway if you want to especially the 60s. I found the II (40 size) had a weak spot in the fuselage near the LE of the wing. I bounced a landing and the fuse broke right around the LE of the wing. You might want to scab a piece of ply on the inside of the fuse on each side from an inch or so behind the LE of the wing to just forward of the LE. That solved the problem. Oh yeah on the 60s the balance point was around 30% or so.

bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

My Tiger 2 was my go-to plane for windy flying days. It always tracked solidly and rarely ever seemed to get pushed around by strong winds.

ABELL

If you already have the engine for the Tiger II, I would go with it. I have both the Tiger 60 and the Tiger II. While I enjoy flying the 60 best if I could get in the air with out buying an engine I would go the 40 route. I also have the Hobistar 60 and would never strip it to get another plane in the air. Ther is alot of days I carry it out to the field for a day of relaxing - lazy day flying.