Goldberg Cub
11-02-2004, 09:36 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kalamazoo,Mi.49006 MI
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goldberg Cub
I just bought the kit at a swap meet in Grand Rapids Sun. I know hundreds of these have been built. This will be only my second kit build and I'm wondering if there is anything I should watch out for during the build. Also clip or not to clip? I will be putting in a Mag 80 FS. I would love to have some input.
Gary
Gary
11-02-2004, 10:51 AM
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Stanhope, NJ
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Goldberg Cub
I built this plane in the late 80's. Full wing, iron on cloth covered, painted to match a cub at a local airport. K&B 61 (which I still have and use, great engine) a touch over powered in my opinion, but acceptable. I still swear I am going to refurb the controls horns and put my new radio in it and fly it again but... I just may do that. I love this plane. I only remember the dowels that go down the top of the plane from the cabin to the tail were a bit tricky to glue in. Other than that I remember it as pure pleasure to build and fly.
11-02-2004, 11:02 AM
#4
RE: Goldberg Cub
I prefer the clipped wing, and I'll tell you why - then you can decide.
The original Cub was designed back in the 1938 when engines had the power of a gnat fart, so it needed that huge wing to get off the ground. In the years that followed, more powerful engines were made. Anyone who could afford the bigger engine switched to it and clipped the wing for better performance.
Our models are so grossly overpowered (Compared to Full Scale planes) that the full wing is simply not needed. But don't think that clippeng the wing is going to make it "Hot". It will still float like a butterfly.
The DISadvantage of the full size wing on the model is that the larger wing creates considerably more adverse yaw. Enough that it can be seen from the ground. In FS planes, they always coordinate their turns with rudder, so more adverse yaw is not that big of a deal - they simply add more rudder. But with a model, we rarely need to use rudder in a turn, so why have to start?
Now of course, if you LIKE that type of flying, by all means build the full size wing. But if you just want a plane that you can fly practically without having to think about it, go with the Clipped wing.
With that said, I will go on to say that the Clipped-wing Goldberg Cub is one of my all-time favorite planes ever!
The original Cub was designed back in the 1938 when engines had the power of a gnat fart, so it needed that huge wing to get off the ground. In the years that followed, more powerful engines were made. Anyone who could afford the bigger engine switched to it and clipped the wing for better performance.
Our models are so grossly overpowered (Compared to Full Scale planes) that the full wing is simply not needed. But don't think that clippeng the wing is going to make it "Hot". It will still float like a butterfly.
The DISadvantage of the full size wing on the model is that the larger wing creates considerably more adverse yaw. Enough that it can be seen from the ground. In FS planes, they always coordinate their turns with rudder, so more adverse yaw is not that big of a deal - they simply add more rudder. But with a model, we rarely need to use rudder in a turn, so why have to start?
Now of course, if you LIKE that type of flying, by all means build the full size wing. But if you just want a plane that you can fly practically without having to think about it, go with the Clipped wing.
With that said, I will go on to say that the Clipped-wing Goldberg Cub is one of my all-time favorite planes ever!
11-02-2004, 07:52 PM
#9
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Goldberg Cub
I have n 80" Cub (full wing) that I'm flying with an 52 four stroke. Flys quite scale at about 1/2 throttle.
As has been said, if you plan on doing anything involving rolls, clip the wing! I can get mine to roll with rudder and ailerons, but ailerons alone? It won't. Well, it will, but you'd better be about 300 feet up when you start because it'll loose a couple hundred feetin altitude before it gets all the way around. [X(]
I like the way mine flys as is, dive to loop, sweet stall turns and spins. I have other planes for full blown aerobatics.
Dennis-
As has been said, if you plan on doing anything involving rolls, clip the wing! I can get mine to roll with rudder and ailerons, but ailerons alone? It won't. Well, it will, but you'd better be about 300 feet up when you start because it'll loose a couple hundred feetin altitude before it gets all the way around. [X(]
I like the way mine flys as is, dive to loop, sweet stall turns and spins. I have other planes for full blown aerobatics.
Dennis-
11-03-2004, 05:14 PM
#11
RE: Goldberg Cub
Ya, What Don said. The two Goldberg Cubs that I built, were powered with an OS 70 4/stroke. More than enough power for aerobatics. They were both full winged. I suggest building it that way. I don't think you will be disappointed.
11-04-2004, 12:14 PM
#13
RE: Goldberg Cub
I have built 3 of the Cubs. The first one ened up digging a big hole. All have been built full span. They have been powered with engine from O.S. FPO .40 to ST .61's. When I had my O.S. FS 70 in it, I would set the throttle to a high idle and cruise around the sky. It looked and sounded like a full sized Cub. They do float for miles with the full span. Mine was a HEAVY pig at over 9 pounds and it would float like a sail plane. I could get a 10 minute flight after the engine died.
Dru.
Dru.
11-05-2004, 09:43 AM
#15
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: McLean,
VA
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Goldberg Cub
I built two of the great planes 40-size cubs (which are very similar in size and other respects to the goldberg). I flew one with the full-size wing (76") and one with the clipped wing (60") with an os 70 four stroke. I prefer the clipped wing hands down.
11-06-2004, 11:23 AM
#16
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: , TN
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Goldberg Cub
Gary,
This will be a long reply. I received one of these (76") kits as a gift. What a curse! A $100.00 gift that I spend $400.00 to $500.00 to complete. I would send my ex-wife one out of spite but she would never feel compelled to attempt it.
It is a great airplane and a good kit. This was my first and I finished it this past week. It is beautiful!
I made some changes from the plans. I installed two aileron servos in the wing rather than the single with torque rods. This also gives me flaperons, which may be extraneous on a Cub, don't know yet. If you do this remember to add the servo wire holes in the ribs from the servos to the wing center. I used z-bends on all servos and Sullivan golden clevises with hangar 9 control horns. Used a Sullivan Precision Rod for the throttle (to an Evo .40). The controls are 100%slop-free and positive. Used robart hinge points-they are great and I feel a lot more comfortable with them than ca hinges. After installation the control surfaces would just drop from their own weight when lifted then let go-extremely slick. I added an additional (3rd) hinge point near the bottom of the rudder and reinforced the eyelet which holds the tailwheel steering wire with CA'd nylon fabric. I added backing blocks for the hinge points inside the contol surface framing at the hinge locations. I drilled and tapped the wing mounting blocks for 1/4-20 nylon bolts with nylon washers to do away with the T-nuts and small hex screws for the wing attachment and used black self adhesive wing saddle tape instead of silicone caulk. I replicated the landing gear shock struts on the box photos instead of using tiny dowel rods as the instructions suggest. The instructions indicated this could be done using 3/32 brass tube inside of 5/32 brass tube. Save an unnecessary trip to the LHS- it won't work. I used 1/8" inside 5/32- that works. This is the only place I used the cheesy snap links included in the kit. I also made the struts an airfoil shape instead of just rectangular and covered them instead of painting them. I primed and painted the interior of the cabin and fuel tank/receiver/battery area. The sealing iron will melt the paint though, so plan accordingly where to paint and where to end the covering material. On the advice of the extremely plane-experienced LHS owner, I used Cub Yellow Econokote. I think he suggested it (instead of Ultracote or the Solartex I planned to use) because it is great for first-timer covering jobs. It IS great stuff and I was extremely impressed with it's qualities-especially the low adhesive melt point and how easy it was to work around curves. I took it by for him to critique and he was very impressed and surprised at the end result (I am very meticulous and wouldn't have dreamed of just slapping this project together). That said, I wish I had used the Solartex as it would have looked better than the shiny, plasticky-looking Econokote, which is more translucent than opaque. This plane is a lot of work and I would prefer to put a few more dollars into high quality components than risk it to cheaper quality parts. Heck, I'm almost afraid to try and fly it. I doubt I will build any more kits, as the care and attention I put in make me reluctant to risk crunching it; an ARF would have a lot less of me invested in it.
If you are an experienced kit builder you are probably used to some of the things that caught me by surprise. The directions are good, but not flawless. Read ahead, plan and re-read over and over at every step. I built this plane over the plans, EXACTLY to the plan. I built the wing last instead of first and when it was finished the opening in the front of the wing was 3/16" too narrow to fit over the fuselage. Talk about head scratching (and expletives and throwing things, and cursing Carl Goldberg, whoever he is/was)! I measured both assemblies and measured the plans. Then did it a few more times for laughs. The plans were off. If built exactly according to plans there was no way the wing would fit over the fuselage in the front! The wing tip framing (step 22) should be tilted upward somewhat, but the directions are a bit unclear on this and it isn't super apparent when gluing it up to the ends of the spars. Mine wound up not tipped up as far as they should be, but the underside of the wingtip turns up a little (just less than it should) and I doubt it will affect the flight performance dramatically. The tendency when building the wing on the building board is to put everything flat down on the board, my mistake, which caused this. You may have much more experience than I and may know more of what to look for when building. The instructions suggest washers for right thrust, but I used a wedge of ply strengthened with a soaking in thin CA (I installed the washers but they sank into the epoxied firewall). In step 5, not paying attention, I glued doubler CT to former C and promptly covered up the prepunched dot showing the drilling location you'll need later.
All that being said, I was pleased with the kit and would buy another if I wanted to build another kit. Can't really knock Goldberg as the plan fiasco on the wing/fuselage fit could be due to plan shrinkage or the loose nut between the plans and airframe. It balances exactly on the main spar which puts the balance point square in the middle-rear third of the CG range with an empty tank. I had to add about 3/8 oz. of lead to the left wing on the third rib to totally balance it laterally. That is all the adjusting necessary to balance out the completed airframe,
If I can help give a shout. I am sure given time I could think of a couple more hints, but that is all that comes to mind right now. I second the advice to build it full-sized then order an additional wing kit and build an extra wing clipped- that way you can have the best of both worlds! I tried adding some pictures but that will have to wait for another time.
Hope you enjoy the build and beautiful completed Cub. Use that Solartex!
[email protected]
This will be a long reply. I received one of these (76") kits as a gift. What a curse! A $100.00 gift that I spend $400.00 to $500.00 to complete. I would send my ex-wife one out of spite but she would never feel compelled to attempt it.
It is a great airplane and a good kit. This was my first and I finished it this past week. It is beautiful!
I made some changes from the plans. I installed two aileron servos in the wing rather than the single with torque rods. This also gives me flaperons, which may be extraneous on a Cub, don't know yet. If you do this remember to add the servo wire holes in the ribs from the servos to the wing center. I used z-bends on all servos and Sullivan golden clevises with hangar 9 control horns. Used a Sullivan Precision Rod for the throttle (to an Evo .40). The controls are 100%slop-free and positive. Used robart hinge points-they are great and I feel a lot more comfortable with them than ca hinges. After installation the control surfaces would just drop from their own weight when lifted then let go-extremely slick. I added an additional (3rd) hinge point near the bottom of the rudder and reinforced the eyelet which holds the tailwheel steering wire with CA'd nylon fabric. I added backing blocks for the hinge points inside the contol surface framing at the hinge locations. I drilled and tapped the wing mounting blocks for 1/4-20 nylon bolts with nylon washers to do away with the T-nuts and small hex screws for the wing attachment and used black self adhesive wing saddle tape instead of silicone caulk. I replicated the landing gear shock struts on the box photos instead of using tiny dowel rods as the instructions suggest. The instructions indicated this could be done using 3/32 brass tube inside of 5/32 brass tube. Save an unnecessary trip to the LHS- it won't work. I used 1/8" inside 5/32- that works. This is the only place I used the cheesy snap links included in the kit. I also made the struts an airfoil shape instead of just rectangular and covered them instead of painting them. I primed and painted the interior of the cabin and fuel tank/receiver/battery area. The sealing iron will melt the paint though, so plan accordingly where to paint and where to end the covering material. On the advice of the extremely plane-experienced LHS owner, I used Cub Yellow Econokote. I think he suggested it (instead of Ultracote or the Solartex I planned to use) because it is great for first-timer covering jobs. It IS great stuff and I was extremely impressed with it's qualities-especially the low adhesive melt point and how easy it was to work around curves. I took it by for him to critique and he was very impressed and surprised at the end result (I am very meticulous and wouldn't have dreamed of just slapping this project together). That said, I wish I had used the Solartex as it would have looked better than the shiny, plasticky-looking Econokote, which is more translucent than opaque. This plane is a lot of work and I would prefer to put a few more dollars into high quality components than risk it to cheaper quality parts. Heck, I'm almost afraid to try and fly it. I doubt I will build any more kits, as the care and attention I put in make me reluctant to risk crunching it; an ARF would have a lot less of me invested in it.
If you are an experienced kit builder you are probably used to some of the things that caught me by surprise. The directions are good, but not flawless. Read ahead, plan and re-read over and over at every step. I built this plane over the plans, EXACTLY to the plan. I built the wing last instead of first and when it was finished the opening in the front of the wing was 3/16" too narrow to fit over the fuselage. Talk about head scratching (and expletives and throwing things, and cursing Carl Goldberg, whoever he is/was)! I measured both assemblies and measured the plans. Then did it a few more times for laughs. The plans were off. If built exactly according to plans there was no way the wing would fit over the fuselage in the front! The wing tip framing (step 22) should be tilted upward somewhat, but the directions are a bit unclear on this and it isn't super apparent when gluing it up to the ends of the spars. Mine wound up not tipped up as far as they should be, but the underside of the wingtip turns up a little (just less than it should) and I doubt it will affect the flight performance dramatically. The tendency when building the wing on the building board is to put everything flat down on the board, my mistake, which caused this. You may have much more experience than I and may know more of what to look for when building. The instructions suggest washers for right thrust, but I used a wedge of ply strengthened with a soaking in thin CA (I installed the washers but they sank into the epoxied firewall). In step 5, not paying attention, I glued doubler CT to former C and promptly covered up the prepunched dot showing the drilling location you'll need later.
All that being said, I was pleased with the kit and would buy another if I wanted to build another kit. Can't really knock Goldberg as the plan fiasco on the wing/fuselage fit could be due to plan shrinkage or the loose nut between the plans and airframe. It balances exactly on the main spar which puts the balance point square in the middle-rear third of the CG range with an empty tank. I had to add about 3/8 oz. of lead to the left wing on the third rib to totally balance it laterally. That is all the adjusting necessary to balance out the completed airframe,
If I can help give a shout. I am sure given time I could think of a couple more hints, but that is all that comes to mind right now. I second the advice to build it full-sized then order an additional wing kit and build an extra wing clipped- that way you can have the best of both worlds! I tried adding some pictures but that will have to wait for another time.
Hope you enjoy the build and beautiful completed Cub. Use that Solartex!
[email protected]
11-07-2004, 10:08 AM
#17
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kalamazoo,Mi.49006 MI
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Goldberg Cub
bduffle
Thanks for the input on this kit. It sounds like you really enjoyed the build. I havn't started on this project as of yet. I bought it at a swap meet last weekend and upon opening the box, I found the instruction booklet missing. I called Goldberg on Mon. and rec'd a replacement on Wed., great sevice. However the replacement was a copy instead of a printing and the quality of the photos is very poor. I havn't looked at the hareware pac yet, actually I have't even taken the rubber bands of off the wood yet. I think my kit is an older kit as the booklet makes ref. to not haveing to use a 1/4 ply spacer as the instructions indicate as the kit now has a nylon engine mount. Well my has a alum. mount. I don't see how this will be a problem.
I friend which is a master builder suggested to cver with 21st Century fabric. He calims once you use the fabric you won't want to use film again. We will see.
This is only my second kit, the first being a Goldberg Tiger 60. I bought this kit for a winter project but I don't know when I will get to it as I just bought anothe house and in the middle of don't some redecorating before we move and of course have to go to Fla. right after Xmas.
I know how you feel about flying your own creation after having so much of you into it, I felt the same way about my Tiger. However the first time I dumped it didin't hurt as much as I thought it would. lol. The Tiger is my second plane as I just soloed this past summer. the Tiger still lives though.
So...have flown the Cub yet?
Thanks for your input...Gary
Thanks for the input on this kit. It sounds like you really enjoyed the build. I havn't started on this project as of yet. I bought it at a swap meet last weekend and upon opening the box, I found the instruction booklet missing. I called Goldberg on Mon. and rec'd a replacement on Wed., great sevice. However the replacement was a copy instead of a printing and the quality of the photos is very poor. I havn't looked at the hareware pac yet, actually I have't even taken the rubber bands of off the wood yet. I think my kit is an older kit as the booklet makes ref. to not haveing to use a 1/4 ply spacer as the instructions indicate as the kit now has a nylon engine mount. Well my has a alum. mount. I don't see how this will be a problem.
I friend which is a master builder suggested to cver with 21st Century fabric. He calims once you use the fabric you won't want to use film again. We will see.
This is only my second kit, the first being a Goldberg Tiger 60. I bought this kit for a winter project but I don't know when I will get to it as I just bought anothe house and in the middle of don't some redecorating before we move and of course have to go to Fla. right after Xmas.
I know how you feel about flying your own creation after having so much of you into it, I felt the same way about my Tiger. However the first time I dumped it didin't hurt as much as I thought it would. lol. The Tiger is my second plane as I just soloed this past summer. the Tiger still lives though.
So...have flown the Cub yet?
Thanks for your input...Gary
11-07-2004, 12:22 PM
#18
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: , TN
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Goldberg Cub
No, haven't flown it. I am still tinkering with some tiny details. Have taxi tested!
I am looking at some actual J3's to determine how I will trim it. This started out going to be white with red trim but i allowed a four year old to overrule me on that. The last plane my dad and I flew together was a red/white restored Super Cub. I wanted to build it like that but keeping the boss (the four year old) happy was more important.
I didn't check lateral balance and CG until after I covered the airframe-consequently I had to cut and patch the covering on the underside of the wing in adding the lead weight to balance it laterally. I would balance it before covering next time, at least cover everything but the wing, then balance, then cover. Incidentally, the Goldberg instructions never mention lateral balance, but I kept noticing that the wing was slightly right side heavy during the build so did a little research and found lateral balancing info.
You may have a slightly older kit if it included the alum. engine mount, but I believe they still specify adding the washers between the firewall and engine mount for added right thrust. I did it that way but discovered they were sinking into the plywood firewall even though I had thoroughly epoxy-coated the firewall. If you haven't discovered it already, there is a great website, Aircraft Proving Ground(s), that is an invaluable source of information for building. I learned the plywood wedge thing there and it has worked so far. The washers would have eventually buried themselves in the wood, negating the intended right thrust for the engine. The pressure of the engine mount bolts is just spread over too small an area with the washers-the wedge spreads the pressure over a much larger area after the bolts are torqued down, eliminating the mount/washers sinking into the wood.
I did a LOT of research to decide on Solartex, but Coverite is supposed to be great stuff also, just heavier. Don't want to start a debate thread on that subject. I just felt being lighter can't hurt on a seven to seven-and-one-half pound .40 airframe. That is some of what led me to follow the LHS owners econokote suggestion, it IS light, lighter than I believe Ultracoat, Monokote, Solartex or Coverite 21st Century.
Also, nicadflyer was a big help when I was just getting started. He helped me figure out a muffler and some other stuff. Much thanks to him and the others that assisted me with info and photos.
I am looking at some actual J3's to determine how I will trim it. This started out going to be white with red trim but i allowed a four year old to overrule me on that. The last plane my dad and I flew together was a red/white restored Super Cub. I wanted to build it like that but keeping the boss (the four year old) happy was more important.I didn't check lateral balance and CG until after I covered the airframe-consequently I had to cut and patch the covering on the underside of the wing in adding the lead weight to balance it laterally. I would balance it before covering next time, at least cover everything but the wing, then balance, then cover. Incidentally, the Goldberg instructions never mention lateral balance, but I kept noticing that the wing was slightly right side heavy during the build so did a little research and found lateral balancing info.
You may have a slightly older kit if it included the alum. engine mount, but I believe they still specify adding the washers between the firewall and engine mount for added right thrust. I did it that way but discovered they were sinking into the plywood firewall even though I had thoroughly epoxy-coated the firewall. If you haven't discovered it already, there is a great website, Aircraft Proving Ground(s), that is an invaluable source of information for building. I learned the plywood wedge thing there and it has worked so far. The washers would have eventually buried themselves in the wood, negating the intended right thrust for the engine. The pressure of the engine mount bolts is just spread over too small an area with the washers-the wedge spreads the pressure over a much larger area after the bolts are torqued down, eliminating the mount/washers sinking into the wood.
I did a LOT of research to decide on Solartex, but Coverite is supposed to be great stuff also, just heavier. Don't want to start a debate thread on that subject. I just felt being lighter can't hurt on a seven to seven-and-one-half pound .40 airframe. That is some of what led me to follow the LHS owners econokote suggestion, it IS light, lighter than I believe Ultracoat, Monokote, Solartex or Coverite 21st Century.
Also, nicadflyer was a big help when I was just getting started. He helped me figure out a muffler and some other stuff. Much thanks to him and the others that assisted me with info and photos.
11-07-2004, 01:40 PM
#20
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: , TN
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Goldberg Cub
Another-
I must have gotten your instructions, the kit came with two. PM or e-mail me your address if you want my spare, I will mail it to you so you'll have photos. There were a couple of steps where being able to eyeball the photos closely helped.
Someone else must have gotten my decals. My kit was missing some of the decals-the stripes for the side mainly,which I probably won't need anyway. I guess i would rather be missing a decal or two than the instruction book! I am probably going to order a spare cowl and maybe another windshield anyway so I can get the decals then if I decide I need them. I tried painting the inside of the windshield yellow on the areas beside the cabin uprights and I am not 100% happy with the look. May try again or try spray painting the yellow on the outside. I was unsure whether the solvents in the TopFlite spray would melt the plastic windshield so I tried painting the inside with Model Maaster and a brush. I am playing with it today and may just try spraying the outside and saying the heck with it-if it melts too bad, I can replace the windshield for a couple of bucks.
I must have gotten your instructions, the kit came with two. PM or e-mail me your address if you want my spare, I will mail it to you so you'll have photos. There were a couple of steps where being able to eyeball the photos closely helped.
Someone else must have gotten my decals. My kit was missing some of the decals-the stripes for the side mainly,which I probably won't need anyway. I guess i would rather be missing a decal or two than the instruction book! I am probably going to order a spare cowl and maybe another windshield anyway so I can get the decals then if I decide I need them. I tried painting the inside of the windshield yellow on the areas beside the cabin uprights and I am not 100% happy with the look. May try again or try spray painting the yellow on the outside. I was unsure whether the solvents in the TopFlite spray would melt the plastic windshield so I tried painting the inside with Model Maaster and a brush. I am playing with it today and may just try spraying the outside and saying the heck with it-if it melts too bad, I can replace the windshield for a couple of bucks.
11-07-2004, 01:43 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: ColchesterEssex, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Goldberg Cub
Have my Golberg Cub that I built in 1993 its Solartex covered and powered by an ASP (Magnum 61) four stroke which is plenty of pwer for this model it flies in a scale like manner at around quarter throttle. Mine is a full winged version and i too built over plans and encountered the non-fitting problem around the cabin top, until this post I thought I'd built it wrong!I simply cut the end ribs off made half ribs and laminated them to the outside of the cut ribs which gave me the necessary clearance. Only other mods were to make the undercarriage a bit more scale looking and to attach the wing struts to the fuslage with ball joints and a small brass plate and to use cut down control horns and cdlevces at the wing ends to make rigging at the field a two minute job. Definitely needs coordinated rudder aileron turns but is still an absolute treat to fly on a still day
11-07-2004, 01:54 PM
#22
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: , TN
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Goldberg Cub
And another-
The Aircraft Proving Ground site is here:
http://www.geistware.com/rcmodeling/link.htm
The absolute best building info site I have found (was confused earlier-thought this one was APG site above) is actually Airfield Models:
http://airfieldmodels.com This site is absolutely indispensable for me!
The Aircraft Proving Ground site is here:
http://www.geistware.com/rcmodeling/link.htm
The absolute best building info site I have found (was confused earlier-thought this one was APG site above) is actually Airfield Models:
http://airfieldmodels.com This site is absolutely indispensable for me!
11-07-2004, 02:15 PM
#23
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: , TN
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Goldberg Cub
And finally-
I haven't cleaned up the inside yet. I am still going to add some screws to the ply servo rails as I tested them and they could be popped loose with enough pressure. The epoxy wouldn't adhere to the paint as well as it does to bare wood. Sorry, but I could not get but one picture per reply to work so I just made four individual replies. Hope you have fun with it and it turns out great!
Bill Duffel
I haven't cleaned up the inside yet. I am still going to add some screws to the ply servo rails as I tested them and they could be popped loose with enough pressure. The epoxy wouldn't adhere to the paint as well as it does to bare wood. Sorry, but I could not get but one picture per reply to work so I just made four individual replies. Hope you have fun with it and it turns out great!
Bill Duffel
11-07-2004, 04:50 PM
#24
My Feedback: (6)
RE: Goldberg Cub
I have both the Goldberg and Great Planes Cubs. The Goldberg was built by my brother and when he decided not to fly it I bought it from him. The GP Cub was partially built with the wings and tail group built and I had to build the fuse.
Now which do I prefer? After having flown both I prefer the GP Cub as it flew much smoother. Maybe it was the way my brother built it,( the Goldberg Cub) but it always seemed finicky when flying. Also the GP Cub has barndoor ailerons which are more to scale. Both lack flaps as do the real Cubs or as they are in more scale kits. The Goldberg is heavier because of the ply(Light?) fuse. However the GP Cub uses balsa it still comes out quite heavy.
MY Goldberg is hanging out in storage in the basement, maybe someday I'll put it back together. The one problem I had with the Cub I bought from my brother is he did not seal the fuse around the engine, now the wood is somewhat soaked with fuel.
Both planes do look nice in the air and are floaters.
Next time it will be either the Sig 1/5 th scale or the Adrian Page Super Cub. Both are much lighter and the Page Super Cub is designed for Electric power. Both are laser cut and the quality is very good. I would much rather spend a few dollars more to get a truer scale plane such as the Balsa USA 1/4 or 1/3 scale. They are very true to scale and make great projects .
Good luck with yours. jollyroger
Now which do I prefer? After having flown both I prefer the GP Cub as it flew much smoother. Maybe it was the way my brother built it,( the Goldberg Cub) but it always seemed finicky when flying. Also the GP Cub has barndoor ailerons which are more to scale. Both lack flaps as do the real Cubs or as they are in more scale kits. The Goldberg is heavier because of the ply(Light?) fuse. However the GP Cub uses balsa it still comes out quite heavy.
MY Goldberg is hanging out in storage in the basement, maybe someday I'll put it back together. The one problem I had with the Cub I bought from my brother is he did not seal the fuse around the engine, now the wood is somewhat soaked with fuel.
Both planes do look nice in the air and are floaters.
Next time it will be either the Sig 1/5 th scale or the Adrian Page Super Cub. Both are much lighter and the Page Super Cub is designed for Electric power. Both are laser cut and the quality is very good. I would much rather spend a few dollars more to get a truer scale plane such as the Balsa USA 1/4 or 1/3 scale. They are very true to scale and make great projects .
Good luck with yours. jollyroger
11-07-2004, 07:43 PM
#25
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Pittston,
PA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Goldberg Cub
Gary, It's a wonderful choice for your second build, as far as clipped or not, it depends on the way you like to fly. I built mine last year, full wing, covered in monokote and detailed the inside as best as I could. Powered it with a Magmun .52 4 stroker and it fly's so cool and slow. It's is the perfect Sunday flyer when you just want to putt around. what ever you decide, just enjoy building it, it is a wonderful second kit to build.