I bought a Goldberg Tiger 2 ARF. I like the "tigers" and wanted to have a smaller plane than the Tiger 60 to bring to the field.
The ARF is very complete... even the fuel tank comes assembled for a two line setup.
No real problems assembling it...
All finished, now, lets balance it...
D I S A S T E R ! ! ! ! ! !
The plane is soooo tail heavy that it makes you cry!
No error in construction, remember, is an ARF!
I was fitting it for an OS .50 FX. The instructions say to have the propeller backplate 4 1/8" from the firewall. This way it clears the sidewalls by about 1/4".
Well, I tried setting the engine farther and farther ahead until I run out of mounting bar.
Then I thought that maybe I could fit an OS .72 FS (4 cycle). Being heavier, it would work... Again, I run out of mounting stock.
So, now I have decided to go back to the .50 FX, mount it as far ahead as I can, add a ply backplate behind the mounts and still have to add weight, a lot, in the nose PLUS putting a heavy spinner (bronze) on the engine.
Yes, I tried everything, placing the receiver battery underneath the fuel tank.... nothing balances this beast.
When I built the Tiger 60 from a kit I noticed that it needed weights and a heavy spinner up front... but nothing compares to this plane.
I wonder... did Goldberg, back from the dumps, ever tested the construction of this ARF, which is new in their stable of models?
Albert

Just completed a tiger 2 and had the small problem. I installed the battery under the fuel tank and still had to add 2 oz weight as far forward on the plane as I could get it. The plane is advertised at 5 1/4 lbs but came in at 6 lb 4 oz. I don't understand how an ARF can be built according to plans and be as far off the spec weight as they are. I can only surmise that Goldberg just didn't do their homework.

Using a .46 engine and a little concerned how it will perform with the extra lb of weight.

Haven't flown it yet but hope to this weekend.

I recently built the Tiger 2 ARF myself. Great ARF! I found it to build tail-heavy also. I placed the receiver as far forward as it would go, and then mounted a 5 cell 6 volt nimh pack vertically between the fuel tank and the firewall. Balanced dead-on with NO added weight!

I'll go you one better. I just finished a Tiger 2 also. My kit came with an exceptions sheet. Seems they changed the nose wheel mount and you are to use the top two holes and drill two new bottom holes. First problem was that the top holes were wider than the holes in the included mount. Then there is a bottom cover on the engine compartment that blocks any attempt to drill new holes. I opted to perform the taildragger option. The tailwheel kit cost $20 and the landing gear cost $20. So now I have invested an additional $40 in this ARF. After mounting the new landing gear I then installed the radio. With the servos in the advertised locations the tubing for the control rods was routed incorrectly. I made the adjustment needed to get these to work and had to fabricate a throttle rod with special bends. All this worked but if a low time builder had bought this ARF they would have gotten frustrated and thrown it away. Now for the balancing. Putting the plane on the balancer it was extremely tail heavy. I weighed the entire plane and it was already a full pound over weight. After working with some items it came out that I needed 8.7 ounces under the engine to get the plane to balance. Well I cut a piece of steel and used silicone glue to hold it in the pocket under the engine. As soon as the weather permits I will attempt to fly it. It is now almost 2 pounds overweght. I am using a Tower 46 with a 10X6 APC prop. I will let everyone know how it works out. Needless to say I am greatly disapointed with this plane. It looks great and I hope it will fly but as far as construction I am not impressed.

The really sad part of this situation is that you can buy a World Models Super Sports 40 ARF for a hundred bucks that will assemble and fly beautifully. People spend more money on a "famous name" model expecting it to be better in some way. This isn't always the case, and that's a shame.

Good flying,
desmobob

Change in plans. I moved the battery as suggested under the fuel tank and this reduced the weight needed to balanced the plane. I made a new steel weight and bolted it to the very front to the motor mount under the engine. This brought the plane into balance and we went to the field. After a system test and an engine run I topped the fuel and prepared for the first flight. The tailwheel workes well and ground control was excellent. The takeoff roll was longer than expected but the plane lifted smoothly and climbed out well. First flight only needed a couple of clicks of up elevator to trim to level flight. I made 4 flights that day and all were smooth and without any suprises. Landings are great as the plane sinks in for prefect 3 point landings. Even with all the problems on assembly the plane does fly better than expected.

I also just completed the Tiger 2. Pushrod tubes were also routed incorrectly, causing me to re-do the rear control horns. The wheels didn't fit the axles (had to drill them out), and the inner wheel keepers didn't fit either. I also needed to fabricate a new throttle control rod. Mounted an Enya 53 and had to add over three ounces to the nose, plus spinner weight to get it to balance.

This ARF follows my Hangar 9 Ultrastick 60, which went together like a swiss watch. No comparison between Hangar 9 and Goldberg, I'm sorry to say. I hope the Goldberg Decathlon I have waiting to be assembled proves that the Tiger 2 is an outlier.

Hope it flies better than it assembles.

Dennis

Just a followup on the Tiger 2. I now have about a dozen flights. The only issue is one wingtip is heavy and needed a small weight on the opposite tip. Flights are very smooth. On high rates the rolls are fast a linear. I did find out the the control rod misalignment is from the bulkhead being installed backward. Guess that is what you get from a plane built in CHINA!

I built my T60 ARF to spec, put a OS 60 SF in it, balances out perfect, fly's great, not sure what all you guys are doing to make it tail heavy unless the wood density is bad, mine is light and fly's on rails, good knive edge too.

The Tiger II ARF has been improved in its last edition. One of the reasons it would drop the tail in the trike configuration was not the lack of weight in the nose. It was because the main gear needed to be raked backwards, which they have done now. Surely the quality does not compare to some of the ARFs being offered now, which in the high end planes is extraordinary.
But the two Tigers, II and 60 are excellent fliers and just land by themselves, line it up and the descent rate is glorious. I noticed I had to put aileron differential to prevent corkscrwing in the rolls... It is my main plane, whenever I want to have a relaxing flight out it comes...

I also have a Tiger II. I have an OS .46 AX in it and it is mounted as far forward as you can get. Can't remember if I have any extra weight up front but I do recall it being a bit tail heavy. I've had mine now
for 3 years. It flies fine and is one of the easiest planes to land. I also had a minor issue with the vertical stab. Somehow, it kept getting unglued. Finally got fed up and fixed it with a little bit of epoxy and fiberglas cloth. Aint had a problemo since.
I agree, you do pay more for a Goldberg or Great Planes or Lanier. And sometimes, depending on the model, the cheaper arfs are just as good or better than the name brands at almost half the cost.

Lucky...

Hello I just bought a used tiger 2 r/c plane have never flown a r/c plane before is this something that someone could learn to fly on.

Not really. Get a high wing trainer after talking to an instructor. BUT keep this as it will be a good 2nd plane.

I've been flying a Tiger II for about 2 1/2 years. Has an OS .70 Surpass up front (tight fit) but needed no noseweight outside of a bronze safety spinner. I take her out whenever the weather is bad and she handles very well.

Someone mentioned they made a change to rake the gear back. That's the way mine is so it's not a recent change.

yeah.. I had the same problem... My first and only ARF.. i built it to spec.. I had to add 12 oz. (not a typo) to ge the cg right.. i used a os46.. Ended up throwing the arf away and building a kaos for the engine.. I had 3 "flights" on the tiger befor I got so frustrated that i landed it upside down on purpose just to put the POS out of its miserey.. it would BARELY fly.. I dont blame it from weighing in so much.. my advice is to build a kit.. once you know what you are doing it only takes twice the time to build or so.. good luck on fixing your tiger.. teh only advice I have is to tey to shave off some of the balso in the tail to bring the CG into a reasonable range..

Let me add that I just joined a local flying club and have a guy there that is goingto help me with a buddy box

If you have a really great instructor who will take the time with you to teach you basic piloting skills (more than just how to do a circuit and land) then you will probably do ok with the Tiger. The problem with that plane for beginners is that it will not save you from mistakes. Sideslip it, stall it, lose orientation, overcontrol it, or fly it too slow and it will hit the ground. Purpose built trainers are forgiving of these mistakes and are more likely to survive your first year or so of flying.

Howdy all have had 4 flights on the Tiger 2 with buddy box plane flys great can't wait untill i can solo it by myself still need lots of practice The guy teaching me says I am getting better just need more time . Have no regrets buying the Tiger 2 seems like a very good built plane.

I bought a Tiger60 ARF four years ago, the servo tray was glued in backwards!
it also had the changed nose gear mount situation discribed earlier in this thread.
other than those, it assembled and flew well. It balenced without adding weight,
and my Supertigre .61 flew it with authority. Very nice plane! To bad it had an
unfortunate encounter witha sycamore tree![&o]

Yes, the Tiger 2 is an excellent design and will serve you well long after you solo. I have had a couple in the past and plan to get another. One of my all-time favorites and I've been flying 10 years.

Have any of you measured where your CG actually ends up percentage wise? I built a Tiger 2 from a kit with a light 35AX in it and the CG ended up right at the aft limit or at 38%. I did have to bend the gear back as at an aft CG like that and an empty tank, it will sit on its tail. This is because the kit built version has the gear legs too far forward. In other words, the CG ends up behind the axle if you rotate the aircraft in pitch. Flying it at 38% CG it has very good characteristics, and slows down perfectly for landing.