Calrl Goldberg Tiger 60 Build
05-02-2018, 09:39 AM
#402
Thread Starter
05-02-2018, 09:43 AM
#403
Thread Starter
Hi Vince, Finally a job well done will also fly well, I never expected anything less and it's always a good feeling getting the maiden in on a modified build. Your Tiger will surely give you a lot of joy, it's that kind of plane now. I was kinda surprised when you said it lands kinda hot, Mine almost floats in and doesn't even need the flaps, matter a fact it doesn't even really stall and drop like a lot of planes.I think after you get some time on it you will be surprised at how wild or tame it can be.
Leroy
Leroy
Last edited by VincentJ; 05-02-2018 at 09:50 AM.
05-02-2018, 09:46 AM
#404
Thread Starter
Well this Fall I want to build a cowl for my Tiger, but I have an US1000 that I think would be a lot of fun to build and have in my Hangar.
05-02-2018, 12:25 PM
#406
" I am going to experiment moving the CG back about 1/2 inch and see if that slows her down. "
That will definitely slow it down in a big hurry when it gets dorked into the ground, looking like a lawn dart because of extreme control sensitivity.
Why not try flying slower on your landing approach? You do that by raising the nose to increase drag and cutting power to prevent a climb - just as we do with a full size plane when setting up a speed and rate of descent for landing.
Attitude controls speed and throttle controls rate of climb or descent.
That will definitely slow it down in a big hurry when it gets dorked into the ground, looking like a lawn dart because of extreme control sensitivity.
Why not try flying slower on your landing approach? You do that by raising the nose to increase drag and cutting power to prevent a climb - just as we do with a full size plane when setting up a speed and rate of descent for landing.
Attitude controls speed and throttle controls rate of climb or descent.
05-02-2018, 01:08 PM
#407
Thread Starter
While I agree with your latter statement of a slower landing approach, I don't necessarily agree with the first "lawn dart" part. Moving the CG back 1/2" would still keep me in the recommended CG range indicated on the plans.
Our flying field is very small, if fact the standing joke at our club is, "If you can fly at our field, then you can fly anywhere"... My final approach is with the throttle cut gliding in, and I do flare at the end to bleed off speed, but this Tiger is still coming in just a tad too fast. I'm comparing its landing speed to the other two Tigers that I've had. I think many fliers building or assembling their planes (ARF's) set their CG to one spot within a range that is recommended on the plans and don't experiment by moving it a bit forward or back . They just live with how the plane handles and make adjustments to their flying style.
Our flying field is very small, if fact the standing joke at our club is, "If you can fly at our field, then you can fly anywhere"... My final approach is with the throttle cut gliding in, and I do flare at the end to bleed off speed, but this Tiger is still coming in just a tad too fast. I'm comparing its landing speed to the other two Tigers that I've had. I think many fliers building or assembling their planes (ARF's) set their CG to one spot within a range that is recommended on the plans and don't experiment by moving it a bit forward or back . They just live with how the plane handles and make adjustments to their flying style.
Last edited by VincentJ; 05-03-2018 at 02:41 AM.
05-05-2018, 06:44 AM
#408
Hey Vincent,
Glad to hear the Tiger flew so well on it’s maiden voyage. I think you are on the right track moving the CG back a little bit for a test flight to see if it improves performance. Looking forward to following along on the cowl “creation” as well.
I knew exactly what you were talking about as I read it - as I had a very similar experience with a 40 size build I did. It was an exceptionally light plane and it wanted to land fast simply because it would drop the nose. And, yes, I had plenty of elevator in it. I was perplexed as this plane should have been able to crawl. Anyhow, I started adding lead to the tail a little at a time. Got to the point where I was adding a ¼ ounce at a time till the airplane flew much better and I kept going, a little at a time, till the plane started getting worse. Then I backed up a bit…
If I may be so bold I would like to elaborate on the subject a little bit – to share with those that might be interested and/or those that have not had a chance to do much experimenting with CG’s. Not to mention any newer pilots that might be reading this thread- as the Tiger makes a really great second plane
First - a little disclaimer, every airplane is different. From my experience, wing loading plays a huge part in what you can get away with when playing with a CG. The type of airfoil has an effect (thick versus thin & the type - flat versus fully symmetrical) as well as the shape. Example: good ole Hershey bar wing versus a double taper swept back design. I have found that most pilots look at the plans/directions and set the CG – “balance point” to what is called for and some will set it with precision. Then like Vince mentions, they never explore the flight envelope by experimenting with how the plane flies when varying the CG– “balance point”. I actually prefer to use the term balance point because center of gravity goes so much further/deeper than how many inches back from the leading edge does you plane balance.
I actually did a write up in the build thread I did for the plane I mentioned above. On my little 40 size project the plane had a 500ish plus sq.in. hershey bar wing and weighed 3-3/4lbs. Should have been a real floater. CG was set to the rear of the recommended range. If I slowed it down, the nose would drop. I could hold the nose up with elevator, but the whole plane would drop. (the wing was stalling) As you would expect right….. But, again, this thing should fly all day long at just above idle and it wouldn’t do it. So, I took a whole flying day adding weight to the tail and do a test flight. Add more weight, do another flight and so on. When I was done I checked the balance point, documented it, removed the weight and shortened my motor mount till I re-balanced the plane at the documented point. In my case the balance point changed significantly. But as I mentioned, it was an exceptionally light wing loading.
There is a lot of info out there on the web about setting the cg or “balance point” of an airfoil. Some very technical and some not as much. With any new airplane, if one wants it to fly it’s best, there is a whole routine for setting the plane up that involves balance, thrust, travels, and you can go the extra step with incidence.
Well, I have babbled on long enough. I’d encourage anyone to experiment (within reason and in small steps) with their airplane. You might be surprised at what all you learn about your airframe and what it will do.
Anyway, Vince, I would love to hear the results of your balance point experiments on that fine looking airplane you have.
Glad to hear the Tiger flew so well on it’s maiden voyage. I think you are on the right track moving the CG back a little bit for a test flight to see if it improves performance. Looking forward to following along on the cowl “creation” as well.
I knew exactly what you were talking about as I read it - as I had a very similar experience with a 40 size build I did. It was an exceptionally light plane and it wanted to land fast simply because it would drop the nose. And, yes, I had plenty of elevator in it. I was perplexed as this plane should have been able to crawl. Anyhow, I started adding lead to the tail a little at a time. Got to the point where I was adding a ¼ ounce at a time till the airplane flew much better and I kept going, a little at a time, till the plane started getting worse. Then I backed up a bit…
If I may be so bold I would like to elaborate on the subject a little bit – to share with those that might be interested and/or those that have not had a chance to do much experimenting with CG’s. Not to mention any newer pilots that might be reading this thread- as the Tiger makes a really great second plane
First - a little disclaimer, every airplane is different. From my experience, wing loading plays a huge part in what you can get away with when playing with a CG. The type of airfoil has an effect (thick versus thin & the type - flat versus fully symmetrical) as well as the shape. Example: good ole Hershey bar wing versus a double taper swept back design. I have found that most pilots look at the plans/directions and set the CG – “balance point” to what is called for and some will set it with precision. Then like Vince mentions, they never explore the flight envelope by experimenting with how the plane flies when varying the CG– “balance point”. I actually prefer to use the term balance point because center of gravity goes so much further/deeper than how many inches back from the leading edge does you plane balance.
I actually did a write up in the build thread I did for the plane I mentioned above. On my little 40 size project the plane had a 500ish plus sq.in. hershey bar wing and weighed 3-3/4lbs. Should have been a real floater. CG was set to the rear of the recommended range. If I slowed it down, the nose would drop. I could hold the nose up with elevator, but the whole plane would drop. (the wing was stalling) As you would expect right….. But, again, this thing should fly all day long at just above idle and it wouldn’t do it. So, I took a whole flying day adding weight to the tail and do a test flight. Add more weight, do another flight and so on. When I was done I checked the balance point, documented it, removed the weight and shortened my motor mount till I re-balanced the plane at the documented point. In my case the balance point changed significantly. But as I mentioned, it was an exceptionally light wing loading.
There is a lot of info out there on the web about setting the cg or “balance point” of an airfoil. Some very technical and some not as much. With any new airplane, if one wants it to fly it’s best, there is a whole routine for setting the plane up that involves balance, thrust, travels, and you can go the extra step with incidence.
Well, I have babbled on long enough. I’d encourage anyone to experiment (within reason and in small steps) with their airplane. You might be surprised at what all you learn about your airframe and what it will do.
Anyway, Vince, I would love to hear the results of your balance point experiments on that fine looking airplane you have.
Last edited by RICKSTUBBZ; 05-05-2018 at 06:47 AM.
05-05-2018, 07:51 AM
#409
Thread Starter
Thanks for that information Rick! Good suggestions for us all to try... It's too windy for me to fly today and tomorrow we're supposed to get some rain, but Tuesday night so far looks promising, I'll post the results of my findings.
05-06-2018, 05:40 PM
#410
Vincent,
I had a Tiger 60 I loved a few years back. She always landed hot. So, one day at the field I worked on getting the ailerons configured as flaperons with enough down elevator mixed in that she slowed down, but kept flying straight and level. Loved the way she was finally flying. Then made a few fast passes down the runway. Suddenly I heard some fluttering. I assumed it was an aileron, so I chopped throttle and pulled up to lose airspeed fast. Turns out it was the joint between the two elevator halves had broken. So, when I pulled back, only 1/2 of the elevator pulled back. Did a real quick barrel roll right into the ground!! It was spectacular. Would have been embarrassing had I not been the only one at the field.
Moral of the story is, make sure you check that joint as part of your pre-flights. The replacement I'm building (this is #3 for the .60 size, and one T2), I put a pin through the dowel into each half of the elevator. That should keep that joint from breaking so easily.
Glad your maiden went great! And hope you have many years of enjoying her. She is a great flying bird! Once I got used to her, I used to do a full roll right after takeoff. (And no, that's not how I lost the first two. The T2 was a radio brown-out, I think. T60 #1 was a crash on maiden, then the repair wasn't strong enough and I snapped the tail off at altitude. Was spectacular!!!)
--
Tom
I had a Tiger 60 I loved a few years back. She always landed hot. So, one day at the field I worked on getting the ailerons configured as flaperons with enough down elevator mixed in that she slowed down, but kept flying straight and level. Loved the way she was finally flying. Then made a few fast passes down the runway. Suddenly I heard some fluttering. I assumed it was an aileron, so I chopped throttle and pulled up to lose airspeed fast. Turns out it was the joint between the two elevator halves had broken. So, when I pulled back, only 1/2 of the elevator pulled back. Did a real quick barrel roll right into the ground!! It was spectacular. Would have been embarrassing had I not been the only one at the field.
Moral of the story is, make sure you check that joint as part of your pre-flights. The replacement I'm building (this is #3 for the .60 size, and one T2), I put a pin through the dowel into each half of the elevator. That should keep that joint from breaking so easily.
Glad your maiden went great! And hope you have many years of enjoying her. She is a great flying bird! Once I got used to her, I used to do a full roll right after takeoff. (And no, that's not how I lost the first two. The T2 was a radio brown-out, I think. T60 #1 was a crash on maiden, then the repair wasn't strong enough and I snapped the tail off at altitude. Was spectacular!!!)
--
Tom
05-07-2018, 05:37 AM
#411
Thread Starter
Gee Tom great stories and memories I'm sure...loosing a plane is never an easy thing, and doing it in the presence of others can make a bad situation even worse! Good tip on checking the doweled elevator joint as part of the pre-flight check, I'll be sure to include it to mine. I never had a problem with that joint in the past with my other two Tigers, did you wrap the dowel with glass after you epoxied it into place?
05-07-2018, 06:29 AM
#412
How thick is that dowel and elevator framework? If it's thick enough, you could tab and slot it with ply and then glass over the outside to hold everything secure. If it's not thick enough for that, I'd drill holes in the finished assembly and install music wire pins instead of wood. The odds of that failing are much lower than a wood pin breaking from a hard landing. Just my .02 
05-07-2018, 05:14 PM
#413
If I remember right, it’s 1/4”. I never thought about tabbing, nor fiberglassing. Both are a good idea. I know I pinned it, but don’t recall what I used for the pins.
—
Tom
—
Tom
05-08-2018, 02:46 AM
#414
Thread Starter
Tom, the dowel used to connect the elevator halves together is 5/16" thick. One common mistake made in this kit is when the builder mistakenly uses the thinner wing pin dowel (supplied in the kit) for for the elevator!
Check out page 9, post #223 and page 11, post 266 to see how I fit and assembled my elevator halves...
Check out page 9, post #223 and page 11, post 266 to see how I fit and assembled my elevator halves...
Last edited by VincentJ; 05-08-2018 at 08:57 AM.
05-08-2018, 05:50 AM
#415
As far as glassing, I'd stick with the lightest weight glass I could find as it's not really a structural addition but more of a re-enforcing application
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-08-2018 at 05:54 AM.
05-08-2018, 05:58 AM
#416
Thread Starter
Hydro, I couldn't agree with you more...I'm sure we are all guilty of it some time or another, I know I am! 
Last edited by VincentJ; 05-08-2018 at 08:17 AM.
05-09-2018, 02:58 AM
#417
Thread Starter
Updated flight report 5.08.18.
Last night I went to the flying field and flew my Tiger again, the wind was a bit of concern, but I did fly nonetheless. In an attempt to slow the plane down on landings, I removed 1/4 oz. of lead weight from the nose, moving the CG back, . I am very happy to report that change made a world of difference, the plane slowed more to my liking on landings. I'm going to place my Xicoy CG balancer on it tonight and it will tell me the exact measurement of the planes new CG point which I will post. I'm going to fly it a bit this way and will then determine whether or not another change is in order.
It doesn't take much to move the CG forward or rearward when your shuffling weight around. I hope that you will experiment with your own planes, you just may be surprised with how the plane flies...
Last night I went to the flying field and flew my Tiger again, the wind was a bit of concern, but I did fly nonetheless. In an attempt to slow the plane down on landings, I removed 1/4 oz. of lead weight from the nose, moving the CG back, . I am very happy to report that change made a world of difference, the plane slowed more to my liking on landings. I'm going to place my Xicoy CG balancer on it tonight and it will tell me the exact measurement of the planes new CG point which I will post. I'm going to fly it a bit this way and will then determine whether or not another change is in order.
It doesn't take much to move the CG forward or rearward when your shuffling weight around. I hope that you will experiment with your own planes, you just may be surprised with how the plane flies...
Last edited by VincentJ; 05-10-2018 at 02:36 AM.
05-16-2018, 12:21 PM
#418
Wow.. there are some nice tigers here and VincentJ, marvelous woodworking skills. Beautiful to see.
Just a heads up for setting up incidences for further projects.
A wing needs a positive incidence to fly, even our multi-billion dollar F3A aircraft are set up with 0.5deg positive.
If you set the wing at zero, the first thing you'll have to add is some up trim, thus moving the tail down and adding a positive incidence to the wing.
Big deal??? well yeah because you've now changed your tail and motor incidences.
Normal set up for our normal two blade prop/mono wing aircraft has been and basically still is:
Tail: 0 deg
Wing: 0.5 positive.
Motor: 3 deg right, 1 deg negative down.
CG: 25 - 27% MAC tune to personal taste.
There are those out there that believe there exists such a thing as a neutral 0-0-0 set up.
There isn't. You might build it that way, and it'll fly... but as mentioned, you'll either add up trim (to lower the tail and create the positive wing incidence) or have the CG set so far back that the aircraft flys tail-low, thus the positive wing incidence. This is fine if you're flying lightweight models close and slow (indoor foamies 3D aerobatics etc) but doesn't work well when flying out there and big. It's up to you but for general flying, just build it in at the beginning.
BTW, An aircraft set up with a 0-0 motor isn't pleasant to fly. If you've been struggling to get your airplane to fly some nice easy aerobatics without squiring out... this is one of the main reasons, the easiest to fix and the one that gives the pilot the most instant gratification and immediate payback. Some years ago many of us when the Chip Hyde route and eliminated right trust and instead used a right rudder mix/curve. Been there done that... we're back to old fashion right trust;-)
Not trying to cause an argument, everyone one has there own personal take on this but this tends to be the ISOnorm in the pattern/competition community.
Just a heads up for setting up incidences for further projects.
A wing needs a positive incidence to fly, even our multi-billion dollar F3A aircraft are set up with 0.5deg positive.
If you set the wing at zero, the first thing you'll have to add is some up trim, thus moving the tail down and adding a positive incidence to the wing.
Big deal??? well yeah because you've now changed your tail and motor incidences.
Normal set up for our normal two blade prop/mono wing aircraft has been and basically still is:
Tail: 0 deg
Wing: 0.5 positive.
Motor: 3 deg right, 1 deg negative down.
CG: 25 - 27% MAC tune to personal taste.
There are those out there that believe there exists such a thing as a neutral 0-0-0 set up.
There isn't. You might build it that way, and it'll fly... but as mentioned, you'll either add up trim (to lower the tail and create the positive wing incidence) or have the CG set so far back that the aircraft flys tail-low, thus the positive wing incidence. This is fine if you're flying lightweight models close and slow (indoor foamies 3D aerobatics etc) but doesn't work well when flying out there and big. It's up to you but for general flying, just build it in at the beginning.
BTW, An aircraft set up with a 0-0 motor isn't pleasant to fly. If you've been struggling to get your airplane to fly some nice easy aerobatics without squiring out... this is one of the main reasons, the easiest to fix and the one that gives the pilot the most instant gratification and immediate payback. Some years ago many of us when the Chip Hyde route and eliminated right trust and instead used a right rudder mix/curve. Been there done that... we're back to old fashion right trust;-)
Not trying to cause an argument, everyone one has there own personal take on this but this tends to be the ISOnorm in the pattern/competition community.
05-17-2018, 02:38 AM
#419
Thread Starter
David, thanks for the compliment! I don't have any aviation engineering experience, but your explanation makes sense to me. I set the wing and tail incidence as indicated on the plans (0 degrees for the wing and tail). That would explain the reason that I had to add some up trim to my plane. My firewall was set-up with 2 degrees right thrust as well as 2 degrees down. Overall I am very pleased with how my Tiger now flies now that I have moved the CG back. I think if I were to build another Tiger I would add a touch of positive incidence to the wing as you suggest.
08-14-2018, 05:32 PM
#422
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Durham, NC,
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stock Goldberg Tiger 60 wing and fuse trim scheme
Need some help here big time. Can anyone tell me where I can find and get the trim scheme that is on the Tiger 2 or 60. I'm looking for the trim on the wing and fuse on the plane on the box.
Thanks for any help Tommy
Thanks for any help Tommy
08-15-2018, 04:49 AM
#423
Tiger 2 Part # 2292 K-66 Decal
Tiger 60 Part # 2288 K-68 Decal
If not have a service like Callie Graphics make them for you.
https://callie-graphics.com
08-26-2018, 01:00 AM
#425
Thread Starter
Hello all,
After almost one season of flying my Tiger now under my belt, I thought I would write a few words on its performance and flight characteristics. Most of you will remember that this was my third Tiger 60, so I do have something to compare the modifications that I made against. While the "original" stock built Tiger is a real *****cat and is about as gentle a flier as you can get, it did have its limitations.
Let me start with the engine. The DLE20 is a perfect match for the Tiger, it by no means is overkill, so if your considering using or going gas I would have to give it two thumbs up! I will say that my DLE out of the box was a bit difficult to tune right, but once broken in it runs great. I would like to remove the carb this winter and make sure that the reed valve assembly is perfectly flat and seating correctly. I would also like to replace and upgrade the stock ring if I can find a replacement ring now that the Bowman ring is no longer available.
Removing most of the dihedral from the wing made a huge difference in the flying characteristics of this plane. The plane rolls so much better and precise. The downside to this modification is that it does reduce the way the original Tiger flew in terms of it being for a beginner. So be forewarned, but all in all this is one of the best mods that I made to this plane... Even with all of the modifications made to the tail (which I like), it has a difficult time in sustaining a knife edge flight. The plane will knife edge, but will start to drop in altitude.
I enjoy the two piece wings that I made and transportation and set-up is a breeze at the flying field. I like to see the look on the faces of fellow fliers as I'm prepping my plane for flight, they will usually comment "I didn't think the Tiger had slide on wings"! Another modification that has worked great is where and how I placed the fuel tank. Refueling the tank is a snap when you can see the tank through the canopy. I don't think that I have ever leaked a drop of fuel through the vent line as a result!
Anyway, I thought I would give you my results. If you're considering building that Tiger, I can tell you it took me three tries to get it right, she's a great flier.
Happy flying!!!
VJ
After almost one season of flying my Tiger now under my belt, I thought I would write a few words on its performance and flight characteristics. Most of you will remember that this was my third Tiger 60, so I do have something to compare the modifications that I made against. While the "original" stock built Tiger is a real *****cat and is about as gentle a flier as you can get, it did have its limitations.
Let me start with the engine. The DLE20 is a perfect match for the Tiger, it by no means is overkill, so if your considering using or going gas I would have to give it two thumbs up! I will say that my DLE out of the box was a bit difficult to tune right, but once broken in it runs great. I would like to remove the carb this winter and make sure that the reed valve assembly is perfectly flat and seating correctly. I would also like to replace and upgrade the stock ring if I can find a replacement ring now that the Bowman ring is no longer available.
Removing most of the dihedral from the wing made a huge difference in the flying characteristics of this plane. The plane rolls so much better and precise. The downside to this modification is that it does reduce the way the original Tiger flew in terms of it being for a beginner. So be forewarned, but all in all this is one of the best mods that I made to this plane... Even with all of the modifications made to the tail (which I like), it has a difficult time in sustaining a knife edge flight. The plane will knife edge, but will start to drop in altitude.
I enjoy the two piece wings that I made and transportation and set-up is a breeze at the flying field. I like to see the look on the faces of fellow fliers as I'm prepping my plane for flight, they will usually comment "I didn't think the Tiger had slide on wings"! Another modification that has worked great is where and how I placed the fuel tank. Refueling the tank is a snap when you can see the tank through the canopy. I don't think that I have ever leaked a drop of fuel through the vent line as a result!
Anyway, I thought I would give you my results. If you're considering building that Tiger, I can tell you it took me three tries to get it right, she's a great flier.
Happy flying!!!
VJ