thundertiger4u.com

Just wanted to let everybody know about a new online reseller:
http://www.thundertiger4u.com
Tower Hobbies carries a few select Thunder Tiger ARFs and most of TT's
aircraft engines, but little else. eHobbies.com used to carry a fairly large selection of Thunder Tiger items, but they're in the middle of an overhaul and their RC inventory is (at least temporarily) considerably limited in quantity.
I ran across www.thundertiger4u.com while googling for places selling the TT Pro .46 engine. They have very good prices on TT engines (as good or better pricing than Tower Hobbies) and a terrific selection of Thunder Tiger glow and electric ARFs. They also had the extra drive shafts in stock that I needed for my Giles 202 EP Profile.
I built my first ARF this summer, a Thunder Tiger Tiger Stick .40 that I ordered from Tower, and I've been having a blast with it. The Giles 202 EP Profile has been terrific fun so far as well. I love Thunder Tiger's products, but they're not usually stocked by my local hobby stores and my favorite LHS says he can't order from ACE Hobby because he no longer has an account there (hence the Tower order).
A few gems I found while browsing the thundertiger4u site:
$146 for the F-54S Four-Stroke Engine, $172 for the F-90S Four-Stroke Engine $120 for the Giles 202 .40 ARF $150 for the Tiger Trainer MkII with GP .42 engine combo $230 for the Rare Bear .60 ARF
The web site also has hundreds of parts available. All I had to do was enter the item number from my manual for the drive shaft assembly (AS6355) and up it popped at $5.16. The accept payment by PayPal as well as Visa or Mastercard.
The website is fairly new and it isn't perfect by any means. The Cloud Dancer .40 and .60 ARFs are listed under park flyers instead of Aerobatic or Sport. They don't yet offer my beloved Tiger Stick .40. Shipping is apparently by UPS only. Still, it's nice to find a site offering a variety of Thunder Tiger products at fairly aggressive prices.
If you like Thunder Tiger products but you're having trouble finding them, you might do worse than to give thundertiger4u.com a shot at your business. If anybody reading this has another favorite source for Thunder Tiger airplanes or flight equipment, please share it in this thread!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

------------
Thunder Tiger products peaked nearly a decade ago in availability. Over the years, they have had less and less exposure. Tis a pity. It has gotten to the point that I no longer buy their engines because fewer and fewer places stock them. There are simply too many other good engine choices out there to risk owning an orphan.
Ed Cregger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I haven't read a shareholder's report, but given Thunder Tiger's complete dominance in the nitro helicopter market, I haven't even considered that they might disappear. I wonder if Thunder Tiger's decline in the U.S. might not have more to do with ACE Hobby as their distributor than it has to do with Thunder Tiger's products themselves. ACE does a lot of marketing, but they seem to be passed over by the vast majority of local hobby stores and online retailers.
What's interesting is that I still haven't purchased a TT engine, only their planes so far. I own two O.S. FX engines, a GMS, and a Magnum that is still brand new (wish me luck). I'm thinking that a Thunder Tiger Giles 202 .40 or Cloud Dancer .40 with a TT F-54S four-stroke might be a fun way to welcome spring back to the midwest. I've been considering the Tiger Bipe as a first biplane, as well.
I think one of the things that I like about Thunder Tiger is their products aren't so common that everybody has them. I flew at two different clubs where there were so many Avistars and Nexstars on training night that pilots had a tough time keeping track of which plane was their own. It would be a shame if the whole North American RC airplane market ended up divided between only Horizon Hobby and the Great Planes/Tower conglomerate.
The Thunder Tiger products that I've tried so far have been high quality and terrific values. I am looking forward to trying more of their products so long as it doesn't become much more difficult to actually track their stuff down to buy it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ed,
You're missing out on their best products: the Pro Series two-strokes. I have a couple of the .40s and a .46 and they are the most user-friendly engines I own. Add a $15 Tower muffler and they will out-perform the others in their class.
Good flying, desmobob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was alluding to the fact that TT products are not as widely available as they once were. I'm not familiar with who imports their products into the US now, so I can't comment about what they do or do not do. I simply do not see them advertised as being carried by as many shops as they once were.
I like TT engines. Back when National Hobby Supply was still doing model airplane stuff, I bought a couple of TT 1.20's and a .46. They were good engines. I just bought another TT 1.20 two-stroke to add to the collection.
I've owned one of their Super Decathlons and flew it after I sold it to a friend. It was really a good flying model. It is still the best looking ARF Super Decathlon as far as I am concerned. The plastic belly pan sucks, but I'd rather tolerate that and keep the good looks than tolerate some of the other, more scale, offerings that are out there. I also dislike flat bottomed airfoils. The TT version is fully symmetrical, which I prefer.
Ed Cregger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The reason ACE hobby is passed over is because they have too many lazy slaggards working for them. They have gotten better since TT bought them out, but still have a long ways to go.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I asked some folks I'm acquainted with at a couple of the local hobby stores, and both locations confirmed that ACE is a pain to deal with. Hopefully some dealer service initiatives can spur better distribution of their products.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The prices seem very attractive. Would you know if their quality is as good as OS and Saito?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, zara, like Robert Scott wrote:
"You're missing out on their best products: the Pro Series two-strokes. I have a couple of the .40s and a .46 and they are the most user-friendly engines I own. Add a $15 Tower muffler and they will out-perform the others in their class."
Thunder Tiger engines are generally considered equal in quality to Saito or O.S. Everybody has their opinions about engines, of course, but the user reviews at RC Universe for Thunder Tiger airplane engines are very strong. The Pro .40 and Pro .46 are considered by most to be every bit as good as the O.S. .40 FX and the .46 AX at a considerably lower price. Biggest knock against Thunder Tiger engines is that spare parts are more difficult to obtain than O.S.
Thunder Tiger hired one of O.S. Max's chief design engineers some time ago, and I'm told that the engines were so similar that many parts were interchangable for certain models.
Again, I have no personal experience and am merely retelling what I've heard or read. I have flown Thunder Tiger's airplanes, and I think they're terrific. Hopefully some other newsgroup posters can comment on their personal experiences with Thunder Tiger engines.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would not say that TT engines are in the OS/Saito/Enya class. They are good and they offer reasonable service for the price, but top shelf they are not.
Some of their chopper engines (.36) were suffering terrible piston/liner QC problems a few years ago. That may have been straightened out long ago, for all I know.
Still, I own two of their plain bearing .15 size engines (new), one .46 Pro (well worn), a used TT 1.20 Pro and I had two brand new 1.20 Pro engines some years ago. I am not biased against TT one little bit, as you can tell.
Ed Cregger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks for the input.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sounds like SPAM for Thunder tiger! Do you work for them?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't work for Thunder Tiger, I just really, really like the two Thunder Tiger planes that I've purchased so far.
bigedmustafa.rcuniverse.com
Check out my RC Universe profile and you'll also see I'm the happy owner of a Carl Goldberg Tiger 2 and a Hangar 9 Easy Fly 40. Also, I'd assume that most Thunder Tiger employees would probably be flying Thunder Tiger engines.
You can accuse me of being a Thunder Tiger cheerleader, but not a schill.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| You can accuse me of being a Thunder Tiger cheerleader, but not a schill.
<aol>Me too!</aol>
I've never really had particularly good luck with glow engines at all (which is probably more user error than anything else, and is part of why I mostly fly electric or gliders now) but of all the engines I've had, I've had the fewest problems with my Thunder Tiger Pro 2 strokes.
Now, I've also got a TT 42 GP engine, and while it's reliable enough, it's got far less power than the Pro 46's I've got.
--
Doug McLaren, snipped-for-privacy@frenzy.com
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Please refer to the specs for the Thunder Tiger GP 61 and the Pro.61 The plain bearing motor turns out same specs, is lighter yet strong. A local club member has written off three models with frontal impacts but the motor has simply gone straight into the next one and running as good as ever. Given similar crashes on same ground, cheaper model engines ex China simply break apart and have to be replaced. T/Tiger Aircraft Engine GP-61 # 9060 Practical RPM 2000~17000 Output 2.00/16000 BHP/RPM Length 91.9/3.62 Backplate to thrust washer mm/in Height 82.9/3.26 Beam to top mm/in Crankshaft thread 5/16 x 24 Beam width 44/1.70 Weight 6.94/24.46 oz/in Aircraft Engine Pro .61
PRO-61 # 9160 Practical RPM 2000~17000 Output 1.80/13000 BHP/RPM Length 94.6/3.72 Back Plate - Thrust washer mm/in Height 83.0/3.27 Beam -Top mm/in Crankshaft Thread 5/16 x 24 Beam Width 44/1.70 mm/in Weight 759/26.75 gm/oz
Thunder Tiger Model Engines are manufactured and fabricated from the finest materials available using ultra precise computer controlled equipment in a clean, modern environment under ISO 9001 registered quality guidelines. The design is supervised by the worlds most renowned engine designer, Mr. Kaz Mihara.
IMO the Pro.46, FS-54S and FS-91S are the most user friendly in their class. My Pro.46 has been pulling a 3D model around for 4 years without a moments hesitation, a much better record than similar other big brand names used locally.
Refer to engines on my web page for a full list of other engines and their manuals, specs. etc.
regards Alan T Alan's Hobby, Model & RC Web Links http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~atong / .................................................................
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have helped write some of the ISO compliance manuals for a major Fortune 500 company. I'm not impressed. Most of it is make work nonsense that was originally designed to keep US products out of Europe due to trumped up noncompliance issues.
Thunder Tiger engines are good engines. I said this before. I own quite a few of them and have enjoyed them since the beginning. My .45 Pro is eight years old and has seen quite a few hours in the air. I have no complaints with it. It is a fine engine, but it isn't an Enya .45 CX or a Webra .50 GT. It is a good sport .46. They are in the Magnum class, although they are certainly prettier. Pretty does not fly your model.
I have not done a comparison between the Pro and the plain bearing TT .61 engines. With that said, I am skeptical that a manufacturer would be stupid enough to shoot itself in the foot by permitting the plain bearing engine to out perform its ball bearing brethren. Is it possible? Sure. Anything is possible. But it isn't likely.
Fox had a reason to make his plain bearing forties growl because there were club racing categories that specified a plain bearing forty. I do not know of any such class of competition that would warrant doing the same thing with TT's sixties. I'd have to see it before I believed it.
Spec sheets are not reliable sources of information in the hobby trade, as far as I am concerned. They are marketing tools and are infamous for being grossly inaccurate.
Now, if you had five samples of each engine and then ran them on a test stand and took readings - then I would believe it possible. It isn't you that I doubt. It is the spec sheets.
Ed Cregger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed, thanks for your input on this thread! I am curious as to what differences there are that you think seperate engines like Magnum or Thunder Tiger from Enya or Webra. I've heard that Magnums can be fickle and difficult to tune, but I haven't heard that about Thunder Tiger. The Thunder Tiger engines are apparently powerful and durable, as you yourself mentioned.
What keeps Thunder Tiger engines out of the "top tier" of best available equipment? If I spend $129 on a Webra Speed 50GT instead of $79 for a Thunder Tiger Pro .46, what am I getting for my extra $50?
P.S. - I've been around consumer electronics and computer equipment for far too long to pay attention to spec sheets! I don't mind paying for quality, but I do mind paying extra for bloated marketing budgets or status symbol products.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Paasch wrote:

That's exactly what it is. Bloated marketing and status symbol. People think that just because they paid more for it, that it is better than the less expensive product. They have to rationalize paying more for product A when product B is just as good. I have owned OS, Fox, Cox, and Thundertiger engines and have found them all to be good engines. Would I say that OS is better than Thunder Tigers? No, OS just costs more.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Vance Howard wrote:

I get the impression that modern manufacturing techiques such as CNC have significantly improved the quality of the cheaper engines, and that combined with designs that are either copies of more expensive brands, or actually designed by the same engineer, mean there's little or no appreciable difference between engines.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think there are quantifiable differences. I own an O.S. .46 FXi and a GMS .47. Both engines are reliable, smooth idling, broke in very easily, and only stop running when they're out of fuel or I hit my kill switch. They seem about equal with regard to power and fuel consumption. While the GMS .47 was about $50 less than the O.S. engine, the O.S. engine is noticably more quiet than the GMS. The GMS revs about 2k higher at top speed than the O.S. engine and there is a noticable difference in both pitch and volume.
Ironically, the GMS engine is sometimes better to fly. If I'm flying along side of several other pilots, I can still pick out my own engine noise more easily than when I'm flying the O.S. in a crowd. When I'm flying alone or with just one or two other folks, I appreciate the quiet and lower pitched buzz of the O.S. engine.
I could justify spending an extra $50 to meet specific noise restrictions if it were required, but I'm fortunate enough to enjoy two great flying fields where noise restrictions aren't a big concern. In my mind, this is a real benefit to buying the more expensive engine even though it may not apply to my situation.
I ask the question again, however, why isn't Thunder Tiger equal to a top tier engine? I haven't heard that they run any noisier than best-in-class engines. I honestly don't understand what seperates them from Saito, Webra, YS, or Enya in Ed Cregger's mind. I've read enough of Alan T's posts to respect his opinion when he praises the virtues of the Thunder Tiger Pro .46, FS-54S, and FS-91S. I'm just hoping for specifics regarding typical flaws of Thunder Tiger engines. Ed Cregger has tons of practical experience flying a wide variety of RC engines, and I'm comfortable that he won't attribute an individual tuning problem or mechanical failure of one engine to a general flaw with all TT engines. He's owned many TT engines and many engines from other manufacturers and should have an broad opinion of most manufacturers.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.