Grumman AA5B Tiger

I have some Tiger time back in the day. They are very fun to fly but do take good speed management on final. If you cross the fence hot you will float and float and float. The club plane we had stayed booked all the time until it had a hard landing and bent the nose gear. Several of us went to where it was and took the wings off in just a couple of hours and loaded it on a trailer to bring home for repairs. I found the back seat really small but OK for kids or smaller people. All in all it was my favorite bird to fly.
 
Ron Levy said:
In reviewing Tom Downey's posts about Grummans in this and other threads, it's pretty clear that he has very little experience with or knowledge about the them. If you want to know about a Grumman, ask someone who really knows the plane -- their names are listed above.
Click to expand...

Ron, I know enough about reading manuals and day to day things like getting a return to service entries and what is legal and what isn't to know that there isn't many who like doing major repairs on them.

When they were new they had two things going for them, they were cheap, and quick to build. Not so any more.

If they were that great,and easy to fix, Fletch air would have many more competitors.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I'm sure this affects resale value and would be documented somewhere if someone like me were in the market, right?
Click to expand...

as far as Grumman series are concerned, it simply can be hidden by a log book entry saying they replaced an item. (wing for example), and when you check the NTSB data base it won't be there either because it may have been considered an incident not a accident. Component replacements are not major repairs.

but

Major damage? you bet it does, any one who will buy back a wreck and spend the difference between what the insurance company gave them for it doesn't have an aircraft worth what they paid for it.

plus remember the insurance companies are the only folks who pay full price for aircraft boats or RVs.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
as far as Grumman series are concerned, it simply can be hidden by a log book entry saying they replaced an item. (wing for example), and when you check the NTSB data base it won't be there either because it may have been considered an incident not a accident. Component replacements are not major repairs.

but

Major damage? you bet it does, any one who will buy back a wreck and spend the difference between what the insurance company gave them for it doesn't have an aircraft worth what they paid for it.

plus remember the insurance companies are the only folks who pay full price for aircraft boats or RVs.
Click to expand...

I guess that's where type knowledge comes into play. If the wing is replaced before 12,000 hrs (for the spar) then that's a flag.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I guess that's where type knowledge comes into play. If the wing is replaced before 12,000 hrs (for the spar) then that's a flag.
Click to expand...
If the wing was replaced rather than repaired, all the issues surrounding repair of bonded joints go away. The only question is whether the party doing the replacement properly documented the previous hours on the wing so the wing life limit (12,000 hours) can be confirmed on the replacement wing. I've seen two cases where this was not done, and upon discovery of the problem, the airplane had to be grounded until the replacement wing could be researched and its previous hours confirmed.
 
Tom-D said:
If they were that great,and easy to fix, Fletch air would have many more competitors.
Click to expand...


It is more about the size of the Grumman fleet vs "ease" to fix or how "great" they are.
 
Ron Levy said:
If the wing was replaced rather than repaired, all the issues surrounding repair of bonded joints go away. The only question is whether the party doing the replacement properly documented the previous hours on the wing so the wing life limit (12,000 hours) can be confirmed on the replacement wing. I've seen two cases where this was not done, and upon discovery of the problem, the airplane had to be grounded until the replacement wing could be researched and its previous hours confirmed.
Click to expand...

Remember it's the little stuff that will kill ya, a simple mistake by the dummy that last stripped and painted the wing of the AA series and did it with EPOXY Paint stripper and weakened the glue joint. These aircraft will not tolerate what your Piper or Cessna will.

Simple stuff that many choose not to cope with. Specially when there are so many EXP aircraft that will sell for the same money and give better performance.

LongEZ, Cozy -Mark 4, Glassair1,2,&3 Velicity, RV 6, and many more.

I have been shopping for a long legged 4 pax and baggage hauler for visiting the kids on the east coast, which can be maintained on a low budget, operates on less than 8 gallons per hour 100LL or auto, The Cozy or Velocity are as close as it gets.

I even went so far as doing the home work on the AA5, and none of the production will do the job.
 
Ron Levy said:
If the wing was replaced rather than repaired, all the issues surrounding repair of bonded joints go away.

How do you know that ? how many aircraft was that wing on prior to you getting it ?

The only question is whether the party doing the replacement properly documented the previous hours on the wing so the wing life limit (12,000 hours) can be confirmed on the replacement wing. I've seen two cases where this was not done, and upon discovery of the problem, the airplane had to be grounded until the replacement wing could be researched and its previous hours confirmed.
Click to expand...

How do you re-create the maintenance records on a time life item and comply with FAR 45 ?
 
Anthony said:
Isn't that true with just about ANY aircraft?

Again, the insurance rates for Grummans are similer to other aircrafts in their class.
Click to expand...

:confused::confused::confused: It's a stated value policy, cost of repair to them is irrelevant, the only difference it makes is how much/little damage you do to total it. Most any damage to an old plane is getting near total value.
 
zaitcev said:
Dan G. from the Purple board let me sit in his Tiger and surprisingly I was able to fit. As some of you may know, it's my pet problem with airplanes. I have to move the head sideways in order to close the canopy, but then it bubbles out just enough. Just need to have a headset that does not scratch the canopy on contact. Unfortunately, Dan's plane is of expensive variety: he bought it for $72k.
Click to expand...

Pete, it was me Dan H not "G":lol: You also need to remind everyone that you're only a smidge shorter than Shaquille O'Neal or any other NBA center. I purchased mine for 66K, but kicked in an extra 3K as the pre-buy was an annual (that the buyer agreed to cover ANYTHING) at FletchAir (Ron Levy actually flew it from the seller's field to San Antonio). FletchAir did fantastic work, but the seller told them take care of everything ... and they did (10k) [brakes, tires, wash/wax the works].

The starting price was a little higher than other Tigers sold a few years ago, but it has a G530, HSI, Stormscope, GTX 330 transponder, new panel, fuel totalizer, EGT/CHT analyzer, most of the mods accept the cowl. It also has both Red and Green panel lighting for night flight (separate), as well as an HID landing light. Recent new baffles, etc.

Ron Levy said:
All that said, the need for repairing the bonded joints is rare, and extremely rare for the 90% of the fleet that doesn't have the purple glue.
Click to expand...

FletchAir told me that most of the "purple passion" stuff has already been taken care of across the fleet.

Tom-D said:
Buy your self a RV-6, better performance better value, better construction, that YOU can repair.
Click to expand...

Only two seats. I need four seats for now, but have many friends with RV's and they're quite impressive as well.

To the OP: Mine has been an absolute BLAST to own. Seems easier to me to fly and land than the Cessna 152/172's if you watch your speeds. I'm more comfortable/confident in the Tiger landing crosswinds ... 15-25kts still leaves a little rudder in direct 90* crosswind. My max has been 22G29 for direct, and 26G35 (about 45* off RWY heading). Ron Levy told me he landed one at 35 near 40, but he's got a lot more time flying Tigers than I do (plus in my area, visibility from blowing dust would make that a no-go anyway).
 
Last edited:
danhagan said:
Ron Levy told me he landed one at 35 near 40, but he's got a lot more time flying Tigers than I do,,,
Click to expand...
Actually, it was 45 straight across the runway, and it took everything I had to do it. That's now on my list of things never to do again. My personal limit is now 35.
 
Well I didn't mean to spark a Grumman vs. Cessna/Piper/etc.. debate here. However I see that much like within the car enthusiast world you have rivalries and disagreements with aircraft also.
 
Ron Levy said:
Actually, it was 45 straight across the runway, and it took everything I had to do it. That's now on my list of things never to do again. My personal limit is now 35.
Click to expand...

A little off topic, but do you keep that same limit with Cessna and Piper equivalent models when you instruct? Asking because the Tiger seems to handle higher crosswinds better to me than the high wing models. Since you fly pretty much everything in your line of work, what's your take?
 
danhagan said:
A little off topic, but do you keep that same limit with Cessna and Piper equivalent models when you instruct?
Click to expand...
I don't. I probably should have said that is now my AA-5-series limit. My crosswind limits are aircraft-specific since each aircraft type has its own flight and handling characteristics.
 
Ron Levy said:
Is Tom talking about Grummans again? His lips are moving, but I'm not hearing him.
Click to expand...
Too bad, I'd like to know how you create new records on a time life item when you don't know the times. like the wing you mentioned above.

one more item to worry about (shady paper work) on the Grumman.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't. I probably should have said that is now my AA-5-series limit. My crosswind limits are aircraft-specific since each aircraft type has its own flight and handling characteristics.
Click to expand...

Cross winds are only one component, what is the shortest runway you would take one into knowing you must haul out max gross?
 
Tom-D said:
Cross winds are only one component, what is the shortest runway you would take one into knowing you must haul out max gross?
Click to expand...


Which airplane? Field elevation? Temp?
 
Anthony said:
Which airplane? Field elevation? Temp?
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to make this too difficult, simply asking what's the shortest runway that you would be comfortable departing with a full load?
 
With my Tiger at gross it is 2,300 ft, at or near sea level.
 
No you're not, you're just stirring the pot and you know it. Everybody else does too. Give it a rest.

Tom-D said:
I'm not trying to make this too difficult, simply asking what's the shortest runway that you would be comfortable departing with a full load?
Click to expand...
 
Hey Tom.. I don't know what your problem is or with whom but you really should take it off the public forum.

Your clearly biased bs about Grummans is really becoming a little to much for me.
I quote you " one more item to worry about (shady paper work) on the Grumman"

Some mechanics are capable of working on them and some are not.

Most everyone who flys one or owns one love the Grummans. Must be something to that dont you think !

Don't be a hater ...


Tom-D said:
Too bad, I'd like to know how you create new records on a time life item when you don't know the times. like the wing you mentioned above.

one more item to worry about (shady paper work) on the Grumman.
Click to expand...
 
iflyatiger said:
Hey Tom.. I don't know what your problem is or with whom but you really should take it off the public forum.

Your clearly biased bs about Grummans is really becoming a little to much for me.
I quote you " one more item to worry about (shady paper work) on the Grumman"

Some mechanics are capable of working on them and some are not.

Most everyone who flys one or owns one love the Grummans. Must be something to that dont you think !

Don't be a hater ...
Click to expand...
It's been a long debate, Ron believes they are great, Me, I show there is a down side too. Plus they don't meet every ones needs.
 
EVERY plane is a compromise. Pick the one that suits your needs, and fly it.
 
Anthony said:
With my Tiger at gross it is 2,300 ft, at or near sea level.
Click to expand...
Indeed it looks about 20% worse than Cherokee, but Dan flies a Tiger all over the place. I met him at SRR, which is a 8100 ft runway at 6800 ft.
 
And once he gets in the air he can actually fly faster than the speed of glue.
zaitcev said:
Indeed it looks about 20% worse than Cherokee, but Dan flies a Tiger all over the place. I met him at SRR, which is a 8100 ft runway at 6800 ft.
Click to expand...
 
The previous owner of my Tiger was based at a 1,900 ft field, but I would not fly out of that one gross. I have flown in and OUT of that field lighter than gross. Runway length has never been a limiting factor for me and the Tiger. I don't do "bush flying" and suspect any who consider one don't need to do that either.

Now where is that B-52 base, again? :)
 
I've been out of an 1800' dirt strip in Baja at gross, no problem, airborne before halfway. The differences between my Grumman and friends' Pipers and Cessnas are minimal. What seems to make more of a difference is what kind of prop you have, cruise or climb.
 
Anthony said:
The previous owner of my Tiger was based at a 1,900 ft field, but I would not fly out of that one gross. I have flown in and OUT of that field lighter than gross. Runway length has never been a limiting factor for me and the Tiger. I don't do "bush flying" and suspect any who consider one don't need to do that either.

Now where is that B-52 base, again? :)
Click to expand...

One operator I worked for had a Traveler for our 'go getter'. Home field was 2300' grass. It was in Illinois and had a flat clearway forever, but it's not like the fence ever caused anyone a scare.
 
Henning said:
The most important thing is that honeycomb Al will tell me the pilot on preflight, it's been over stressed before it fails.
Click to expand...

The best method of inspecting any honey comb structure is with a suction cup, see if the outer skin will oil can outward.

remember both sides.
 
jkeesaman said:
I've been out of an 1800' dirt strip in Baja at gross, no problem, airborne before halfway. The differences between my Grumman and friends' Pipers and Cessnas are minimal. What seems to make more of a difference is what kind of prop you have, cruise or climb.
Click to expand...
Good info, what does that climb prop cost in airspeed?
 
Anthony said:
EVERY plane is a compromise. Pick the one that suits your needs, and fly it.
Click to expand...

There ya Go Anthony, that's the point I try to point out, know before you leap. Piper, Cessna, Grumman they are all simply a different set of problems.

Hopefully no one bends their aircraft but Sh-- happens, and when you bend a Grumman, you have a whole set of different problems than any piper or cessna.
 
Tom-D said:
Good info, what does that climb prop cost in airspeed?
Click to expand...

I have the biggest cruise prop approved for my plane, Sensenich 76" diameter 65" pitch. Cruises 75% at 142 kts. I had a borrowed 61" for a while and the takeoffs and climbs were noticeably faster but it was too easy to over-rev in cruise.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
There ya Go Anthony, that's the point I try to point out, know before you leap. Piper, Cessna, Grumman they are all simply a different set of problems.

Hopefully no one bends their aircraft but Sh-- happens, and when you bend a Grumman, you have a whole set of different problems than any piper or cessna.
Click to expand...


Not anymore, not in today's market. The solution to fixing them all when they get bent is now the same, take your insurance check and buy another one.
 
Tom-D said:
The best method of inspecting any honey comb structure is with a suction cup, see if the outer skin will oil can outward.
Click to expand...
First, that is not the recommended debonding inspection technique. Second, separation of the skin from the honeycomb substrate is not what happens in these delaminations, which affect joints, not the honeycomb.

As I said eariler, if you want to learn about Grummans, ask an expert, not Tom.
 
Henning said:
Not anymore, not in today's market. The solution to fixing them all when they get bent is now the same, take your insurance check and buy another one.
Click to expand...

Bingo, last two whoopsies the insurance adjuster asked if we wanted it totaled, a simple gear up, no big deal to fix in an arrow, right at the total cut off so it was our choice.
 
Ron Levy said:
First, that is not the recommended debonding inspection technique. Second, separation of the skin from the honeycomb substrate is not what happens in these delaminations, which affect joints, not the honeycomb.

As I said eariler, if you want to learn about Grummans, ask an expert, not Tom.
Click to expand...
Honey comb is honey comb, that was the preferred method on all of the Grumman that the NAVY bought, Floors boards of the G-1, E2, E1, and the EA-6B. Stabs on the A-6, EA-6B, F4, all were honey comb, and the structural repair manual had it written in the inspection procedure.

And your AA series is different, Yeah right. I've been fixing honey comb structure a long time. Processes are all the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top