Grumman AA5B Tiger

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...
Pretty much true in this market, but when you want it fixed ? Your just going to order a few new skins and rivet them on right?
 
Sounds like all the guys who own and fly them have solved this problem to their satisfaction and you're the only clueless guy in the group when discussing these airplanes. What's wrong with this picture?

Tom-D said:
Pretty much true in this market, but when you want it fixed ? Your just going to order a few new skins and rivet them on right?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Sounds like all the guys who own and fly them have solved this problem to their satisfaction and you're the only clueless guy in the group when discussing these airplanes. What's wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...

And they solved it the same way the piper/cessna owner did right?

different aircraft different set of problems, Wayne tell me how long it would require you to get a wing on site for a Grumman.?

Tell me how you change the fuel tank "O" rings, or for that matter tell me where the fuel tank is in a AA1.
 
Tom, none of this shlt matters. Why can't you understand that? You're quickly going from a very knowledgeable and valuable resource on the things at which you are very good to a blathering old fool with an axe to grind on the stuff you don't know much about.

Why do you want to do that to yourself when the subject is absolutely meaningless and the outcome so predictable? Whose mind do you think you will change by using this strategy?



OTE=Tom-D;889409]And they solved it the same way the piper/cessna owner did right?

different aircraft different set of problems, Wayne tell me how long it would require you to get a wing on site for a Grumman.?

Tell me how you change the fuel tank "O" rings, or for that matter tell me where the fuel tank is in a AA1.[/QUOTE]
 
wabower said:
Tom, none of this shlt matters. Why can't you understand that? You're quickly going from a very knowledgeable and valuable resource on the things at which you are very good to a blathering old fool with an axe to grind on the stuff you don't know much about.

Why do you want to do that to yourself when the subject is absolutely meaningless and the outcome so predictable? Whose mind do you think you will change by using this strategy?



OTE=Tom-D;889409]And they solved it the same way the piper/cessna owner did right?

different aircraft different set of problems, Wayne tell me how long it would require you to get a wing on site for a Grumman.?

Tell me how you change the fuel tank "O" rings, or for that matter tell me where the fuel tank is in a AA1.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

IOWs you don't know what holds the fuel in the tank of a AA1.

I have converted two AA1s to taildraggers, and for your information the fuel tank is the SPAR and the fuel is held by Large "O" rings, and when they leak, you pull the wings to replace them.
 
IOW you still don't get it. Rave on.

IOWs you don't know what holds the fuel in the tank of a AA1.

I have converted two AA1s to taildraggers, and for your information the fuel tank is the SPAR and the fuel is held by Large "O" rings, and when they leak, you pull the wings to replace them.[/QUOTE]
 
Tom-D said:
...for your information the fuel tank is the SPAR and the fuel is held by Large "O" rings, and when they leak, you pull the wings to replace them.
Click to expand...

Even my grandmother knows that :stirpot:
 
wabower said:
IOW you still don't get it.
Click to expand...
Nope I don't, simply stick your head in the sand, Because you probably don't understand what I do for a living, or understand I've looked at several of the Grumman as projects over the years, and in so doing my home work.

But if you believe they are the perfect little aircraft, go for it, figure it out your self.

Im gone fishing for about a week.
 

IOWs you don't know what holds the fuel in the tank of a AA1.

I have converted two AA1s to taildraggers, and for your information the fuel tank is the SPAR and the fuel is held by Large "O" rings, and when they leak, you pull the wings to replace them.[/QUOTE]


Cool. Did they cruise significantly faster after nosewheel removal? I'm interested in the AA-1 because they are dirt cheap, many can be found with IFR equipment and they cruise fast for 100hp.
 
dell30rb said:
I have converted two AA1s to taildraggers, and for your information the fuel tank is the SPAR and the fuel is held by Large "O" rings, and when they leak, you pull the wings to replace them.
Click to expand...
Cool. Did they cruise significantly faster after nosewheel removal? I'm interested in the AA-1 because they are dirt cheap, many can be found with IFR equipment and they cruise fast for 100hp.
Click to expand...
Yes, they do. You unload both drag (the nose gear is half the gear drag, not 1/3, due to prop wash effects) and weight. However, you get a very short-coupled plane with the main wheels way forward, and the result is a major handful on the ground, especially during landing. Probably the most similar plane in that regard is a Pitts Special, and you can read all about that on the internet. Definitely not for the inexperienced TW pilot, which is why I don't fly them solo or give training in them.

BTW, the AA-1/1A/1B are 108HP stock, while the AA-1C is 115HP stock, although some have the 125HP "Sparrowhawk" engine modification, many have been upgraded to 150/160HP O-320's, and a couple with a 180HP O-360. The fastest light Grumman out there is an AA-1 with the TW mod and a 160HP O-320 along with a bunch of drag reduction clean-ups -- does about 170 knots TAS flat-out near sea level.

For more on the AA-1-series TW conversion, contact STC holder "Mean" Gene Plazak:

DMA SPEED MODS
(832) 717-7760
email: dma@pdq.net
 
Last edited:
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...

Need the DA Tom, and the POH takeoff numbers shouldn't be used literally. Hottest I've departed at/near gross has been 105*. Normally full fuel and just me 1000 feet easy without any short field technique. Above temps and full fuel varies with runway slope/heat/etc. but I've used 2500 to 3300 before as longest takeoff run.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
YAVW, while I'm gone tell the folks why you take your Grumman to a shop that specializes in the type to have a simple annual completed?
Click to expand...


I get my Annual Inspections done by a shop that probably sees two Grumman a year. Mine is one of them. Been going there since 2001 except when I lived out of the area. If you can read a manual, you can fix a Grumman, but it helps if they've done it a time or two before.
 
Anthony said:
I get my Annual Inspections done by a shop that probably sees two Grumman a year. Mine is one of them. Been going there since 2001 except when I lived out of the area. If you can read a manual, you can fix a Grumman, but it helps if they've done it a time or two before.
Click to expand...

That "comprehension" thing keeps getting in Tom's way.......:rolleyes:
 
FlySince9 said:
This thread got me interested... Found this link. Seems to be some good info and history...

http://www.randyarmadillo.com/flying/tiger/11-00_Aviation_Consumer.pdf
Click to expand...
...and remarkably accurate. Only big error is not recognizing the wing change between the 1970 AA-1 and the 1971 AA-1A, but the article was about the AA-5-series, not the 2-seaters. Something which happened after that article was approval of a terminating action for the 100-hour aileron inspection AD -- a one-time inspection of the aileron surface to confirm concave shape without any convexity along the entire span of the control surface.
 
Ron Levy said:
...and remarkably accurate. Only big error is not recognizing the wing change between the 1970 AA-1 and the 1971 AA-1A, but the article was about the AA-5-series, not the 2-seaters. Something which happened after that article was approval of a terminating action for the 100-hour aileron inspection AD -- a one-time inspection of the aileron surface to confirm concave shape without any convexity along the entire span of the control surface.
Click to expand...

Is transition from a something like a C172 as precarious as the article implies?
 
FlySince9 said:
Is transition from a something like a C172 as precarious as the article implies?
Click to expand...
Generally no, but it depends on the pilot. Those who are proficient pilots and fly a 172 well have no problems and typically complete the AYA Pilot Familiarization Program in about half a day. Those who rely on the 172's forgiving nature to avoid disaster and are satisfied with +10/-5 airspeed excursions and roller-coastering +/- 100 foot altitude excursions during maneuvering and landing take longer -- occasionally much longer. You just can't get away with as much in the Grummans as you can in a 172.

OTOH, if you can fly a Grumman well, you will have much less difficulty stepping up to something like a Bonanza later on, because you will be a much more precise and proficient pilot.

Just make sure you get your Grumman transition training from an instructor who knows the plane -- I've seen too many bad things happen involving less experienced instructors who think they can check themselves out in the plane while they're training you. Best place to find such an instructor is to join the AYA and avail yourself of the AYA's Pilot Familiarization Program, just as the best way to get trained in a Bonanza is via the ABS's BPPP.
 
Last edited:
FlySince9 said:
Is transition from a something like a C172 as precarious as the article implies?
Click to expand...


I don't think the ariticle implies it is "precarious" just that the Grummans fly a little differently, and require a bit more discipline on speed control in landing. Also with the Cheetah and Traveller more attention to weight and high DA is in order. The Tiger suffers much less due to its 30 more H.P.

I learned in C-152's, transitioned to 172's, then Warrior/Archers, and then owned a Cherokee for a few years. Transitioning to the Tiger was a non-event. I operated the Tiger in the Colorado Rockies at some very, very high DA's with no ill effects or restrictions of where I could go. Of course it is not a back country plane for short, unimproved strips, but other than that, no issues.
 
Anthony said:
I don't think the ariticle implies it is "precarious" just that the Grummans fly a little differently, and require a bit more discipline on speed control in landing. Also with the Cheetah and Traveller more attention to weight and high DA is in order. The Tiger suffers much less due to its 30 more H.P.

I learned in C-152's, transitioned to 172's, then Warrior/Archers, and then owned a Cherokee for a few years. Transitioning to the Tiger was a non-event. I operated the Tiger in the Colorado Rockies at some very, very high DA's with no ill effects or restrictions of where I could go. Of course it is not a back country plane for short, unimproved strips, but other than that, no issues.
Click to expand...

Got it...

Thanx :)
 
Anthony said:
I learned in C-152's, transitioned to 172's, then Warrior/Archers, and then owned a Cherokee for a few years. Transitioning to the Tiger was a non-event.
Click to expand...
That's because Anthony was already a good pilot with good fundamental skills and good self-discipline when he started his Tiger checkout. How do I know? I was his Tiger transition instructor. ;)
 
Ron Levy said:
That's because Anthony was already a good pilot with good fundamental skills and good self-discipline when he started his Tiger checkout. How do I know? I was his Tiger transition instructor. ;)
Click to expand...

Okay... so what does a tiger transition involve (in hours, or however you want to measure it) for a "a good pilot with good fundamental skills and good self-discipline?"
 
FlySince9 said:
Okay... so what does a tiger transition involve (in hours, or however you want to measure it) for a "a good pilot with good fundamental skills and good self-discipline?"
Click to expand...

Learn v speeds and system differences on your own time and not much at all, just another airplane.
 
FlySince9 said:
Okay... so what does a tiger transition involve (in hours, or however you want to measure it) for a "a good pilot with good fundamental skills and good self-discipline?"
Click to expand...
Like I said -- about half a day, including ground training. Typically about 1-1/2 hours of ground training and 2 to 2-1/2 hours of flight training.
 
Skylane81E said:
Learn v speeds and system differences on your own time and not much at all, just another airplane.
Click to expand...
You can study that stuff on your own ahead of time, but before you get a PFP sign-off, the instructor will still have to go over them all with you to make sure you know them. доверяй но проверяй, and all that.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
If LoPresti makes a mod for your plane, it's pretty much worth having.;)
Click to expand...
I would agree, with one exception. The PA-32 "howl cowl" is an overpriced nightmare that doesn't come close to delivering on what is promised. I had that on the late N8415C. It was nice to have a cowl flap, but getting to any more than the 4 square inches of engine access provided by the oil door required removal of 78, yes 78, screws. The nose gear door becomes 3 doors that seem to be impossible to rig. It has a pulse air inlet that's supposed to increase manifold pressure by timing the pulse from the prop blade to the opening of the intake valve in each cylinder, which is a plumbing Rube Goldberd device. It's priced at somewhere north of $15,000. And you get maybe 5 knots.
 
The LoPresti cowl mod is a good one for the Tiger. However, if you have decent baffling, or get it reworked by someone that knows what they are doing, then any cooling issues can be resolved with the standard cowl. I was having issues with my #3 cylinder getting higher CHT's in climb, and a rework of the baffling fixed it. Now I keep all cylinders under 400F in climb in the Tiger. Its nice having a four cyl. engine monitor though.

As far as aesthetics go I prefer the "sharked mouth" original cowl of the Tiger/Cheetah over the LoPresti "more modern" round inlets, although I do find both attractive. The shark is retro. :)
 
Hey Guys...Please help!

I'm looking at two Tigers (a 77 and 78) Both are the same price and similarly equipped. Help me out here:

The 77 - Mid time engine (just hit 1200), the IA/owner put a lot of time and money in the aircraft's annual (new glass, new glaresheed, new interior, and new plastic everywhere) and the logs are pristine, the engine is stong (lowest 76). Downside, she needs paint! Not horrible but its faded and its due for a fresh spray. Second downside, no wheel fairings, not sure where they went, but I'm almost sure that wlll hurt performance a bit (comments?). Last issue is the panel being cracked badly, there are several areas where it needs help.

The 78 - the Good: BEAUTIFUL original paint and interior, looks good from the pictures and is very clean. The Bad: 1500hrs on engine. From what I've seen so far (haven't seen the logs) the compression are stellar (lowest was 77). Double Downside: it hasn't been overhauled since 1983 the year I was born...eek Im young but I'm less than a year away from 30 years so is this engines services life. Should I be scared?

Anyone know of a good Grumman mechanic or a recommended shop in NC/VA area? I'm in Florida, and can't just fly the aircraft to a local shop.

Thanks!

Dave
 
Levy and his band of Grumman merry men should be able to handle this one without breaking a sweat, unless they are being chased by the Horivados tribe which seems to always be on the lookout for Grumman pilots they can cook for lunch.
 
davidm767 said:
Hey Guys...Please help!

I'm looking at two Tigers (a 77 and 78) Both are the same price and similarly equipped. Help me out here:

The 77 - Mid time engine (just hit 1200), the IA/owner put a lot of time and money in the aircraft's annual (new glass, new glaresheed, new interior, and new plastic everywhere) and the logs are pristine, the engine is stong (lowest 76). Downside, she needs paint! Not horrible but its faded and its due for a fresh spray. Second downside, no wheel fairings, not sure where they went, but I'm almost sure that wlll hurt performance a bit (comments?). Last issue is the panel being cracked badly, there are several areas where it needs help.

The 78 - the Good: BEAUTIFUL original paint and interior, looks good from the pictures and is very clean. The Bad: 1500hrs on engine. From what I've seen so far (haven't seen the logs) the compression are stellar (lowest was 77). Double Downside: it hasn't been overhauled since 1983 the year I was born...eek Im young but I'm less than a year away from 30 years so is this engines services life. Should I be scared?

Anyone know of a good Grumman mechanic or a recommended shop in NC/VA area? I'm in Florida, and can't just fly the aircraft to a local shop.

Thanks!

Dave
Click to expand...

Well it all comes down to money, and how much you want to spend to "fix" the issues with both. How old is the 77's engine? Also, I would treat the 78 engine as a runout, and price it accordingly if it hasn't been touched since 1983.

I don't know a good shop in NC/VA but Ron or someone else will. Try to put together cost estimates on both to get them where you want them, and go from there.

The wheel fairings will cost you about 5 - 7 knots IIRC, but I've never had mine off so no personal experience. Maybe someone else can confirm. To get the most out of the Tiger you want them on.

Yeah, the Horivados Indians are always after us for some reason. Probably hired by Cessna and Piper owners due to our snobiness. :)
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
Levy and his band of Grumman merry men should be able to handle this one without breaking a sweat, unless they are being chased by the Horivados tribe which seems to always be on the lookout for Grumman pilots they can cook for lunch.
Click to expand...

ROFL!!! THIS is why you were sorely missed at the gumbo feed yesterday.
 
Anthony said:
Also, I would treat the 78 engine as a runout, and price it accordingly if it hasn't been touched since 1983.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's a Lycoming and they don't like to sit. Not a ton of hours in all that time. If you can verify the activity in the last say 3-5 years is higher, the logs show no serious problems and you cut the filter at the prebuy and use a magnet, then this motor could possibly serve you well enough. Still, I would consider it a run out too and negotiate accordingly. That means get it cheap enough so that if you have to rebuild the engine on day two of ownership, you're still in budget.
 
davidm767 said:
The 77 - Mid time engine (just hit 1200),
Click to expand...
How long ago was it overhauled?

the IA/owner put a lot of time and money in the aircraft's annual (new glass, new glaresheed, new interior, and new plastic everywhere) and the logs are pristine, the engine is stong (lowest 76).
Click to expand...
Good news there.

Downside, she needs paint! Not horrible but its faded and its due for a fresh spray.
Click to expand...
That's about $10-14K for a good-outstanding job.

Second downside, no wheel fairings, not sure where they went, but I'm almost sure that wlll hurt performance a bit (comments?).
Click to expand...
That will cost you about 5-7 knots of speed, but no significant climb difference (parasite drag isn't the issue there). For a price for three new wheel pants, contact Garner at Fletchair (800-FA-WINGS), and remember you'll probably need the hardware as well as the pants themselves.

Last issue is the panel being cracked badly, there are several areas where it needs help.
Click to expand...
New overlays are available.

The 78 - the Good: BEAUTIFUL original paint and interior, looks good from the pictures and is very clean. The Bad: 1500hrs on engine. From what I've seen so far (haven't seen the logs) the compression are stellar (lowest was 77). Double Downside: it hasn't been overhauled since 1983 the year I was born...eek Im young but I'm less than a year away from 30 years so is this engines services life. Should I be scared?
Click to expand...
Scared? No. Concerned? Yes. Probably want to do the valve wobble guide check (from 1983 it will have the old valve guides which should be checked every 400 hours), borescope the cylinders, and maybe even pull a jug to look at the camshaft (low utilization near the coast means a possibility of camshaft corrosion).

Anyone know of a good Grumman mechanic or a recommended shop in NC/VA area? I'm in Florida, and can't just fly the aircraft to a local shop.
Click to expand...
Bill Broach at Chesapeake Aircraft Maintenance (Forest Hill MD) is close to VA, but the plane has to come to him. See my PM for other options.
 
Thank you all for commenting.

I ended up putting an offer on the aircraft with the worn paint, got a little wiggle out of the negotiation and the gentlemen added that he'll throw in unpainted wheel pants (minus hardware) and buff the exterior. Which he believes will get most of the oxidation out.

The engine by the way was factory overhauled in 1997 by Mattituck, and torn down and re-inspected by Mattituck after a prop strike in 2003, the service report had an IRAN mention and ultimately cleared all items airworthy and in spec.

Any recommendation on overlays? How about the time it takes to put it all together? I really have no clue what the cost would be (considering overlays are cheap, but manual labor not so much).

Thanks Again, it made my decision a heck of a lot clearer!
 
I can have your plane painted for ~ $7k including full strip, prep, prime and white with one trim color. I did it to my AA5 which is the same airframe. If you want weird colors of extra trim colors it will add a bit. If you want us to put the wheel pants on and replace some of the plastic fairings it will be a bit more. Usually with the Grummans, replacing some of the plastic trim helps a lot with a new paint job. PM for further details.

Edit: contact Fletchair for most things Grumman related, including the overlays.
 
Tom-D said:
Has any one ever polished one, save a lot of $$ by applying a lot of elbow grease?
Click to expand...
No, and even if you did, you'd have a pretty ugly airplane given the various different materials used around the plane. Further, you would have some corrosion control issues. Not a good idea.
 
Ron Levy said:
No, and even if you did, you'd have a pretty ugly airplane given the various different materials used around the plane. Further, you would have some corrosion control issues. Not a good idea.
Click to expand...

Not all polished aircraft are 100% polished, most have a trim scheme.

I don't understand the corrosion issues? you do have to keep them polished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top