Grumman Tiger, good bad and ugly

Tigers are legendary for how well they handle turbulence. Look up the wing loading.

Shouldn't you be barking at a Bonanza owner?
 
There’s a lot of chest-puffing going on here in the last couple of posts. Simma’ down, LOL. I own a Tiger and love it. That said, Mooney’s are cool planes too. It’s personal preference. I like the Tiger because it’s a nice compromise between price/performance/style/comfort. Most Mooney’s are a little faster than me (does 5-10 kts make a big difference on a 2 hour flight)? But my Tiger is more roomy compared to a Mooney (not even close in in the back seat) PLUS the canopy rocks for cooling down on the ground PLUS my back seats fold down to create a storage space big enough for me to sleep in PLUS it’s a much simpler system, maintenance-wise PLUS my insurance is only $750/yr PLUS my plane is only 27 years old. Yeah a Mooney is a little faster....and I think they’re pretty cool, but I choose the Tiger anyway.
 
Last edited:
There are really no downsides to a Tiger in my opinion, other than good ones are hard to find and most have avionics fit for boat anchors. I bought one in 1993 for 26K. It had a mid-time engine and a decent King panel and Century a/p. I sold it around 4 years later for 45K. I'm guessing a similar plane now would be in the 65-70 range. When I got back into flying 3 years ago I searched for some time and couldn't find one worth upgrading. I would have been into any of them for 100K when I got done with avionics upgrades. I'm not sure what Cherokees go for these days but I'm guessing the Tiger costs more but you do get more. Also, selling a good Tiger takes about a day. Annuals are cheap, back seats roomy, sporty handling. When I realized it would take 100K to get me where I wanted to be I bought a nice Bo. No regrets.
 
mr_happyland said:
There’s a lot of chest-puffing going on here in the last couple of posts. Simma’ down, LOL.
Click to expand...
No chest pounding, just cold hard facts. And before you tell me you can keep up with my Mooney you'd better think about climb. Tigers are dogs in climb compared to Mooneys because of the speed prop. I'll be at altitude and at cruise speed way before you. I only bring this up because the Tiger actually costs significantly more than my Mooney.

That said, you're right, Tigers are more spacious inside and have a bigger back seat. Since I've diminutive proportions and don't give a rat's assay about the back seat, these things have never mattered that much to me. But if they matter to you, enjoy your Grumman. Just an alternative point of view. I'll leave you to your somewhat narcissistic echo chamber.
 
kayoh190 said:
Jeez steingar, did Jim Bede beat you up as a kid or something? Heh!
Click to expand...

LOL

I have owned a tiger for 5 years now. Is it the greatest plane no, but it has only cost me $400 dollars a year for annuals, one set of brakes, oil changes and a set of tires. Most Certificated planes can’t claim that. It is a dead nuts simple airplane.

The plane I am looking at next will be an RV10, it has many advantages over Certificated planes:)
 
I do think the price of a Tiger is a little inflated for what you get but the price reflects what the market is willing to pay. A lot of people put a lot of value on manufacturer year over TT. Both are very old airplanes so it's more about condition than year or hours. Both will have similar block times. The tiger is unquestionably cheaper to maintain, more comfortable, and can carry more by volume anyway. The Mooney is going to be a little faster, tighter, and more difficult to work on. As the general population grows in waist size they tend to favor comfort over all out speed which is probably why airplanes like Grummans and Cirrus do so well in the market. Dollar for dollar if you need the space go with the Grumman, if you need the speed go with the Mooney or an old V tail.
 
steingar said:
No chest pounding, just cold hard facts. And before you tell me you can keep up with my Mooney you'd better think about climb. Tigers are dogs in climb compared to Mooneys because of the speed prop. I'll be at altitude and at cruise speed way before you. I only bring this up because the Tiger actually costs significantly more than my Mooney.

I'll leave you to your somewhat narcissistic echo chamber.
Click to expand...

Sounds like chest pounding to me. I'm glad you like your plane and glad that yours climbs faster than mine. If the only factor in what defines a superior plane for an individual was climb and speed, you would win. Do you feel better now?
 
I've had an introductory flight in a Tiger, and had to squeeze in some version of a Mooney when I was an A&P at West Valley Flying club. I have no idea about the Mooney's handling, etc. but it's a non-starter for me because I'm a lot bigger than your average pilot; and the Tiger was plenty roomy enough. No experience with Bo's, but the POA answer for every "What kind of plane should I get?" is "Get a Bo!"
 
Crashnburn said:
I've had an introductory flight in a Tiger, and had to squeeze in some version of a Mooney when I was an A&P at West Valley Flying club. I have no idea about the Mooney's handling, etc. but it's a non-starter for me because I'm a lot bigger than your average pilot; and the Tiger was plenty roomy enough. No experience with Bo's, but the POA answer for every "What kind of plane should I get?" is "Get a Bo!"
Click to expand...

There is a good reason for that "get a bo" reply. They have been made in so many different versions and for so long there is literally one for every budget. They also fit a nice middle ground of comfort, performance, and operating cost.
 
My hangar neighbor has two bo’s an old 1946 and a newer one. They are sweet airplanes for sure.
As for yearly costs they aren’t sweet. He does owner assist, if he didn’t it would be approximately $3000+/- a year at a local shop. More complexity more overall costs.
Buy a plane that fits your needs and budget. If you are just hobby flying for $100 hamburgers it’s tough to justify certain types of airplanes.
 
1RTK1 said:
LOL

I have owned a tiger for 5 years now. Is it the greatest plane no, but it has only cost me $400 dollars a year for annuals, one set of brakes, oil changes and a set of tires. Most Certificated planes can’t claim that. It is a dead nuts simple airplane.
Click to expand...

Pencil whipped annuals are always cheaper.:D
 
Lol, not pencil whipped, I do all the work the I/A just does the inspecting and over seeing.
The first few times I rather enjoyed learning the ins and outs of my airplane, It made me a more knowledgeable pilot, now it seems more like work every year. I do save a lot of money though.:) Shop rate here is $90+/-
 
Last edited:
I guess Steingar doesn't know you can get a CS prop and electronic ignition for a Tiger.

Grum.Man said:
I do think the price of a Tiger is a little inflated for what you get but the price reflects what the market is willing to pay. A lot of people put a lot of value on manufacturer year over TT. Both are very old airplanes so it's more about condition than year or hours. Both will have similar block times. The tiger is unquestionably cheaper to maintain, more comfortable, and can carry more by volume anyway. The Mooney is going to be a little faster, tighter, and more difficult to work on. As the general population grows in waist size they tend to favor comfort over all out speed which is probably why airplanes like Grummans and Cirrus do so well in the market. Dollar for dollar if you need the space go with the Grumman, if you need the speed go with the Mooney or an old V tail.
Click to expand...

Remember, there are Tigers flying out there with G1000s - no short body Mooney has that. There are quite a few AG5Bs out there from the 90s and 2000s.

I can't believe I'm actually having to explain advantages of something over a Mooney. I love Mooneys.

Bobanna said:
Really isn't anyones's business what Mooney-lovers do to each other in private, nor is it hard to understand the unique advantages of a Tiger.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO
 
Grum.Man said:
There is a good reason for that "get a bo" reply. They have been made in so many different versions and for so long there is literally one for every budget. They also fit a nice middle ground of comfort, performance, and operating cost.
Click to expand...

As long as you can find ruddervators when yours needs replacing! :eek:
 
Rcmutz said:
As long as you can find ruddervators when yours needs replacing! :eek:
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a coming problem. I have heard that there is a conversion from V-Tail to regular tail, but I'd venture that's not cheap! Probably less than buying another airplane, though.
 
Crashnburn said:
Yes, that is a coming problem. I have heard that there is a conversion from V-Tail to regular tail, but I'd venture that's not cheap! Probably less than buying another airplane, though.
Click to expand...

Someone is probably going to get fabric certified. It is the most practical solution
 
Back to Tigers ... you people are worse than cats chasing laser pointer dots.

Our checklist has the ignition turned to the left mag position before pressing the starter button. Then both after start. Anybody know why?
 
woodchucker said:
Back to Tigers ... you people are worse than cats chasing laser pointer dots.

Our checklist has the ignition turned to the left mag position before pressing the starter button. Then both after start. Anybody know why?
Click to expand...

That's common in the older ones. Impulse coupling. A lot of folks also ground the mags just after cutting the mix - cuts the vibration.

I'm putting a Sure Fly on one side at the next annual
 
IK04 said:
Perhaps the timing is more retarded on the left mag and better for starting?
Click to expand...

Can't say "retarded" anymore ... it's not PC.

In my field we diagnose IUGR (intra-uterine growth retardation), and now have changed to intra-uterine growth restriction to keep people that live near the ocean happy.:confused:
 
Before this one got wildly off track, there was some really good stuff about Tigers and AA-5s in general. I think this is the route I should probably take, but I'd just like to hear from the people who own or have owned one. So once I finish my PPL I plan on flying back & forth from the Twin Cities area in MN to the middle of nowhere in Nebraska about once a week. Speed isn't the most important thing, but having a flight that was less than 3 hours would be nice. I wouldn't need to move a ton of cargo and would probably fly by myself most of the time, but I would like to be comfortable in the plane (I'm 6'6" and around 250 lbs.). Is there anything else that would be a big concern with the AA-5s?
 
How are Tigers at short field work? Can you stick 4 humans in it with half tanks and get out of a 2000' strip? Anyone got a POH for a Tiger?
 
UngaWunga said:
How are Tigers at short field work? Can you stick 4 humans in it with half tanks and get out of a 2000' strip? Anyone got a POH for a Tiger?
Click to expand...

I personally wouldn’t. Of course there are many variables at play. According to the POH, you CAN stick 4 x 170 lb, with half fuel (25 gal) and be 100 under gross, and get over a 50 foot obstacle in less than 2000 ft in multiple altitude/temp scenarios. It can be done, but the Tiger isn’t exactly known for its short-field take off prowess.
 
Ben Dawson said:
Before this one got wildly off track, there was some really good stuff about Tigers and AA-5s in general. I think this is the route I should probably take, but I'd just like to hear from the people who own or have owned one. So once I finish my PPL I plan on flying back & forth from the Twin Cities area in MN to the middle of nowhere in Nebraska about once a week. Speed isn't the most important thing, but having a flight that was less than 3 hours would be nice. I wouldn't need to move a ton of cargo and would probably fly by myself most of the time, but I would like to be comfortable in the plane (I'm 6'6" and around 250 lbs.). Is there anything else that would be a big concern with the AA-5s?
Click to expand...

You really have to find one and sit in it w the canopy closed. I am 6’3” and 225 and I fit ok with the seats all the way back. But everyone’s height is in different body parts. I have a relatively longer torso but shorter legs, so if you stretched me to 6’6” I wouldn’t fit under the canopy. Google “flaw of averages Air Force” for more.
 
UngaWunga said:
How are Tigers at short field work? Can you stick 4 humans in it with half tanks and get out of a 2000' strip? Anyone got a POH for a Tiger?
Click to expand...

If you join Grummanpilotsassociation.com or aya.org you can download POHs and other stuff.

I ran my W&B with 25 gal and can fit 730 pounds of humans. I did not run any performance numbers.
 
I'm also not comfortable landing mine in less than ~2400' of runway. Now, 9 times out of 10 I can get stopped comfortably in 1600', but if your airspeed is five knots too fast (or a gust hits you at the wrong time) you can easily float for another few hundred feet. The unpredictability makes me cautious about short runways.

Otherwise it's a great plane. It does seem to be built for "average" sized people - it's pretty narrow at the hips/shoulders, and I could see a very tall or wide person feeling squeezed. But it fits me well, and I love being able to cruise at 135 kts without having to worry about a retractable gear. I can carry 2 passengers & full tanks + bags, or 3 passengers and fuel to tabs. One other note - it's sensitive in roll and (to a lesser extent) pitch. You can't simply trim it out and expect it to keep heading and altitude like a Cessna - you have to monitor & correct attitude. That makes it a bit more challenging for instrument flying, but fun for VFR.
 
I just came here to say: what In the actual hell?

OK. Back to your crank measuring
 
AlleyCat67 said:
I'm also not comfortable landing mine in less than ~2400' of runway. Now, 9 times out of 10 I can get stopped comfortably in 1600', but if your airspeed is five knots too fast (or a gust hits you at the wrong time) you can easily float for another few hundred feet. The unpredictability makes me cautious about short runways.

Otherwise it's a great plane. It does seem to be built for "average" sized people - it's pretty narrow at the hips/shoulders, and I could see a very tall or wide person feeling squeezed. But it fits me well, and I love being able to cruise at 135 kts without having to worry about a retractable gear. I can carry 2 passengers & full tanks + bags, or 3 passengers and fuel to tabs. One other note - it's sensitive in roll and (to a lesser extent) pitch. You can't simply trim it out and expect it to keep heading and altitude like a Cessna - you have to monitor & correct attitude. That makes it a bit more challenging for instrument flying, but fun for VFR.
Click to expand...

Actually the aa5 is 1 inch wider than a 172 but to me it feels even more than that because the openness and the slight canopy bulge at the top.
At gross (poh) for landing at sl to clear 50ft- 1300ft, at 8000 to clear 50ft- 1700ft depending on temp, short field technique 1100 and 1400 respectively. As said they are not know for their short field TO prowess. SL-take off 50ft ob-1500ft, 8000ft-3200ft.
My home port runway is 2900 and I can easily land and make the first turn off before mid field without problems, all depends on how you fly it. If you carry a little to much speed it will float.
Useful load on my tiger is 980.
 
Last edited:
N1120A said:
I guess Steingar doesn't know you can get a CS prop and electronic ignition for a Tiger.

I can't believe I'm actually having to explain advantages of something over a Mooney. I love Mooneys.
Click to expand...

The price I saw for a Tiger with a CS prop would almost buy an M20J, which would totally kick the six off any Tiger. I think they’re overvalued because lots of pilots are frightened by retractable gear.
 
steingar said:
The price I saw for a Tiger with a CS prop would almost buy an M20J, which would totally kick the six off any Tiger. I think they’re overvalued because lots of pilots are frightened by retractable gear.
Click to expand...
What are the price ranges for a J?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top