Grumman Tiger, good bad and ugly

danhagan said:
wives tale
Click to expand...
The one in our club leaks in the rain, not much, but flying through a wet cloud you could see it. It wasn't severe or anything, but it did leak. Granted, "club plane" probably tells you all. There's a new owner now so I suspect the maintenance and general upkeep will improve :)

danhagan said:
Lycoming redline is 500
Click to expand...
Sure, and there is an Aerostar mod that lets you run the engines at 430 in cruise.. but either way you cut it that's hot, and materials/oil/etc. do breakdown faster the hotter they run. It just feels inherently wrong to operate that hot. Not a deal breaker at all, but the OP was asking for observations and opinions and that was one of them. If he's used to keeping CHTs cool then this may be a bit of a surprise
 
Or get a Traveler and don't worry about cylinder cooling even with the high compression STC. You sacrifice some speed though, although 7.5-8.0 gph is pretty easy on the wallet. My canopy doesn't leak either unless you open it up. (Not recommended in the rain during flight.o_O)
 
FastEddieB said:
I think the far greater sacrifice is in rate-of-climb and service ceiling.
Click to expand...
ROC is really good with the HC ("160 hp") STC and Sensenich prop STC. The AA5 and AA5B differ by only 1000 feet or so with stock configs. I have no issues reaching 12,000 feet if necessary, but I rarely go much above 10,000. With the HC STC an AA5 can pretty much maintain 500 fpm to nearly 10K with full fuel, two on board plus baggage unless it's a really hot day.

The stock AA5, like most 4 seat, 140-150hp singles, is anemic in climb. The Tiger is better with 180 horses for similar loads, of course.
 
steingar said:
The J-bar gear in mine takes very little maintenance and is as stone simple as it gets. The ones with electric gear actually use the same mechanism, its just urn by a motor instead of the pilot's right arm. I think the most maintenance it needs is a yearly swing and a check of the preloads. I actually had to spend 0.3 AMU to get mine lubricated. I suspect Mooneys are more to insure though, just like any other retractable. Too many gear up accidents.
Click to expand...
Steingar:
I originally googled a search about Tigers that was separate from this thread, saw a post of yours I wanted to reply to, but found your most recent reply to this one (which took a very, very long time to get to). I was originally going to chastise you for pumping Mooney glory into a thread where folks are asking about Tigers...

You’re a very active poster. An accomplished gentleman (loosely), motorcycle enthusiast, geneticist (? I think I read that) & someone I believe I might get along with in other circumstances. What I created an account for is to tell you that if you see a thread where folks are asking about anything other than a Mooney, please keep you yap shut. No one wants to hear about how much faster your Mooney is - the thread is about Grumman. Do you have buyers remorse? Why the hate? Let folks be folks & choose what they choose. Last I checked, this is America (for as long as we fight for it with the current political climate).

It seems you’ve accomplished much & are an intelligent, compassionate person. Don’t poo-poo on another GA plane - we’re all in the same sky - go fly your Mooney.

- AJ
USMC (ret) EA-6B Pilot, CFII, A&P/IA, ATP

I’m checking the box acknowledging the age of the thread because I figure you’re the kind of guy that signed up for alerts.
 
EGA said:
Steingar:
I originally googled a search about Tigers that was separate from this thread, saw a post of yours I wanted to reply to, but found your most recent reply to this one (which took a very, very long time to get to). I was originally going to chastise you for pumping Mooney glory into a thread where folks are asking about Tigers...

You’re a very active poster. An accomplished gentleman (loosely), motorcycle enthusiast, geneticist (? I think I read that) & someone I believe I might get along with in other circumstances. What I created an account for is to tell you that if you see a thread where folks are asking about anything other than a Mooney, please keep you yap shut. No one wants to hear about how much faster your Mooney is - the thread is about Grumman. Do you have buyers remorse? Why the hate? Let folks be folks & choose what they choose. Last I checked, this is America (for as long as we fight for it with the current political climate).

It seems you’ve accomplished much & are an intelligent, compassionate person. Don’t poo-poo on another GA plane - we’re all in the same sky - go fly your Mooney.

- AJ
USMC (ret) EA-6B Pilot, CFII, A&P/IA, ATP

I’m checking the box acknowledging the age of the thread because I figure you’re the kind of guy that signed up for alerts.
Click to expand...
I never poo pooed Tigers. I said the Mooney was cheaper and faster, which it is. You really don't need to be thread police. All that said, if Tigers need thread police maybe they're not all they're cracked up to be...
 
That's gotta be a buddy razzing, yah.

Even a retired guy doesn't have that much time on his hands
 
Is this a new sport? Find an ancient thread and reply? Ghost cancelling?
 
steingar said:
I never poo pooed Tigers. I said the Mooney was cheaper and faster, which it is. You really don't need to be thread police. All that said, if Tigers need thread police maybe they're not all they're cracked up to be...
Click to expand...
You **** on every plane that isn't whatever plane you own at the time.
 
EdFred said:
You **** on every plane that isn't whatever plane you own at the time.
Click to expand...
Nope. Nothing at all wrong with Tigers. I just think mine's better. I love your Comanche, I just don't need all that interior room for my diminutive self.

Besides, this thread asked for the "good, the bad, and the ugly". The bad is you can get handily outrun by a Mooney that costs tens of thousands less.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
Besides, this thread asked for the "good, the bad, and the ugly". The bad is you can get handily outrun by a Mooney that costs tens of thousands less.
Click to expand...

Except a full sized adult fits better in a Grumman, and they are cheaper-ish until you have a prop strike.
 
Yes-prop strikes. So that was my original search: how many Grumman pilots have had or have 1st hand knowledge of the nose strut failing? I’m not a fan of that part of the design. All else is well done & unique (tube spar, bonding, sliding canopy, sectional wings).

Also, the Tiger I fly has a climb prop, so no - it won’t outrun a Mooney, but it will keep up with an SR20 in a climb. As far as efficiency, I like it (speed/GPH, cost of ownership, maintenance access). I’ve flown Mooneys & have nothing negative to say - but Cirrus...the only reason an airplane needs a parachute is if you’re worried about the wings falling off - & if you’re worried about the wings falling off, then maybe you ought not be in that airplane.
 
EGA said:
Yes-prop strikes. So that was my original search: how many Grumman pilots have had or have 1st hand knowledge of the nose strut failing? I’m not a fan of that part of the design. All else is well done & unique (tube spar, bonding, sliding canopy, sectional wings).
Click to expand...

Ours did. Not the nose strut, but the torque tube. Fatigue cracks. Failed taxiiing for runup. Prop strike, teardown, might as well do overhaul, etc etc etc....
 
EGA said:
...but Cirrus...the only reason an airplane needs a parachute is if you’re worried about the wings falling off - & if you’re worried about the wings falling off, then maybe you ought not be in that airplane.
Click to expand...

The first post was mildly humorous.

But this smells of trolling.
 
steingar said:
I never poo pooed Tigers. I said the Mooney was cheaper and faster, which it is. You really don't need to be thread police. All that said, if Tigers need thread police maybe they're not all they're cracked up to be...
Click to expand...

You should've said you poo pooed Tigers, that Mooneys are best and Trump flies a Mooney ... then the cancel culture will knock the price of the turbo charged J model down to 25k and you could upgradeo_O

SoonerAviator said:
I like it. First post in a forum and he swings an axe at a long-time member like a lumberjack, no holds barred. I feel like this could be the start of something beautiful, lol.
Click to expand...

Wow, OP rolled a loose grenade right down the center aisle of church;)

If he comes back with a high wing vs. low wing knock out punch, that'll be the clincher:p
 
EGA said:
but Cirrus...the only reason an airplane needs a parachute is if you’re worried about the wings falling off - & if you’re worried about the wings falling off, then maybe you ought not be in that airplane.
Click to expand...

Cirrus has a parachute because the inventor was in a midair collision In 1985. Alan survived. The other pilot spun into the ground and died.
 
EdFred said:
Except a full sized adult fits better in a Grumman, and they are cheaper-ish until you have a prop strike
Click to expand...
I'm always surprised when I hear about people striking props on 182, Cirrus, and Tigers. Fly the thing competently. You need to really bungle a landing to strike a propeller. I love the Tiger.. something about just feels very simple "get in and go" - Miata-esq in that regard. It's fast, fun, super responsive, and doesn't require a whole "to-do" to fly the thing. No prop, no gear, no cowl flaps, no things to watch out for. It goes where you point it. Yes, it's not as loose and dumpy and forgiving as a 172, but the 172 exemplifies everything a plane should not be.

EGA said:
Yes-prop strikes. So that was my original search: how many Grumman pilots have had or have 1st hand knowledge of the nose strut failing? I’m not a fan of that part of the design. All else is well done & unique (tube spar, bonding, sliding canopy, sectional wings).
Click to expand...
The gear is very simple. And I love the free turning nose gear design.. when the run up area is crowded and most people are doing the bungee cord / break pumping dance to fit in a spot you can easily twirl right in with a Tiger. Backing it by hand into a spot is not easy.. but that's not really easy in any plane, and that's why you should always look for pull-through spots at the transient :)

EGA said:
but Cirrus...the only reason an airplane needs a parachute is if you’re worried about the wings falling off - & if you’re worried about the wings falling off, then maybe you ought not be in that airplane
Click to expand...
Oy.. we were going so well until this point. I flew a Cirrus for a long time (now I'm focused on multi) and people always make Cirrus jokes (haha parachute, what an idiot for adding a life saving safety feature) and there's a perception that Cirrus pilots have a thin skin.. maybe, but Mooney people get the most defensive. It's the best plane ever built and if you disagree clearly you're an idiot with wrong priorities. 6PC nailed it up top, below is the full reason why Cirrus has a parachute. It has nothing to do with "tHeY cOuLdn'T pAsS StalL TesTinG?!" and everything to do with adding a layer of safety. How many people have wives, friends, etc., who won't fly with them because "small planes are dangerous" - the chute is a huge piece of mind for these people even if part of it might be placebo. I'm also not sure how many people are such skilled super aviators who can dead stick a plane onto a road in the middle of a night IMC after an engine failure.. "a real pilot can use the Mooney's nine million to one glide ratio to land back at their home airport unscathed" .. okay. Let's see most people try that. It also works in the event of pilot incapacitation, icing encounters, loss of control IMC.. etc.

The only people worried about their wings falling off should be a people who own Pipers that had been previously under the care of ERAU

upload_2021-3-22_15-35-25.png
 
steingar said:
Nope. Nothing at all wrong with Tigers. I just think mine's better. I love your Comanche, I just don't need all that interior room for my diminutive self.

Besides, this thread asked for the "good, the bad, and the ugly". The bad is you can get handily outrun by a Mooney that costs tens of thousands less.
Click to expand...

Maybe??
 
EGA said:
What I created an account for is to tell you that if you see a thread where folks are asking about anything other than a Mooney, please keep you yap shut.
Click to expand...

Welcome to POA forums, I guess... are you going to stick around and contribute, or just seagull in here to crap on other people's posts?
 
Tantalum said:
The gear is very simple. And I love the free turning nose gear design.. when the run up area is crowded and most people are doing the bungee cord / break pumping dance to fit in a spot you can easily twirl right in with a Tiger. Backing it by hand into a spot is not easy.. but that's not really easy in any plane, and that's why you should always look for pull-through spots at the transient :)
Click to expand...

Another fan of the free-castering nose wheel. Precision pirouettes with just a dab of the brakes (the trike gear ground loop? :)). My trainer was a Diamond DA-20, so the RV-9A with this setup felt second-nature.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Another fan of the free-castering nose wheel. Precision pirouettes with just a dab of the brakes (the trike gear ground loop? :)). My trainer was a Diamond DA-20, so the RV-9A with this setup felt second-nature.
Click to expand...
Just don't go crazy with it. Brake pads aren't free, dontcha know. ;)
 
..wait, so taxiing at 1,800 RPM with gentle, yet firm, pressure on the brakes not SOP?
 
EGA said:
Yes-prop strikes. So that was my original search: how many Grumman pilots have had or have 1st hand knowledge of the nose strut failing?
Click to expand...

Never had a prop strike in a Grumman, but a renter managed the deed in a Traveler I rented out. I would not have rented it to him had he not shown proficiency in the checkout, but **** happens.
 
asicer said:
Just don't go crazy with it. Brake pads aren't free, dontcha know. ;)
Click to expand...

I know, linings are, like, $35!!

The school planes end up having their brake linings replaced a lot. Fortunately the RV-9A has a huge rudder, so there's decent fast-taxi directional control with very light brake application.
 
FastEddieB said:
Never had a prop strike in a Grumman, but a renter managed the deed in a Traveler I rented out. I would not have rented it to him had he not shown proficiency in the checkout, but **** happens.
Click to expand...

I am a big fan of AA-1/5 aircraft. My recollection is that nose gear failures are mostly related to poor airmanship. It seems to be that when bouncing off the nose gear while wheel barrowing on landing the third bounce will generally break the nose gear.
 
Funny.... The only hard landing I had in a Tiger was on the mains and tail. That was a precautionary landing to get on the ground before the back seat occupant blew chunks.

That open canopy paid for itself that day!
 
The only real way to prop strike a Grumman is by trying to force it down and porpoising. I'd venture to say nose gear failures are less common than on a Cirrus, and are universally the result of failing to do preventive maintenance.

My Tiger does 145 in level cruise. It isn't even the fastest one my mechanic works on.
 
I wasn't actually talking about Grumman prop strikes, but Mooney prop strikes making the cheap C model suddenly more expensive than an AAx
 
I’ve never flown a Tiger, but like the plane a lot due to its overall packaging & performance per fuel burn.

While refueling at the FBO in Casper Wy, a nice local gal taxied in for fuel for her restart Tiger. Circa 2003 or 05 model?

Very nice looking plane as she gave me a quick tour.

Always wondered why they were not more popular, and the successive attempts at restarting production never fully succeeded. The 2001 to 2006 models seemed to have improvements to the airframe with more modern adhesives and other airframe items modernized. Though the legal entity was a 4-way partnership and one of the parties started selling off assets without the others permission or something of the such, at least we got 50-55 Tigers out of the restart company.

The current holder keeps threatening to restart production since 2009, but seems focused on PMA parts.

Real shame it’s not in production as the A/C looks great, and has an avid following.
 
Last edited:
NordicDave said:
I’ve never flown a Tiger, but like the plane a lot due to its overall packaging & performance per fuel burn.

While refueling at the FBO in Casper Wy, a nice local gal taxied in for fuel for her restart Tiger. Circa 2003 or 05 model?

Very nice looking plane as she gave me a quick tour.

Always wondered why they were not more popular, and the successive attempts at restarting production never fully succeeded. The 2001 to 2006 models seemed to have improvements to the airframe with more modern adhesives and other airframe items modernized. Though the legal entity was a 4-way partnership and one of the parties started selling off assets without the others permission or something of the such, at least we got 50-55 Tigers out of the restart company.

The current holder keeps threatening to restart production since 2009, but seems focused on PMA parts.

Real shame it’s not in production as the A/C looks great, and has an avid following.
Click to expand...
That hangar/factory in MRB has been for sale for a long time, so I wouldn't hold my breath unfortunately.
 
EdFred said:
I wasn't actually talking about Grumman prop strikes, but Mooney prop strikes making the cheap C model suddenly more expensive than an AAx
Click to expand...
Sad to say, Mooneys are known for prop strikes. I am uncomfortably familiar with the situation.
 
Type Certificate for AA5, AG5, etc now held by TrueFlight Aerospace out of KVLD. If their recent expansion is a hint, something may be brewing there.
 
All planes are beautiful, each in their own special way. There is no such thing as an ugly plane. Except for an Ercoupe. :p
 
steingar said:
Sad to say, Mooneys are known for prop strikes. I am uncomfortably familiar with the situation.
Click to expand...

The last time I "porpoised" was in a Mooney. My excuse is that I was so accustomed to the light control pressures of my Light Sport that I just didn't pull hard enough in the flare and touched down way flatter than I intended. 2 bounces and I got out of dodge before the third had a chance to do any damage. I'm not the kind of pilot who lands fast as a habit, normally aiming for the proverbial "full stall" landing with the stick all the way back. So it can happen to the best of us if we let our guard down. The rubber pucks in the Mooney nose gear don't help the matter, but its not too different from a Grumman or an earlier Cirrus in that regard.

My friend's Mooney later that day, undamaged:

7542698730_cf47bf8fc0_z.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top