Grumman Tiger, good bad and ugly

Groundpounder

Groundpounder

En-Route
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
2,951
Location
New Hampshire
Display Name
Display name:
Emerson Bigguns
Couldn't find and specific threads on the Tiger, so I decided to start one. Just wondering about the highlights and the lowlights on the Tiger. Folklore seems to say that the sliding canopy will leak water, how common is this? How good of an IFR platform are they? Any serious maintenance gotchas? How would the ownership costs compare to an Archer II? How would the ownership experience compare to an Archer II?

From what I have seen and read, they seem like pretty neat little airplanes with good performance and reasonable operating costs.
 
Tiger owner here. I've never heard anyone say the sliding canopy leaks. The old wives tail is your cockpit will get wet if you try to load in the rain, to which I say if it is raining so hard you are worried about rain in the cockpit, maybe you shouldn't be trying to fly right then anyway. It is such an OWT there's even a guy who makes satirical videos about it.

I am not IR rated and have never owned an Archer so can't speak specifically to your other questions.

Run, don't walk, to these other sites for more reliable information than you will get here:

Www.aya.org
Www.grummanpilotsassociation.com
Grumman.net
 
Last edited:
I fly a Tiger and am very happy. The Tiger will be a bit faster and better handling than an Archer II. Fuel burn seems to be similar with the Tiger burning a bit less from specs. My canopy does not leak. I’ve never owned an Archer but parts may be cheaper than a Tiger. Annuals and operating expenses would be similar. Gotchas include knowing the wings are bonded without the “purple glue”that was used for a period or, like mine, rebonded. Both planes cans be fitted with IFR platforms.
 
So sorry I sold mine and when I had the chance to buy it back I didn’t. They don’t leak, maintenance is easy and the type is well supported all around. I was renting a Warrior while waiting delivery on an SLSA, the Warrior is a PITA to get in and out of compared to stepping into the Tiger.

Even thought it’s short coupled, it’s stable even for IFR flight, an auto pilot helps. I never found it to be a problem. It’s FAST compared to other similar aircraft in the same category. They are still very affordable.

Give the atiger a look, you wont be disappointed..
 
Van Johnston said:
Tiger owner here. I've never heard anyone say the sliding canopy leaks. The old wives tail is your cockpit will get wet if you try to load in the rain, to which I say if it is raining so hard you are worried about rain in the cokpit, maybe you shouldn't be trying to fly right then anyway. It is such an OWT there's even a guy who makes satirical videos about it.

I am not IR rated and have never owned an Archer so can't speak specifically to your other questions.
Click to expand...
The two bold items make absolute sense read together ;)
 
Sign up and follow here for awhile and you’ll get a good sense of Grumman’s, their enthusiasm, and support:
https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grumman-gang

Love mine.
The issue of Purple Glue should be history - all affected planes are known by serial number and should be fixed by now.
There are a few shops around that do little else outside of AAs - where you located?
Parts availability has not been an issue for me...or really anyone I’ve heard of.
Someone will be along shortly to bemoan the sliding canopy in the rain (doesn’t leak but yeah one can get rained on ingress/egress, but I/E is so much easier than most low wings w single door, and opening canopy to taxi on a hot day is great), bemoan the life limited wing (never heard of anyone reaching that limit), or the float on landing (watch your speed and it’s a total non-issue).
Try it, you’ll like it.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
@SixPapaCharlie
Click to expand...


20171015_101409-459x816-jpg.57132
 
I did most of my IFR training in a Traveler, same plane, 30 less horses. Seems I remember it being a more stable plane than the C172’s I had to compare it to.
 
....oh, and don’t spill coffee in your seat, and don’t let your kids sit on the leading edge wing root.
 
Small ruder for X wind landing, more than one landed on nose wheel and met their demise not that other aircraft don't. People tend to step on the seats just a problem of not knowing how to get in the plane, I believe the wing is a time life item and the end of the plane. If it is a new paint job people have got stripper in the joints remember this plane is glued together and stripper in the glue is bad, make sure this did not happen
 
Last edited:
Tiger owner and have 100plus hours in an archer.

The tiger is faster same fuel burn and way more fun to fly. Issues lately have been spar corrosion and the obvious purple glue. Wings and spar have a life limit of 11,500 hours ( maybe 12,500) so stay away from high time airframes. Where are you located ??
 
I love mine (Traveler by the way)

The canopy was the clincher for me.
In my price range, the performance was pretty much level for what I could buy.

But for me the decision was kinda psychological.
I like pipers but that 1 door thing made me uncomfortable.
I don't care for high wings so Grumman was a good option and it was a really good decision.

The canopy entrance / exit is pretty darn convenient. I can literally stand up in my plane.
This allows me to easily help people in and out, load full scale suit cases, and when I am climbing around cleaning, fixing stuff, I have more room to maneuver than I would in most cars.

My canopy does leak a bit as shown in that photo. I am sure I can get it fixed but given the 1 time it was an issue, I am not all that concerned about it.

The plane is fun to fly and nobody seems to mention the visibility but I flew in a Warrior a few weeks back and quickly realized the visibility I have in the Grumman.
I have heard people suggest it is a greenhouse. Not true, the top is solid though some people have looked at photos and said "I thought those had a full glass bubble canopy"
I am not sure why but I have heard that multiple times now.

I live in Texas and it is ****ing hot right now.
Sunday I flew from San Antonio to Dallas in 102 degree heat.

Being able to open the canopy is priceless here especially on the ground.
In the air, you can open it something like 10 inches but a couple is more than enough.

This was a photo from Sunday's flight. With the canopy cracked that far, the plane was quite cool (Granted we were at 6k feet)

36649156_10216691764473437_4324643127718576128_o.jpg



You can open it further if you want though depending on your needs.

shoot.jpg


And yes, if it were raining, the gentleman above would get wet.





Just go buy one.
You will love it.
 
Van Johnston said:
I hang my head in shame. I know better....
Click to expand...
LOL!

I'm sorry I can't be to much help with the main thread. I only have one Tiger flight under my belt. I was on vacation and found out a local flight school had one. I had heard so much about them I arranged a checkout flight so I could go play.

FWIW, it's a great airplane. Performance far superior to an equivalent PA-28. I wish there was one available near me to fly.

As you say, the best source of info is going to be the type-specific organizations. The only general "warning" I have is the same one given to new Mooney pilots - the need for precise airspeed control for landing a slick airframe.
 
1. Sliding canopy for hot days, makes taxi, climb and cruise comfortable
2. Fold down back seats make an awesome cargo hauler with over 6-1/2 feet of room
3. Comparable in speed to C model Mooney, C182 and faster than an Arrow
4. Fuel burn only 10 gph at 135+ knots cruise
5. Airframe is strong as heck, no history of inflight structural failure
6. Great useful load, mine is 900 lbs.
7. Modern instrument layout, no shotgun panel
8. Fixed pitch prop and fixed gear means cheap insurance and reduced maintenance
9. Easy engine access
10. Plenty of backseat leg room.
11. Mine flies exactly as the book predicts, speed and fuel burn are spot on
12. Great support for parts and maintenance
13. INCREDIBLE inflight visibility
14. Plenty stable for instrument flight, and yes I fly IFR in mine.
15. Wheels mount on the fuselage, not on the wing. Eliminates landing stresses on wing/fuselage joints. Not like an Arrow!

Best of all it’s a Grumman! Pretty cool to broadcast that fact on every radio call!
 
Thanks all for the info. I am located in New Hampshire. This airplane is going to be either for a new flying club, or an addition to a present flying club.

Anyone in this neck of the woods that owns a Grumman that could bring me up for a flight? I'll split the gas with you.
 
I only have time in the AA1X series, the baby brother of the tiger, the canopy design I think is one of the better ones in GA, no issues, the free castor nose wheel was great for ground handling, nice shock absorbing and strong fiberglass mains, good fuel tank system, etc

Was think if people knew more about them, you’d have people buying AA1s and AA5s over 172s and 152s.
 
TigerGene said:
2. Fold down back seats make an awesome cargo hauler with over 6-1/2 feet of room
Click to expand...

Screen Shot 2018-07-07 at 7.00.30 AM.png

13. INCREDIBLE inflight visibility
Click to expand...

Yep. Not only are the windows huge all around, but also the top of the instrument panel, glareshield and cowl is low, providing excellent visibility forward. You have the feeling of sitting at a low desk on a mountaintop.

Screen Shot 2018-07-07 at 7.02.05 AM.png

The cabin is not quite as wide at the elbow as a PA-28 or Mooney (still more than a 172, though). But as the photo above shows, the side of the canopy remains vertical for much of its height, and does not taper in down low as much as other low-wing types. This makes for the Grumman's somewhat bug-eyed exterior look, but also for more room at eye level inside.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
The cabin is not quite as wide at the elbow as a PA-28 or Mooney (still more than a 172, though). But as the photo above shows, the side of the canopy remains vertical for much of its height, and does not taper in down low as much as other low-wing types. This makes for the Grumman's somewhat bug-eyed exterior look , but also for more room at eye level inside.
Click to expand...

Not only that but the lower fuselage is essentially a box section, probably a byproduct of the aluminum honeycomb construction. Lots of room to move your feet.
 
I own an AA-5 with the high compression (160 hp) STC. Maintain the canopy and seals properly, it won't leak. My AA-1A canopy leaked right on to my flap switch until I fixed it (similar design). The AA-5X are simple aircraft, easy to maintain, and are well-supported in parts (Fletchair and others.) The airframe is incredibly strong. Ingress and egress is a bit clumsy, but more than made up for with the sliding canopy, which provide plenty of A/C on taxi, great visibility, and can be opened about 8" in flight if desired. Will outrun almost any fixed gear competitor of the same horsepower. I have flown my AA-5 IFR frequently since 1989, and trained in it for the IR prior to that. I fly out of crosswind central, and never found any lack of control authority for managing crosswinds. Fly by the POH and the AA-series are all pussycats. Fail to read and heed the POH, or add gratuitous extra knots for "safety" and you will join many who have had overrun incidents. The AA-series are low wing aircraft with laminar flow wings and small flaps so they will eat up runway with float if you are sloppy. I'm happy with my choice, have kept my AA-5 for almost 30 years. It's easy on the wallet at 8 gph or less for 117 kt. The Tiger will get closer to 130 kt at 10 gph. The stock Travelers and Cheetahs are a bit underpowered at 150 hp, and if you go for the "baby" Tigers, the HC STC makes them the plane they should have been, especially with the Sensenich prop STC which adds about 4 kt and is a better pitch for the STC engine. Many AA-5 and AA-5A aircraft have installed the HC STC at overhaul, as it is only a paperwork cost at that point.

Good luck. Don't be afraid to consider the Grummans as a desirable light single fixed gear option.
 
James331 said:
I only have time in the AA1X series, the baby brother of the tiger, the canopy design I think is one of the better ones in GA, no issues, the free castor nose wheel was great for ground handling, nice shock absorbing and strong fiberglass mains, good fuel tank system, etc

Was think if people knew more about them, you’d have people buying AA1s and AA5s over 172s and 152s.
Click to expand...

I really miss the all-glass canopy of the AA-1A I owned. You get spoiled by the visibility! The AA-5 is almost pedestrian by comparison.
 
Van Johnston said:
Tiger owner here. I've never heard anyone say the sliding canopy leaks. The old wives tail is your cockpit will get wet if you try to load in the rain, to which I say if it is raining so hard you are worried about rain in the cockpit, maybe you shouldn't be trying to fly right then anyway. It is such an OWT there's even a guy who makes satirical videos about it.

I am not IR rated and have never owned an Archer so can't speak specifically to your other questions.

Run, don't walk, to these other sites for more reliable information than you will get here:

Www.aya.org
Www.grummanpilotsassociation.com
Grumman.net
Click to expand...

This woulda been a classic with just one more typo. in for is
 
brien23 said:
Small ruder for X wind landing, more than one landed on nose wheel and met their demise not that other aircraft don't. People tend to step on the seats just a problem of not knowing how to get in the plane, I believe the wing is a time life item and the end of the plane. If it is a new paint job people have got stripper in the joints remember this plane is glued together and stripper in the glue is bad, make sure this did not happen
Click to expand...

The AA-5X wings are life-limited to 12,000 hr. Not gonna be a problem for my 2900 hour aircraft.
 
Tied down outside in S FL, the belly of my Tiger periodically filled up with a couple inches of water, albeit aggravated by blocked drain holes.
 
Van Johnston said:
Tiger owner here. I've never heard anyone say the sliding canopy leaks. The old wives tail is your cockpit will get wet if you try to load in the rain, to which I say if it is raining so hard you are worried about rain in the cockpit, maybe you shouldn't be trying to fly right thennice anyway. It is such an OWT there's even a guy who makes satirical videos about it.

I am not IR rated and have never owned an Archer so can't speak specifically to your other questions.

Run, don't walk, to these other sites for more reliable information than you will get here:

Www.aya.org
Www.grummanpilotsassociation.com
Grumman.net
Click to expand...

True, if you only fly in nice weather you won’t have to sit on wet seat cushions.
 
brien23 said:
I believe the wing is a time life item and the end of the plane.
Click to expand...
That's true of just about every new design certified after 1972 (Part 23).

If it is a new paint job people have got stripper in the joints remember this plane is glued together and stripper in the glue is bad, make sure this did not happen
Click to expand...
The service manual specifies the procedure for stripping the paint. Any paint shop worth its salt knows the drill.

Clip4 said:
True, if you only fly in nice weather you won’t have to sit on wet seat cushions.
Click to expand...
Open the door of an Archer in the rain, and the interior gets wet, too. Or Mooney. Or Bonanza. High-wing Cessna, not so much. Funny how that works.
 
Last edited:
I always thought the Grumman airplanes (Yankee, Cheetah and Tiger) are fast, fun, durable little airplanes. The Tiger has the most reliable light aircraft engine ever designed. They’re thrifty to run, simple to maintain, light on the controls and have great visibility with their sliding canopies. Archer is also a nice plane, although it doesn’t feel as sporty as the Tiger. I might prefer the Piper if I had to fly IFR - more stable platform and generally speaking, has a better panel. Tiger would be like a Mazda Miata, and the Archer like a Chevy Malibu. Piper has stiff nose wheel steering - effective, but feels like they used garage door springs, the Tiger has a castoring nose wheel like a Cirrus.
 
There is a beautiful Grumman at my airport for sale. Nicest one I’ve ever seen. Guy has over 100K in it and he is selling for 57K. Autopilot, 430W, PS Engineering audio panel, JPI 830, new paint and interior. Wouldn’t mind having it myself!
 
CC268 said:
There is a beautiful Grumman at my airport for sale. Nicest one I’ve ever seen. Guy has over 100K in it and he is selling for 57K. Autopilot, 430W, PS Engineering audio panel, JPI 830, new paint and interior. Wouldn’t mind having it myself!
Click to expand...

Does he have it on Barnstormers, Trade a Plane etc
 
luvflyin said:
Does he have it on Barnstormers, Trade a Plane etc
Click to expand...

You know I looked for it briefly and couldn’t find it. I’ll look around later for it. Otherwise I can take a photo of the for sale sign at the airport sometime
 
In a galaxy far away and long ago, I have been both a Traveler and a Tiger owner, with several hundred hours and many long x-counties in them. I would go back to a Tiger in a heartbeat if I could. Never had a canopy leak problem. Someone mentioned limited rudder for crosswinds; I landed in some pretty mean crosswinds and I can remember only once did I start to run out of rudder, but the winds were in excess of 20 knots, abeam. The plane is super easy to get into and out of. Great visibility, all around and great downward vis. for a low-winger. Back seat folds down to provide large cargo area. Very light on the controls. Not C-172 stable, so it does take constant attention- no hands-off flying. Except for auto-pilot of course. Flaps don't do a lot, and yes speed control on approach and landing is critical. If you come in fast, it takes forever to slow down. Get the plane. Get checked out in it. Then take me up for a nostalgia flight:)
 
TigerGene said:
L...14. Plenty stable for instrument flight, and yes I fly IFR in mine.....
Click to expand...

Do you have a GPS? Like a 430 or 650. I was shopping AA5’s a few years ago. The short panel made the instruments be spread out more. The radio stack is farther to the right than most planes. It seemed to me that having something you had to keep in your scan that far over would be distracting.
 
I have a non WAAS IFR legal GPS. Although the radio stack is on the center right part of the panel, I have a CDI tied to the GPS on the left side. I also have dual Narco Nav radios, one with GPS and they both work great. So a total of 3 CDIs in my plane.
 

Attachments

  • E38F0B5E-2ED1-4B77-ADA8-8CE1FC154C26.jpeg
    E38F0B5E-2ED1-4B77-ADA8-8CE1FC154C26.jpeg
    275.8 KB · Views: 151
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top