Grumman Tiger Overview

[AggieMike88]

Can our Grumman friends and fanatics provide me with a quick overview of the specs and details on the Tigers? And bonus points if you have a link to a POH someone has stored online?

I know a few odds and ends already, but want to get better organized about them.

 

[Pilawt]

Much information available at the Grumman Gang website. AYA (formerly American Yankee Association, now calling itself the International Grumman-American Pilots Association) is one of the best owner groups out there, with tons of resources.

I have a Cheetah POH in pdf form -- just about the same as a Tiger but with O-320 power. PM me an e-mail address and I'll send it to you.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'll post more details and expansion when I get home, but figure:

135 KTAS on 10 gph.
950 lb useful load (fuel is 51 useable max, 36.4 to the tabs).
Surprisingly roomy rear seat -- easy to load over max gross or out of aft cg with two adults in back and anything in the baggage area.
Minimum 2500 feet hard surface runway at SL/std day for comfort on t/o (easy to land on a field too short to depart)
Highly responsive in pitch and roll, with excellent control harmonization.
Dirt-simple maintenance and the highly reliable Lyc O-360-A4K engine (basically the same as a 180 Cherokee).

See:
Http://www.Grumman.net
Http://www.AYA.org
...for lots more.


What else can I tell you?

 

[AggieMike88]

Having a brain cramp on the definition of useful load...

Is it Useful = gross - empty - full fuel ??

And it's the max amount of humans plus baggage?

---------------------------

@Cap'n Ron -- Much of what I know is from you and the other enthusiasts. Your input on this and other boards about the airframe is what got me checking them out. There are likely other questions that I'll think of later, so I'll use this thread as the "container" for them.

 

[AggieMike88]

How is front seat comfort compared to the Traveler?

I've taken a few flights with a friend in hers, but I need to twist just a bit left to not feel crowded side to side. And this was after moving the seat so we weren't colliding shoulders and elbows.

 

[Pilawt]

How is front seat comfort compared to the Traveler?

Cabin dimensions in the AA-5x series (Traveler, Cheetah, Tiger) are all the same, but the seats in the newer models are a little more comfortable. Cabin width is a half-inch more than a C-172 and about two inches less than a PA-28. But the canopy doesn't taper inward as much as many other low-wing airplanes -- and the top of the instrument panel is low -- so it seems more spacious at eye level and the view is stupendous.

 

[Anthony]

I'll echo what Ron says as darn close to what I see in my Tiger. My useful load is 960 lbs, and I also see 135 KTAS on 10 GPH at altitude. Lots of info on the links Ron provided.

One nice attribute that doesn't get talked about much is the ability to fold down the rear seats and get a 6 ft long cargo space for bikes, bags, etc. You can even sleep in it.

I am based at a 2,700 ft runway, and have no problem departing at full gross in mid-summer. The plane used to be based at a 1,900 ft field by the previous owner, but he flew it light out of there. My personal minumum is 2,200 ft at sea level which I've done, but also well under gross. Mine's been to Leadville, CO (highest airport in North America) and operated in and around the Rocky Mountains for three years when I lived there.

 

[poadeleted20]

Having a brain cramp on the definition of useful load...

Is it Useful = gross - empty - full fuel ??.

Max gross minus empty equals useful. Useful minus fuel equals payload (aka "cabin load"). Thus, a Tiger with a typical 950 lb useful load is not a 4-adults competitor to a 182 or 235 Cherokee/Dakota, but with 50 less HP, you shouldn't expect it to be, either. OTOH, it's a better load-hauler than the O-320-powered types like the 172, Warrior, and Cheetah/Traveler.

 

[danhagan]

Having a brain cramp on the definition of useful load...

Is it Useful = gross - empty - full fuel ??

And it's the max amount of humans plus baggage?
.

Figure roughly 630 to 650 pounds if full 51 gallons fuel on board (depending on how equipped W/B. Have had a blast with mine and the only reason for possilby selling is when our only son goes to college in 2 years I may go to an RV. Wife only wants to fly short flights (1-1.5), and often meets my son and I via commercial flight on our summer trips.

Our area is HOT in summer and having the canopy open during taxi really makes a difference.

 

[AggieMike88]

Our area is HOT in summer and having the canopy open during taxi really makes a difference.

After the 60-75 days of triple digits us Texans suffered through this summer, I can relate. And this is one of the reasons the Grummans are on my "keep an eye out for a good deal" list.

 

[AggieMike88]

Max gross minus empty equals useful. Useful minus fuel equals payload (aka "cabin load"). Thus, a Tiger with a typical 950 lb useful load is not a 4-adults competitor to a 182 or 235 Cherokee/Dakota, but with 50 less HP, you shouldn't expect it to be, either. OTOH, it's a better load-hauler than the O-320-powered types like the 172, Warrior, and Cheetah/Traveler.

Thanks for the info.

And as I fly more, I'm developing the realization many recreational bachelor pilots experience, that finding three others to go with is an extremely rare event. Finding two others is very uncommon. And finding one is the more common of the shared experience.

 

[Turboz1r]

Hello Aggie,

As posted by those in the know above, I concur with what was said. This is my third Grumman, I had two 2 places and now a Tiger. The Tiger is a wonderful airplane, fun to fly, easy to get in and out of, great performance for the fuel burn, no what I call "moving parts" to worry about I.E. retractable gear, c/s prop or nose strut. 135 Kts on 9-10 gph is very realistic. Annuals are very reasonable, and very little maint throughout the year if you keep things in order. I couldn't be happier with mine.

Hope this helps.
Mike in NJ

 

[AggieMike88]

Man you make me jealous. That is a nice looking machine.

 

[bbchien]

Ron is there an IO-360 STC and what does it do to W&B + useful load?

 

[kyleb]

Ron is there an IO-360 STC and what does it do to W&B + useful load?

Not Ron, but yes there was a 200 hp STC, and it included a constant speed prop upgrade. The issue is that the STC is seemingly off the market and that there only a handful of aircraft were converted before the STC fell off the map.

 

[AggieMike88]

Not Ron, but yes there was a 200 hp STC, and it included a constant speed prop upgrade. The issue is that the STC is seemingly off the market and that there only a handful of aircraft were converted before the STC fell off the map.

Since the approval precedence exists, could a different someone revive a prior STC like this and make it available again?

 

[Skylane81E]

Since the approval precedence exists, could a different someone revive a prior STC like this and make it available again?

No, perhaps you could buy it from the owner however. (STCs are viewed as intelectual property)

 

[zaitcev]

Alliance Flight Training has a Tiger at FTG. The owner said that it's prone to overheating despite not being turbocharged. Apparently the cowl that strangles the engine is one thing that helped Grumman to squeeze 135 ktas out of the thing. I wonder if there's an STC for cown flaps.

 

[Jaybird180]

Thank you for starting this thread.

 

[Turboz1r]

With the LoPresti cowl, mine is running nice and cool. Somewhere around 1420 EGT and 340-350 CHT.

Mike in NJ

 

[Anthony]

Mike,

That's a GREAT looking Tiger! Here's mine.

 

[poadeleted20]

Not Ron, but yes there was a 200 hp STC, and it included a constant speed prop upgrade. The issue is that the STC is seemingly off the market and that there only a handful of aircraft were converted before the STC fell off the map.

It is indeed off the market due to installation problems. I hold one of the STC permissions, from about seven years ago, but gave up on using it and turned my Cheetah airframe into a "stock" Tiger in 2005. However, there is no gross weight increase above the standard Tiger 2400 (the full Hyper STC includes putting in a Tiger center spar), so useful load goes down compared to a Tiger due to the heavier engine/prop.

BTW, this STC was originally developed for a Cheetah, and so far has only been installed on Cheetahs. Theoretically, you could do the exact same STC to a Tiger but skip swapping the spar, and have a part-for-part identical plane to a Hyperized Cheetah. However, the FAA has not approved the Hyper STC for a Tiger, and the STC owner isn't interested in pursuing the matter.

As for selling the ownership of the STC so you can issue permissions to yourself and/or others, you can try contacting the holder, James Scott Jernigan, at Hyperdyne Systems in Springdale AR, but I have absolutely no idea if he'd be interested.

 

[poadeleted20]

Alliance Flight Training has a Tiger at FTG. The owner said that it's prone to overheating despite not being turbocharged. Apparently the cowl that strangles the engine is one thing that helped Grumman to squeeze 135 ktas out of the thing.

When an owner complains about high engine temps, further examination almost always isolates the problem to poor cowl baffling and baffle seals, especially the ones in the nose bowl which aren't easily visible without some diassembly. When that's fixed, the the problem is almost always solved.

I wonder if there's an STC for cown flaps.

No, there is not, and if the baffling is properly maintained, it doesn't need them. And the LoPresti "Growl Cowl" STC is a good choice -- improves both cooling and induction air flow for more power. Going with the larger 6-row Niagara oil cooler in place of the original Stewart-Warner 5-row cooler helps high oil temps -- Fletchair has the part and the paperwork.

 

[iflyatiger]

I agree with Ron on the false reputation of the Tigers cooling. When the baffling is properly configured and maintained CHT temperatures are not a problem. They may be warmer than some other aircraft but well within acceptable limits.

 

[Turboz1r]

Hey Anthony,

First off, thanks for the compliments on my Tiger. I take great pride in keeping it as clean and in top shape as possible. It has been a real pleasure to own this plane, and would be tough to replace it with something else in the same price range.
I have followed your comments often, knowing that you were a fellow Tiger owner also.

Take care,
Mike in NJ

 

[Anthony]

Thanks Mike. Good to see another Tiger around!

Yes, the cooling issues are only there if there are baffling or other problems causing it. My Tiger runs well within temperature limits, and did so at ultra high DA's in the Southwest Rockies.

 

[Anthony]

Alliance Flight Training has a Tiger at FTG. The owner said that it's prone to overheating despite not being turbocharged. Apparently the cowl that strangles the engine is one thing that helped Grumman to squeeze 135 ktas out of the thing. I wonder if there's an STC for cown flaps.

I was based at KFTG. I don't remember that Tiger, but there were a few others and a Cheetah or two that didn't have any issues.

 

[kyleb]

It is indeed off the market due to installation problems. I hold one of the STC permissions, from about seven years ago, but gave up on using it and turned my Cheetah airframe into a "stock" Tiger in 2005. However, there is no gross weight increase above the standard Tiger 2400 (the full Hyper STC includes putting in a Tiger center spar), so useful load goes down compared to a Tiger due to the heavier engine/prop.

I've always thought this is/was a strange STC. The CS prop and the governor add a fair amount of weight, and the 200 hp engine is substantially heavier than the 180. IMO, a 180 hp C/S swap would make more sense and would address one of the big complaints with the AA5-X series - the poor climb performance on a hot day.

I keep hoping Van's will come out with a Pseudo Tiger, but they tell me whatever sales that model gained would probably come at the expense of the RV-9 and RV-10. So why develop something that isn't gonna generate much in the way of overall revenue? Darned capitalists.

 

[kontiki]

I've been looking at Grumman ads since I caught this thread earlier today. I get a much better feeling about one of these than from endless oscillation between Citabria and 182. I could be in expensive trouble here!

 

[Anthony]

I've always thought this is/was a strange STC. The CS prop and the governor add a fair amount of weight, and the 200 hp engine is substantially heavier than the 180. IMO, a 180 hp C/S swap would make more sense and would address one of the big complaints with the AA5-X series - the poor climb performance on a hot day.

Its essentially the setup found in the 200HP Piper Arrows. Our 180 HP, O-360 A4K in the Tiger do not have the ability to accept an oil powered prop governor, so the more recent solution has been the MT electric C/S prop.

I keep hoping Van's will come out with a Pseudo Tiger, but they tell me whatever sales that model gained would probably come at the expense of the RV-9 and RV-10. So why develop something that isn't gonna generate much in the way of overall revenue? Darned capitalists.

If I was looking for a plane today, the RV-10 would be right up there, or if I could deal with two seats, and I probably can, an RV-7. One of the frustrating things with a Tiger is that it is not aeroabatic. The light, crisp handling characterstics beg for you to roll it, and do other maneuvers, but that is not allowed. An RV would solve that issue.

 

[Skylane81E]

I've been looking at Grumman ads since I caught this thread earlier today. I get a much better feeling about one of these than from endless oscillation between Citabria and 182. I could be in expensive trouble here!

Well if you keep wandering back and forth between two quite different airplanes getting a Tiger (that falls somewhere inbetween the others) might be a good option

 

[poadeleted20]

I've always thought this is/was a strange STC. The CS prop and the governor add a fair amount of weight, and the 200 hp engine is substantially heavier than the 180. IMO, a 180 hp C/S swap would make more sense and would address one of the big complaints with the AA5-X series - the poor climb performance on a hot day.

Only problem is the O-360-A4K has a solid crank, so a "normal" c/s prop can't be used. There is the 3-bladed MT electric c/s prop which can be mounted by STC, but in side-by-side testing I've done, I saw little or no performance improvement over the stock McCauley or STC'd Sensenich prop (which eliminates the "yellow arc"), and certainly not, in my opinion, enough to justify the $14K price tag. We saw a big difference in acceleration from a standing start, but that difference disappeared as airspeed increased to and past liftoff speed and the f/p prop Tiger's engine spooled up. My suspicion is that the loss of prop efficiency from the 3-bladed prop with shorter blades eats much or all of the extra power you get from spinning the engine up to full rated RPM at medium airspeed (say, around Vy) and in cruise, the RPM difference (and thus power output difference) essentially disappears.

 

[Anthony]

Ron. Is the MT prop a lot quieter? This seemed to ba a primary reason for its development in Germany if memory serves.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron. Is the MT prop a lot quieter? This seemed to ba a primary reason for its development in Germany if memory serves.

Yes, it is, and in Europe, it's limited to 2500 RPM for just that reason even though that limits power on t/o and climb to about the same HP as the original f/p prop (which also turns about 2500 RPM in cruise climb). MT-USA has FAA approval to set the limit to 2700 RPM, which improves performance, but not, as far as my testing has shown, enough for me to spend $14K to put one on my Tiger. And all tests but my first side-by-side test involve the MT-USA prop turning 2700 RPM for t/o and climb. Folks with the MT prop say cabin noise is be reduced, too, probably due to the lower tip speeds of the shorter blades.

 

[kontiki]

Are the Grummans fairly typical airplanes from a maintenance standpoint? That is, if I wanted to get a pre-buy, or have maint performed, is it reasonable to expect that the same crew that handles maint on the local Cessnas should be able to handle it?

 

[Anthony]

Thanks Ron. Thought so. I can think of a lot better uses for $14K.

One of the producers of the Tiger should have done the IO-360/200hp, and C/S prop conversion, and offered it as an upgrade. Maybe it will happen some day. It would help a lot at high DA's.

 

[Skylane81E]

There are a couple of "gotchas" that so long as the shop knows about are no real issue. The nose gear removal is one along with inspecting the main gear legs. It's not hard, just be sure it is being done by the book AND that the last owner was doing it. This is especially important on the nose gear as if it hasn't been off the last few annuals it can be a real bear (read labor-intensive read $$$$) to get it appart. If it's been done it's cake.

 

[AggieMike88]

Nose Gear: Would it be safe to say you want to see these inspections being done due to the castoring design of the nose gear?

I would infer that this is one aircraft that won't appreciate any amount of wheel barrowing.

A recent landing with a friend in her Traveller had her not happy with a landing and how "hard" she came down on the mains and the short interval before we were "three on the ground".

I would think that while this nose gear is robust enough, it's won't be forgiving as the "strutt style" of P & C aircraft.

 

[Skylane81E]

IIRC (been a while since I've annualed a Grumman) it is removed to inspect the attaching bolt holes, so it has more to do with how it's installed than how it's used.

 

[Pilawt]

Are the Grummans fairly typical airplanes from a maintenance standpoint? That is, if I wanted to get a pre-buy, or have maint performed, is it reasonable to expect that the same crew that handles maint on the local Cessnas should be able to handle it?

AYA can steer you to a Grumman-savvy mechanic. Grummans are built different from the others in significant (and wonderful) ways, enough that you want somebody knowledgeable with the breed. As Ron said they are stone-simple, but you don't want to finance a mechanic's learning curve with your airplane.

When I had my Cheetah I let the local Cessna shop do routine work on the engine, but for annuals or anything else to do with the airframe it went to a well-known Grumman guru about sixty miles away.