Grumman Tiger Overview

Sailer said:
... Learning in a Grumman really paid off when I purchased a Cirrus 3 years ago. Free castering nose wheel and higher approach speeds felt pretty normal. Long story, but totaled one in an off airport engine out without a scratch to either of us in the plane. Tough little sucker. I was all set to buy one 3 years ago when my wife convinced me to buy the Cirrus (guess why). I researched a lot on Cardinals, Piper Comanches, Mooney's and even Bonanzas. The Grumman topped the list in bang for the buck.

I am happy with the Cirrus, but would have been happy with the Grumman as well. They seem to have a lot in common with the RV's which I would also be proud to own (particularly the new RV14).
Click to expand...

Thank you for this helpful write up :yes: I'm about to finish up my PPL and originally was going to get a SR20 and do my instrument in it, but after speaking with several folks I'm going to grab a Tiger as my first plane.
 
Btw, is there a useful weight difference between the earlier Tiger and later ones? IIRC I remember seeing a chart that shows the later gens (not the 200HP mods) having less useful payload.
 
spdracer888 said:
Thank you for this helpful write up :yes: I'm about to finish up my PPL and originally was going to get a SR20 and do my instrument in it, but after speaking with several folks I'm going to grab a Tiger as my first plane.
Click to expand...

I think you are going to find it is fun and a little challenging. Not as fast as the SR20, but better than almost anything else without going to retracts. I can't go back now to a Cessna or Piper without feeling like it is hanging over the ground on final approach.

And compared to the Cirrus your maintenance should be considerably less. The Grumman's are pretty straightforward. And anyone should be able to work on them. With the Cirrus, not so much.
 
spdracer888 said:
Btw, is there a useful weight difference between the earlier Tiger and later ones? IIRC I remember seeing a chart that shows the later gens (not the 200HP mods) having less useful payload.
Click to expand...

The Tiger Aircraft Co. models have a 900 lb generic book value useful load, which is a few pounds less in the aircraft-specific POH's. A quick Googling indicated the 1970's era AA-5B's had a useful load around 950lb but I can't personally verify if that's legit. There's a 1991 American General AG5B for sale online where the seller lists the useful load as 961.

So, yeah, it looks like a pretty typical decrease in useful load as the model has grown up. It's pretty much the same useful load you'd get from a 172SP.
 
spdracer888 said:
Thank you for this helpful write up :yes: I'm about to finish up my PPL and originally was going to get a SR20 and do my instrument in it, but after speaking with several folks I'm going to grab a Tiger as my first plane.
Click to expand...
You can get a lot of flying time in a Tiger for the difference in price between it and an SR20. ;)
 
spdracer888 said:
Btw, is there a useful weight difference between the earlier Tiger and later ones? IIRC I remember seeing a chart that shows the later gens (not the 200HP mods) having less useful payload.
Click to expand...
The Tiger Aircraft (2000-2006) AG-5B's are a good bit heavier than the 1970's vintage AA-5B's; the AGAC AG-5B's (1989-1993) are in the middle, but closer to the TA AG-5B's. So, comparing a pretty-much-stock 1975 Grumman-American Tiger with a 2006 G1000 TA Tiger, the earlier one probably has close to 100 lb more useful load.
 
Ron Levy said:
Then you'll have to do all the flight testing and data collection over yourself, because you cannot use the STC holder's proprietary data. That's about 6 months and $30K of testing based on the experience of the late Fred Kokoska to get the 200HP "Hyper" and 260HP "Sabertooth" conversion STC's for the AA-5A/B's.
Click to expand...

That said, you agree that it can be done, it's just a matter of how.

Most STC holders did not develop the intellectual property that was used to gain the STC. most are done by a DER, they sold that approval once, they will do it again.

Acceptable data, that engineering which was submitted to the FAA on a 337 for approval in block 4. which becomes the Approval to make the modification. Like you have pointed out. The FAA will not approve that 377 if there is a STC that does the same thing.

So, you have the DER change the engineering enough that the FAA will except it as a new submission.

Like I said, there are more ways than one to skin this cat.
 
Ron Levy said:
Right -- only the "multiple use" STC's get easy approval.
Click to expand...

That should read,

"Any STC can be returned to service by your A&P-IA' It needs no approval.

That is why we have STCs.
 
Ron Levy said:
Why would I want to? It sure doesn't damage as often or as easily, although if it does, there's an approved repair procedure. You just don't hardly ever see it needed the way you're always patching regular skins.
Click to expand...

All you can do is to repair, there is no replacement.

a Cessna or Piper we can change the whole skin and it will never show.
 
bnt83 said:
Typically just route out the damage with a router (only the damaged side if one side of the sandwich isn't damaged, lay a new honeycome core in with adhesive and a piece new skin to cover it. It's really neat stuff. Just not all that many people farmiliar with it.
Click to expand...

You best have a look at the Grumman repair manual.

The only repairs authorized are there and they all are rivet repairs.
 
Ron Levy said:
Sure -- but it's gonna cost you $30K and 6 months to do all the testing to get your own STC/field approval, and the Hyperdyne STC only costs like one-tenth of that.
Click to expand...

Not in reality, we aren't doing this for 135 requirements, most times it is only 40 hours test time and for noncomplex aircraft that 40 hours will not cost as much as you have suggested. Remember we are doing a field approval, not gaining another STC.

Unless of course the grumman op cost are a lot more than I suspect.

After my fairchild was converted to a 165, flight test time was 20 hours, that was a 1 time STC, we used that data on 3 other F-24s just by showing my 24 was flying fine with this engineering, all because the DER that approved it the first time would do it again.

Here is a question for you, ( or others) what would you ask the FSDO for when you are installing a STC, and do not want to follow the directions or use the materials stated in the STC?
The STC is supported.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
That said, you agree that it can be done, it's just a matter of how.
Click to expand...
More like "how much" than "how" -- it is very expensive, according to those who've done it..

Most STC holders did not develop the intellectual property that was used to gain the STC. most are done by a DER, they sold that approval once, they will do it again.
Click to expand...
When someone pays you to develop data, the rights to the data accrue to the person paying for the job, not the contractor who did the work. BTDT for 12 years as a contractor.

Acceptable data, that engineering which was submitted to the FAA on a 337 for approval in block 4. which becomes the Approval to make the modification. Like you have pointed out. The FAA will not approve that 377 if there is a STC that does the same thing.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

So, you have the DER change the engineering enough that the FAA will except it as a new submission.
Click to expand...
You can try that. You can also get sued for breach of contract and intellectual property rights theft. In addition, if the DER develops all the data again for the different design, the DER is going to charge the same thing s/he charged the first party. Like I said -- it's expensive. And then you still have to go through all the flight testing the first party did, which is also expensive.

Like I said, there are more ways than one to skin this cat.
Click to expand...
But not many legal ways to do it that don't cost just as much the second time.
 
Tom-D said:
Not in reality,
Click to expand...
Yes, in reality. That's what it cost to do it for those two multiple-use STC's. The instrumentation alone for the flight tests was thousands of dollars. I'm tired of hearing how you did something like an engine overhaul or an STC super-cheap, and then finding out your "cost" was parts only, with your labor discounted. Not many folks work like that. The cost and effort to obtain an STC or field approval for a larger horsepower engine is what the record shows it is.
 
We had all the ducks in a row, or so we thought, for the L2 engine upgrade to O-200. Experts and former FSDO guys who were said to be "da man" written permission and data from original STC holder, along with lots of other hoop-jumping. FSDO said no, they had been told that no power increases would be approved. After 5+ years a company with other engine STC's was able to get it done and we bought their paperwork.
 
Tom-D said:
You best have a look at the Grumman repair manual.

The only repairs authorized are there and they all are rivet repairs.
Click to expand...


There again, maybe we don't want to repair it that way.

As for STC's, your pretty much right on, deviations can be minor or major requiring additional approval or not. Its not difficult to get approval when you know where to go.
 
I'd love a Tiger.
But with a Cherokee 180 that trues at 125kts, I can't swallow the transaction costs and higher purchase price for a ~10kt gain.

But I drool every time I see a Tiger. If someone is thinking about one, get it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, in reality. That's what it cost to do it for those two multiple-use STC's. The instrumentation alone for the flight tests was thousands of dollars. I'm tired of hearing how you did something like an engine overhaul or an STC super-cheap, and then finding out your "cost" was parts only, with your labor discounted. Not many folks work like that. The cost and effort to obtain an STC or field approval for a larger horsepower engine is what the record shows it is.
Click to expand...

You don't get it Ron, in the scenario we were speaking to, we are not getting a multi use STC.

Doing a one time STC or a field approval, thru FSDO you are not required to do the testing on parts production, quality assurance or parts certifications and all the other requirements of selling parts to the public.

Using a DER for submittal of a 337 the DER IS THE Approval. that's all you need.

want a prime example? study the 172XP mod. and its history. prime example of a multi use STC which is held by a person that is not supporting it, but still answers the phone.
IOWs the FAA will not approve the use of it.

but the parts and modifications are being done as we speak.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, in reality. That's what it cost to do it for those two multiple-use STC's. The instrumentation alone for the flight tests was thousands of dollars. I'm tired of hearing how you did something like an engine overhaul or an STC super-cheap, and then finding out your "cost" was parts only, with your labor discounted. Not many folks work like that. The cost and effort to obtain an STC or field approval for a larger horsepower engine is what the record shows it is.
Click to expand...

It's not how cheap I do them this is about the legally of doing them.

Developing a multi use STC isn't what we were talking about.

It is your attitude about what things should cost, and trying to be the expert on how to do maintenance when you do none of it, is the big problem on this web page.

So be tired if you like, because you are not the expert on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
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.
Click to expand...

Anthony,

I am 99% sure the Tiger in the picture is N28641 which I own now. Is this correct? Are you the previous owner?

Jim
 
flyman3456 said:
Anthony,

I am 99% sure the Tiger in the picture is N28641 which I own now. Is this correct? Are you the previous owner?

Jim
Click to expand...
Yes, Anthony was the owner of Tiger 28641 for several years -- I checked him out in the plane when he bought it. I knew the owner before him too. It was a very nice plane the last I saw it.
 
My Tiger

001_zps471bff04.jpg
 
Re: My Tiger

rbridges said:
that's a good looking plane. I bet they are fun to fly around.
Click to expand...
They are indeed. Usually takes about 5 minutes in the air to turn a C/P/B pilot into a Grumman lover.

Can you fly with the canopy pulled back?
Click to expand...
Yes, but not as far as in that picture on the ground. There is a placard on the inside of the canopy rail on the left side marking the aft limit for opening in flight, and that's about eight inches. But even opening an inch or so is enough to provide tremendous heat relief in the pattern on a hot sunny day.
 
What hazard is created if the canopy was fully open while in flight?
 
AggieMike88 said:
What hazard is created if the canopy was fully open while in flight?
Click to expand...


I do recall seeing promotional pictures where the pilots had the canopy fully open, even though the airplane was placarded against it. I've always wondered that as well, is the limitation structural or aerodynamic?
 
AggieMike88 said:
What hazard is created if the canopy was fully open while in flight?
Click to expand...
Well, there's this NTSB report from 1970:

TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION
AIRFRAME FAILURE: IN FLIGHT IN FLIGHT: NORMAL CRUISE
COLLIDED WITH: TREES LANDING: FINAL APPROACH
PROBABLE CAUSE(S)
PILOT IN COMMAND - FAILED TO FOLLOW APPROVED PROCEDURES,DIRECTIVES,ETC.
AIRFRAME - FUSELAGE: WINDSHIELDS,WINDOWS,CANOPIES
MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - OVERLOAD FAILURE
MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - INTERFERENCE WITH FLIGHT CONTROLS
FACTOR(S)
MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - SEPARATION IN FLIGHT
TERRAIN - HIGH OBSTRUCTIONS
EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES - FORCED LANDING OFF AIRPORT ON LAND
PITCH CONTROL PROBLEM
SUSPECTED OR KNOWN AIRCRAFT DAMAGE
REMARKS- ACFT PLACARDED NO FLT WITH CANOPY FULL OPEN.LODGED IN R HRZNTL STAB.
Click to expand...
At the time I was training for my CFI at the same Santa Barbara FBO that owned the airplane. I heard from them that it came to rest in the top of a stand of sturdy old oak trees. The only injury was a broken leg when the young renter pilot tried to get out of the airplane and fell out of the tree. That AA-1/AA-5 honeycomb box cabin structure really does protect the occupants.

FormerHangie said:
I do recall seeing promotional pictures where the pilots had the canopy fully open, even though the airplane was placarded against it. I've always wondered that as well, is the limitation structural or aerodynamic?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is curious ... but they do have crash helmets on! :D

aa-5a_1977_warbird.jpg


aa-5b_1977_warbird.jpg
 
Re: My Tiger

FlyGirlKHWO said:
001_zps471bff04.jpg
Click to expand...
Gorgeous paint job! Who dunnit? (Takes a special skill set to paint an AA5)

I bought my '79 Tiger at the end of my PPL training (in a172 of course) earlier this year, and while admittedly rushing through my Transition training, I found the transition quite easy. These planes do love to fly so attention to getting your speed down in the pattern is the answer to preventing the float that troubled me early on. Otherwise landings seem to come naturally - flare seems to happen almost automatically - maybe that's the low wing thing :).
Lopresti cowl and well maintained baffles - never have seen CHTs above 345, and this in SC.
Have the MT three blade and although not having done a side by side, the TO over 50' numbers in POH seem not greatly improved...seems quiet tho.
Don't expect much from your flaps - compared to 172 they are small, but are what they are. Note only 3kt difference Vso and Vs clean.
Coordination of flight is very easy to maintain - ball always seems centered, compared to the 172 which always seemed to require more rudder correction.
Sliding canopy is a godsend in hot weather taxiing.

Bought my last plane first.
 
I've been looking at Tigers. Are the takeoff distances listed on this link accurate?

http://www.grumman.net/cgrcc/specs.html

I thought I read something in this thread about needing at least 2500feet???

Any trouble insuring the Tiger? I heard it was more expensive/more difficult to insure than a Cherokee 180, which is the other bird I am considering....
 
AggieMike88 said:
What hazard is created if the canopy was fully open while in flight?
Click to expand...
Huge drag increase. With the canopy open only as far as the mark, the bow wave over the windshield flows over the opening. Aft of the mark, it flows into the opening, creating that drag rise. With the canopy full open, you can only get about 85-90 knots in level flight even at full throttle a couple of hundred below max gross, and there is no climb at all. Also, it takes more arm strength than most pilots have to reach back and pull it shut with one hand while flying the plane with the other, so a solo pilot could have a real problem getting it shut again. The good news is that with the canopy open no further than the mark, the airflow tends to pull it shut, so there's no danger of it blowing further open by itself if you keep it forward of the mark.
 
AggieMike88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Grumman Tiger
 
Re: My Tiger

wrbix said:
Gorgeous paint job! Who dunnit? (Takes a special skill set to paint an AA5)
Click to expand...
Painting a Grumman isn't that hard, but stripping it is. You have to follow the instructions in the manual very carefully so you don't get stripper into the bonded joints. However, there are quite a few shops with plenty of experience and expertise in this task.
Have the MT three blade and although not having done a side by side, the TO over 50' numbers in POH seem not greatly improved...seems quiet tho.
Click to expand...
I have done some side-by-sides, and there is little if any difference in takeoff, climb, or cruise. You get your advantage in descent (because you don't have to throttle back, just push the nose over and let 'er rip without the prop overspeeding as it does with the f/p prop), quieter in cruise, and improved prop-ground clearance on grass fields (smaller prop diameter).
Don't expect much from your flaps - compared to 172 they are small, but are what they are. Note only 3kt difference Vso and Vs clean.
Click to expand...
The flaps pretty much only add drag and change the pitch attitude on approach to give you a better view of the runway over the nose on final. The drag is important in eliminating float in the flare, so we strongly recommend full flaps on all landings.
 
FlyingMonkey said:
I've been looking at Tigers. Are the takeoff distances listed on this link accurate?

http://www.grumman.net/cgrcc/specs.html

I thought I read something in this thread about needing at least 2500feet???
Click to expand...
Those distances are about as accurate as any other POH takeoff distances, i.e., rather optimistic for a 35 year old plane with a 1000 hour engine and typically worn prop flown by an average nonprofessional pilot. We recommend a safety margin of at least 50% above those. Personally, at sea level with full gross weight, I want at least 2300 feet of hard surface runway with my Tiger.

Any trouble insuring the Tiger? I heard it was more expensive/more difficult to insure than a Cherokee 180, which is the other bird I am considering....
Click to expand...
No problem at all if you get a proper checkout. Many insurers want significantly higher rates if you don't have 15 hours in type (in the early Grumman days, there were a lot of planes bent on landing by new owners in their first 15 hours in type due to some popular misconceptions on how to fly the plane), but they will waive that if you get an AYA PFP checkout, which typically takes about half a day. See the AYA web site for more on the PFP.
 
Last edited:
Last night in another thread I shared a loading scenario on my plane for a potential buyer to take into consideration. Ron you followed me with this helpful advice to the potential buyer:

"Also check the actual W&B paperwork for any plane you examine. Do not rely on manufacturer's claims or what someone on the internet says their plane can do. Run some sample W&B problems with the actual loads with which you intend to fly in the actual plane you are considering purchasing."

I just thought this could be helpful here as it was in the other thread regarding the experiences of actual owners giving feedback on what can reasonably be expected from a similar plane.


Ron Levy said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Re: My Tiger

Ron Levy said:
I have done some side-by-sides, and there is little if any difference in takeoff, climb, or cruise. You get your advantage in descent (because you don't have to throttle back, just push the nose over and let 'er rip without the prop overspeeding as it does with the f/p prop), quieter in cruise, and improved prop-ground clearance on grass
Click to expand...

I have read, but again without substantiation, that the prop going to low pitch stop at throttle back may act somewhat as a speed brake, helping attenuate float. Ron?
 
I didn't know we were going to start sharing photos.....

N72.JPG


There are two types of pilots Grumman Pilots and pilots who have not flown a Grumman.

Cherokee 180 v Tiger..... that is a gimme. No offense to Cherokee's, but they are not even in the same class with the Tiger (or Cheetah). If you buy the Cherokee at some point you will look to change, if you buy a Tiger you will be buying your first and last plane. Every Tiger owner I know, if they sold their Tiger they ended up buying another.

Don't be a statistic, just get the right plane (Tiger) and enjoy it for decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top