Grumman tiger vs C182

T

TommyG

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
2,180
Display Name
Display name:
Tom
So me and some guys are talking about partnering on a plane. We have it narrowed down to 2 that are are seriously considering. Figure some of the knowledge here might help us out.

1- 2004 Grumman tiger low hours. Has a 530 and a 430. Looks great. Running around 130k.

2- 1965 c182, fairly new engine, has 530 and a 430. Looks great. Around 60k.

Cruise speed looks to be about the same.
Fuel burn is looking a little higher on the 182.
Tiger is only a 10 year old plane, 182 is a 50 year old plane.

I don't have all the specs in front of me. But what are your thoughts? Looking for any real pros and cons.
 
both can be good choices.

Ron Levy is in your corner of the world and can be a good choice for a hired expert to help you (his cost is very reasonable for the value of input received, IMO). He is well versed in the Grumman line as well as the C182's to provide you with valuable guidance.
 
If you could get a chance to fly both I would sure try them out. I mainly fly cessna but have owned and flown most popular brands. I know there are lots of guys here that love the Grumman but for me (and I owned one for a short time) it was one of the few planes I didn't care for. No it wasn't the castoring nose wheel I didn't like in fact that is one of the things I did like.
 
TommyG said:
So me and some guys are talking about partnering on a plane. We have it narrowed down to 2 that are are seriously considering. Figure some of the knowledge here might help us out.

1- 2004 Grumman tiger low hours. Has a 530 and a 430. Looks great. Running around 130k.

2- 1965 c182, fairly new engine, has 530 and a 430. Looks great. Around 60k.

Cruise speed looks to be about the same.
Fuel burn is looking a little higher on the 182.
Tiger is only a 10 year old plane, 182 is a 50 year old plane.

I don't have all the specs in front of me. But what are your thoughts? Looking for any real pros and cons.
Click to expand...

Ron's input will be valubale on the Grumman line. My inital impressions are 180 HP v. 235 HP; resulting fuel burn differential on DOC; cost to OH the larger engine (2 more cylinders); 182 will haul ~ 250 lbs. more and climb a bit better with it.

Having a less-prevalent model may affect your ability to find satisfactory service, particularly away from home.

The rest is personal preference (high wing/low wing; sliding canopy entry, etc).
 
Apples and Oranges.

130K would buy a *really* nice 182 half as old as the one you're looking at. Or, $100K would buy a *really* nice 182 from the mid-late 70's with $30K left in the bank.

I don't know what the useful load is on a Tiger, but I would think it is considerable less than the 182. Smaller interior/cargo space as well. Do you need the space/load capability or not?
 
Yeah, you're talking apples and oranges here with these two different plane types. What will your primary mission be ? The 182 is roomier with more load carrying capability and you can find mechanics just about anywhere that will know it. The Tiger offers less utility but you'll look a lot better going somewhere in it. Your basically comparing a Ford F150 with an average mustang.
 
TommyG said:
So me and some guys are talking about partnering on a plane. We have it narrowed down to 2 that are are seriously considering. Figure some of the knowledge here might help us out.

1- 2004 Grumman tiger low hours. Has a 530 and a 430. Looks great. Running around 130k.

2- 1965 c182, fairly new engine, has 530 and a 430. Looks great. Around 60k.

Cruise speed looks to be about the same.
Fuel burn is looking a little higher on the 182.
Tiger is only a 10 year old plane, 182 is a 50 year old plane.

I don't have all the specs in front of me. But what are your thoughts? Looking for any real pros and cons.
Click to expand...



The seventy thousand dollar difference would fuel and maintain the 182 for years. In all my years, I have never heard anyone say "I want rid of my 182, it's cramped and I need a bigger plane for the family."

It has high wing shade, double doors, double windows, big cabin, heavy hauler, docile flight characteristics, there's a lot of reasons the 182's have been so popular.

I've never been in a tiger, so I'm talking out my wazoo, but the choice for me would be easy.
 
There's really no comparison between a 230HP plane and a 180HP plane which cruise at the same speed. If the 180HP plane will haul the load, the only thing the bigger engine gets you is bigger fuel and maintenance bills. Comparing the Tiger to the 182, the advantages to the 182 are much better short-field performance with the same load, and the ability to haul four adults and baggage. The Tiger gets you lower fuel and maintenance costs at the expense of limiting yourself to three adults with baggage and avoiding really short/rough strips.

And, of course, I think the Tiger is a whole lot more fun to fly, but that's something you'd have to experience to appreciate. Keep an eye on Social Flight and the AYA events calendar for a Grumman fly-in near you, show up, and see if you can't snag a Tiger ride.
 
Ron Levy said:
And, of course, I think the Tiger is a whole lot more fun to fly, but that's something you'd have to experience to appreciate.
Click to expand...

This is really the key point. Flying a 182 is like driving a pickup truck. If you're looking for a plane for good basic transport of a lot of people/stuff, the 182 is (very) hard to beat. It is a stable flier almost to a fault, but something to really appreciate when instrument flying in turbulence.
 
Cruise speed on both will be the same, about 135kts. Cessna will burn 2-3 GPH more. Maintenance on the cessna will be higher.

The useful load on that 182 should be pretty good. You should be able to carry 4 people and bags for the weekend. Tiger.. no possibility of doing this.

Tiger is better handling, good view. More fun to fly. Cessna will be better at short fields and high DA situations. High wing is easier to load and cooler in the summertime.

If you want to haul a lot of people and stuff on trips the 182 is the ticket. If you travel light or do more fun local flying, the Tiger is the better choice.
 
Another caveat - if load hauling is your mission, a '65 model is probably not the optimum choice in a 182. For the P and Q models (70's, early 80's) you can get a paperwork only STC to increase the MGTOW to 3,100 lbs (need to land at <2,950 lbs). That gets you in the range of 1,200 lbs useful load, or approx 800 lbs payload with full fuel.
 
Nothing to add, but I love these comparison threads, even if they are "apples to oranges". I learn a lot from them and since I am planning to upgrade from my 172 I find the information valuable and informative.

But as to this post: I vote for the 182. But that's primarily based on my needs and mission. Are the 530s and 430s mentioned WAAS?
 
TommyG said:
So me and some guys are talking about partnering on a plane. We have it narrowed down to 2 that are are seriously considering. Figure some of the knowledge here might help us out.

1- 2004 Grumman tiger low hours. Has a 530 and a 430. Looks great. Running around 130k.

2- 1965 c182, fairly new engine, has 530 and a 430. Looks great. Around 60k.

Cruise speed looks to be about the same.
Fuel burn is looking a little higher on the 182.
Tiger is only a 10 year old plane, 182 is a 50 year old plane.

I don't have all the specs in front of me. But what are your thoughts? Looking for any real pros and cons.
Click to expand...

All depends on your mission requirements, and what you "want" in an airplane. Usefull load on late 70's era Tigers is around 950 lbs depending on equipment, less on later Tigers.

The C-182 is a bit more versatile, a bit more costly, and a LOT more truck like to fly.
 
You need to define the mission. Payload,roominess,ease of entry,go with the 182. The price on the tiger seems a little high ,even with the nice avionics. The 430 ,530 combo is starting to become dated.
 
frfly172 said:
You need to define the mission. Payload,roominess,ease of entry,go with the 182. The price on the tiger seems a little high ,even with the nice avionics. The 430 ,530 combo is starting to become dated.
Click to expand...
Especially if it is not WAAS.
 
You can get well-equipped, low time, late 70's model Tigers for 60-70k as well, so that's something to consider.

Personally, if I've got 130k, I'm probably going to look at a Bonanza for the combination of speed and payload.
 
With a 182, you can open the door and exit without getting a wet interior when it is raining. The gruman is also prone to broken flap switches from passenger hitting them with their feet getting in/out of the plane.
 
Last edited:
130k for a tiger, not just no but hell no!

You can get a Grumman for way less.

I'd say id take a Grumman for running around (a 60k Grumman, which ain't hard to find) over the 182, unless I wanted to go backcountry, use it for DZ stuff, or floats.

For 130k I'd bee looking for a float plane, a decked out nanchang, newer high power lance air, U206, Bo, etc
 
Clip4 said:
With a 182, you can open the door and exit without getting a wet interior when it is raining.
Click to expand...
You can also put a serious dent in your head while preflighting a 182.
The gruman [sic] is also prone to broken flap switches from passenger hitting them with their feet getting in/out of the plane.
Click to expand...
Unless your passengers are getting out across the center console (and I have no idea why they would), I can't see how that would happen, and have never seen it happen.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Not if you're "of short stature". :D
Click to expand...
You'd have to be shorter than me, and I'm only 5'8" -- and also have the flaps up. I've lost count of the times my trainee lowered the flaps for preflight while I was putting my gear in the cockpit of a high wing Cessna, and when I backed out...:eek: You'd have to be about 4'8" to avoid that one.
 
Like others have said, there is a big price differential between you choices. For $130K you can buy a lot of airplane including a Bo or a Mooney and get a lot more X-C capability. But every airplane is a compromise, and the right choice for me may not be best for you. You need to come to terms with how you are going to use this airplane and that should drive your choice. Most of the recommendations you are going to get here are based on personal bias or the best airplane that fits their mission, not yours. I wonder how you arrived at these two choices? Again, for 130K you got plenty to pick from including certified and otherwise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Perezhr said:
Like others have said, there is a big price differential between you choices. For $130K you can buy a lot of airplane including a Bo or a Mooney and get a lot more X-C capability. But every airplane is a compromise, and the right choice for me may not be best for you. You need to come to terms with how you are going to use this airplane and that should drive your choice. Most of the recommendations you are going to get here are based on personal bias or the best airplane that fits their mission, not yours. I wonder how you arrived at these two choices? Again, for 130K you got plenty to pick from including certified and otherwise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

The consensus between us all is our needs are more short haul hops. nothing crazy like going to the west coast. The main discussion is, even though the avionics are new, and a fairly new engine, it's a 50 year old airplane. Now should that have really any bearing, as long as all the mx is up to date? Some of the mindsets are; yeah it's 130k, but it is a 10 year old airplane with a 700 hour engine. We are not close to a set decision. That's why I am looking for, and do appreciate the advice.
 
You ought to fly them both. The 182 is a granny car compared to the Tiger that is like a Miata. Having flown both, for me, it is the pleasure of sitting in a plane that feels like it was made for me. Cozy, with such great visibility in looking at the horizon while climbing out at 110kts /1000fpm and the ergonomic delight of seeing in all directions without needing hats and sunglasses to avoid glare. Light on the controls, ease of handling( believe the guy who said the 182 is like flying a truck). I waited a long time to find the right Tiger, but the wait was worth it. Suggest one of the few that were made in the 90s. Great updates to the 70 versions but easier on the pocket than the 2000s. Simplicity, fun and 135kts on 9gals/hr! I mostly do long cross-country's alone and my Tiger suits me fine!
 
A sports coupe vs. a family sedan (IMHO more so than a pickup truck). Agree that $130k seems high for the Tiger, and the useful load of a AG5B is likely to be less than an earlier model (say 850-870 lb vs. 920-985 lb...my '76 is 973 lb).

Fueled to the tabs (ca. 220 lb) conservatively yields 2.5 hrs of cruise with an hour reserve and I can carry 730 lb of people/stuff (I leave some safety margin vs. max gross). That's two couples like my wife and me (640 lb total with headsets and handbags) plus 30 lb of baggage for each couple, and my toolkit, towbar, spare oil, and a small collapsible umbrella. Room is sufficient in front. Legroom is very good in the back, but I find the headroom and shoulder room tight back there. We load the 2 smaller people in the rear seats both for space and to keep the CG in aft limits with baggage behind the rear seats.

As others have said, the view out of the Tiger is great. And being able to open the canopy on the ground in hot weather is hands down better than opening the Cessna side windows. I do not open the canopy in the air, but many do (it is approved).

Most of all, though, the thing that clinched the choice for me was the handling. The metaphor of a Miata is consistent with my experience. Well rigged a Tiger is light and quick on the controls.

182 will fly longer and carry more with more room. And has more stable handling. And as others have said, no need for an umbrella to get out of the plane in the rain. And while we've been treating the two as having the same speed, I think a 182 has a few kts on a Tiger (albeit at a significant cost in fuel flow).

Another vote for you to fly both and decide.
 
Tom,
I have a pretty nice Tiger at Central Jersey Airport (47N) in NJ. You are pretty close to me, so if you want to come out some day we can talk Tigers and I'd be glad to take you for a ride. This is my 3rd Grumman, so I have been involved in ownership for many years. Feel free to call me at 908-507-9452 if you have any questions. Good luck on your search for a plane.

Mike in NJ
 
Ron Levy said:
You'd have to be shorter than me, and I'm only 5'8" -- and also have the flaps up. I've lost count of the times my trainee lowered the flaps for preflight while I was putting my gear in the cockpit of a high wing Cessna, and when I backed out...:eek: You'd have to be about 4'8" to avoid that one.
Click to expand...

5'7", and I've only knocked my head on the door frame, not the wing or the flap. Probably the strut a time or two while servicing the gear...

We have the bulb end flaps, so the only way to get the Cessna Diamond Imprint on ours is to be really tall and walk into an aileron.
 
TommyG said:
1- 2004 Grumman tiger low hours. Running around 130k.

2- 1965 c182, fairly new engine, has 530 and a 430. Around 60k.

Cruise speed looks to be about the same.
Fuel burn is looking a little higher on the 182.
Tiger is only a 10 year old plane, 182 is a 50 year old plane.

I don't have all the specs in front of me. But what are your thoughts? Looking for any real pros and cons.
Click to expand...

I've owned a Tiger several years ... all of the previous messages are pretty much spot on. Basically comes down to your mission, how much weight capacity you need to carry, etc.

I calculated my missions as 50% solo, 40% single Pax and <10% 3 Pax. I've literally only flown with all 4 seats filled 2 times in 6 years of ownership and one of the four was always a child. Being that, I didn't see the need for extra carry capacity and cylinders for the majority of what I do. I would like to have more HP to tour the Colorado area, but it is doable in the Tiger (just haven't had the time).
 
TommyG said:
So me and some guys are talking about partnering on a plane. We have it narrowed down to 2 that are are seriously considering. Figure some of the knowledge here might help us out.

1- 2004 Grumman tiger low hours. Has a 530 and a 430. Looks great. Running around 130k.

2- 1965 c182, fairly new engine, has 530 and a 430. Looks great. Around 60k.

Cruise speed looks to be about the same.
Fuel burn is looking a little higher on the 182.
Tiger is only a 10 year old plane, 182 is a 50 year old plane.

I don't have all the specs in front of me. But what are your thoughts? Looking for any real pros and cons.
Click to expand...

I am wondering what you ended up buying. I went through this same trade about a year ago now. Bought a nice 1979 Tiger, but now am wondering if maybe I should of looked for a C182. My wife and I are getting older and not having to step up onto a wing might be a good thing. But, most of my flying is local and the occasional XC flight, so perhaps the Tiger is the better plane. :dunno:
 
TommyG said:
The consensus between us all is our needs are more short haul hops. nothing crazy like going to the west coast. The main discussion is, even though the avionics are new, and a fairly new engine, it's a 50 year old airplane. Now should that have really any bearing, as long as all the mx is up to date? Some of the mindsets are; yeah it's 130k, but it is a 10 year old airplane with a 700 hour engine. We are not close to a set decision. That's why I am looking for, and do appreciate the advice.
Click to expand...

Anybody that puts A&P behind their name, even in East Undershirt Ohio on a Superbowl Sunday afternoon, can work on the 182 without breaking a sweat.

The Grumman, not so much.

My '58 182 still has as much parts support as I need. Grumman, not so much.

You can take the wife along with Sally and Bob and go to Sunday morning breakfast. The Grumman leaves either Sally or Bob at home.

I could be wrong, but I think EAA/Oshkosh considers a '65 a Classic, which gives you priority parking. The Grumman goes to spamcan row if there is room.

Take a look at a Chief Aircraft, or Aircraft Spruce, or other catalog. Look at stuff like mag harnesses, oil filters and the like. Note how many 182 parts you can buy off the shelf. Note how many Grumman parts are not listed.

And, if push comes to shove, any boneyard worth talking about will yield as many Cessna parts as you need for a major repair. Grumman bones are few and far between.

Just my experience after a lot of years with my beloved Snarly Charlie 182 and a few years wrenching on Grummans.

Thanks,

Jim
 
Geeze, I can get a SmartCar or a Ford F-250 crew cab. How can I decide?

I'd suggest first deciding if you want a small sporty economy car or a large truck.
 
Rcmutz said:
I am wondering what you ended up buying. I went through this same trade about a year ago now. Bought a nice 1979 Tiger, but now am wondering if maybe I should of looked for a C182. My wife and I are getting older and not having to step up onto a wing might be a good thing. But, most of my flying is local and the occasional XC flight, so perhaps the Tiger is the better plane. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Look at a Cardinal or Cardinal RG.
 
weirdjim said:
Anybody that puts A&P behind their name, even in East Undershirt Ohio on a Superbowl Sunday afternoon, can work on the 182 without breaking a sweat.

The Grumman, not so much.

My '58 182 still has as much parts support as I need. Grumman, not so much.

You can take the wife along with Sally and Bob and go to Sunday morning breakfast. The Grumman leaves either Sally or Bob at home.

I could be wrong, but I think EAA/Oshkosh considers a '65 a Classic, which gives you priority parking. The Grumman goes to spamcan row if there is room.

Take a look at a Chief Aircraft, or Aircraft Spruce, or other catalog. Look at stuff like mag harnesses, oil filters and the like. Note how many 182 parts you can buy off the shelf. Note how many Grumman parts are not listed.

And, if push comes to shove, any boneyard worth talking about will yield as many Cessna parts as you need for a major repair. Grumman bones are few and far between.

Just my experience after a lot of years with my beloved Snarly Charlie 182 and a few years wrenching on Grummans.

Thanks,

Jim
Click to expand...

I owned my previous plane a Cheetah for 14 years. Never had a problem finding parts. Engines are engines, mags are mags, brakes are brakes. Now if you need a new spar or something, perhaps the airplane is totaled anyhow, and if you need something else, the Grumman suppliers (FletchAir, and Air Mods NW) usually have it. In addition, there are several AnP's in various parts of the country that are specialist on the Grumman line who give of their free consultation via the Grumman Gang. So, just saying parts are not an issue anymore than they are for a Cardinal or Comanche, etc.
 
Henning said:
Look at a Cardinal or Cardinal RG.
Click to expand...

I would except in my opinion and according to Vref, and NAAA, the cardinal owners all have their planes over priced by thousands of dollars given the market. Take a look at what is advertised out there.
 
Rcmutz said:
I would except in my opinion and according to Vref, and NAAA, the cardinal owners all have their planes over priced by thousands of dollars given the market. Take a look at what is advertised out there.
Click to expand...

You can buy a 4+2 210 with a IO520 and have money left over for what a lot of 177RG are listed for.
 
Rcmutz said:
I owned my previous plane a Cheetah for 14 years. Never had a problem finding parts. Engines are engines, mags are mags, brakes are brakes. Now if you need a new spar or something, perhaps the airplane is totaled anyhow, and if you need something else, the Grumman suppliers (FletchAir, and Air Mods NW) usually have it.
Click to expand...
And if they don't, True Flight can make it or have it made.

In addition, there are several AnP's in various parts of the country that are specialist on the Grumman line who give of their free consultation via the Grumman Gang. So, just saying parts are not an issue anymore than they are for a Cardinal or Comanche, etc.
Click to expand...
There aren't a lot of things on a Grumman which require routine maintenance that any A&P worth his/her salt can't fix, and as stated, there's a ton of technical support available from the Grumman experts around the country (including the AYA's Ask the Experts system for member use) for Grumman-specific issues.
 
I'll take a well maintained 1965 machine over a 2004 machine all day long regardless of make (almost).

Newer planes are junk by comparison.
 
Fly both. Buy the one you like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top