Grumman Tiger Vs Mooney M20C or E

[danhagan]

The Tigers are very difficult to find though.

Contact Dave Fletch at FletchAIR in Fredericksburg TX 1-830-995-5900 (near San Antonio).

FletchAIR only works on Grumman aircraft. Mine had its annual there prior to my purchasing it, and the buyer that bought it from me also insisted it have its pre-buy there. He'll probably know of several that are available, and he may have already worked on them.

Had a Tiger for a while. Sold it 3 years ago to get an RV-9. Things I liked about the Tiger: very low maintenance costs in my experience, insurance was inexpensive, it was fairly fast and economical (over 130kts on 8-9 gal/hr-- would do 135kts if you burned more fuel), handled turbulence and crosswinds very well,

What Edo says is spot on with my 9 years owner experience. Tigers can handle a buttload of direct crosswind (my max direct 90* was 29G35). Insurance was cheap. I also sold it for an RV (mine is a RV7), as I'm solo most of the time now, never more than one pax. Tiger was 130-135 knots ... new ride is 160-165 knots no wind.

 

[woodchucker]

My club has a Tiger and I love it. Then again my only other experiences are in Cessnas. I believe you mentioned 38 gallon fuel capacity? That’s just the tabs. Filled up you get close to 52 gallons but then it’s a 2-place. And one other thing to make sure you are aware of the Tiger wings have a 12,000 hour limit on them. It’s a fun plane to fly and my favorite for XC flights. If you ever come through Salt Lake and want a ride let me know.

Can’t give feedback on Mooneys because unfortunately I’ve never been in one.

 

[Rcmutz]

My club has a Tiger and I love it. Then again my only other experiences are in Cessnas. I believe you mentioned 38 gallon fuel capacity? That’s just the tabs. Filled up you get close to 52 gallons but then it’s a 2-place. And one other thing to make sure you are aware of the Tiger wings have a 12,000 hour limit on them. It’s a fun plane to fly and my favorite for XC flights. If you ever come through Salt Lake and want a ride let me know.

Can’t give feedback on Mooneys because unfortunately I’ve never been in one.

my Tiger has 910 lbs useful load. With 52 gals of fuel, I have 598 lbs of payload. Plenty of room for the wife and two kids and some baggage, or three with lots of baggage, or two with the back seat folded down and a **** ton of baggage.

 

[flyingron]

The Tiger will fly more efficiently and nicer than either of those older Mooneys. The Commanche will be more comfortable than any of the others but won't be as efficient, and not as fast until you get into the higher HP range. I've had two friends with 400HP Commanches and they were both nice travelling planes (but only economical compared to the fact the guy's other plane was a Beech 18).

 

[woodchucker]

my Tiger has 910 lbs useful load. With 52 gals of fuel, I have 598 lbs of payload. Plenty of room for the wife and two kids and some baggage, or three with lots of baggage, or two with the back seat folded down and a **** ton of baggage.

What altitude are you at? I fly out of 4600. Haven’t ever actually flown it full tanks yet. Maybe something to try and see how it goes. Never really thought about pushing it.

 

[1RTK1]

my Tiger has 910 lbs useful load. With 52 gals of fuel, I have 598 lbs of payload. Plenty of room for the wife and two kids and some baggage, or three with lots of baggage, or two with the back seat folded down and a **** ton of baggage.

If memory serves, I believe my tiger has 948 useful. It was in good shape when purchased and I have only had to replace a vacuum pump, tires and brakes in the last 6 years. Annuals are very reasonable as they are owner assist.

 

[edo2000]

What I could do if I only needed 2 seats. I was looking at Lancairs speed and they seemed incredibly fast but only 2 seaters. I'd like to consider the RV10 but I don't want to build (no time im young w fam), and theyd be outta budget also.

The thing is, you just don't have much of a 4-passenger airplane with 180 hp. Especially in the case of a Tiger with its fixed prop. Takeoff and climb performance is just not there, IMO. A Mooney is no doubt better, with its constant speed. I guess if you have low density altitude airports (like my old home bases in Alaska), and small children, it might work?

My experience, based above 6000MSL-- the Tiger worked OK as a 2-place(2 adults, total weight around 330 lbs) with a convenient behind-the-front-seat storage area. But even with 2 aboard, performance was lacking greatly for most of my flights in northern New Mexico and Colorado. I replaced the Tiger with a 160 hp, fixed prop, RV9, which is lighter, with a better wing design(IMO). With the same fuel and passengers, it would take off and climb much more quickly. (typically, 900 fpm vs 400 fpm). And the difference in climb performance became much more pronounced above 10,000. And...the RV is cruising easily 20 kts faster than the Tiger, on less fuel.

 

[wrbix]

And one other thing to make sure you are aware of the Tiger wings have a 12,000 hour limit on them. .

Yeah....and at 100hrs flying per year that’s, what, 120 years? Yawn.
Surprised no one has been along yet to complain that one gets wet when getting in or out of a Grumman in the rain.

 

[woodchucker]

Yeah....and at 100hrs flying per year that’s, what, 120 years? Yawn.
Surprised no one has been along yet to complain that one gets wet when getting in or out of a Grumman in the rain.

Just pointing it out boss. No need to get snarky.

 

[zaitcev]

Surprised no one has been along yet to complain that one gets wet when getting in or out of a Grumman in the rain.

Getting wet is one thing, it's worse when one found mud somewhere near the edge of the apron and then steps on the seat with that foot while boarding. I suppose one solution is to fly to Class C airports or better only.

 

[MBDiagMan]

The Johnson bar, manual flap Of the Mooney is bullet proof and will add zero to maintenance costs.

Don’t put too much stock in your poll when making your decision. First of all everyone is different with a different mission. Second of all, the poll is only a popularity contest, not a thorough examination of YOUR mission and YOUR likes/dislikes.

Since the time I started talking about buying my first Mooney I was amazed at how many people of so many things to say about Mooney’s, and when you start asking them about which model Mooney they have flown or ridden in you find that they have never so much as been inside one. Don’t let others decide what airplane YOU purchase. Do your research and make up your mind.

There is a popular Mooney forum that it would be easy to go post your location and someone would come and give you a ride. Someone gave me a ride before I bought my first one. It’s the best Mooney forum in SPACE.

if you’re in NE Texas, I’ll try to give you a ride.

 

[MBDiagMan]

BTW, if it comes down to a C or an E, choose by time and condition. Sure an E is preferable, but you will be better off with a well cared for C than with a neglected E.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Lol, I know I'm torn myself. The E looks like it was extremely well cared for. The panel looks clean, I just really hate not having standard 6 packs and like GTN650...I mean the 430W is 20 years old and these guys think the plane is up to date...I'm a millenial (barely) give me a break, I like my digital tools.

There are plenty of Mooney’s around with a standard six pack.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

The Johnson bar, manual flap Of the Mooney is bullet proof and will add zero to maintenance costs.

That was not my experience. We definitely spent money on maintenance of both the gear and the flaps in the C I used to fly. It wasn't a ton of money, but it definitely more than zero.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Sorry to hear that you bought a neglected C. There’s no more trouble free and more simply maintained landing gear than the Moony Johnson Bar. Of course there are people who are afraid to use a grease gun for fear of messing up their manicure.

I regret so much injuring my shoulder and having to give up my Johnson bar C. My F/J has had its share of electric gear problems.

 

[Bill]

The Johnson bar, manual flap Of the Mooney is bullet proof and will add zero to maintenance costs.

That was not my experience. We definitely spent money on maintenance of both the gear and the flaps in the C I used to fly. It wasn't a ton of money, but it definitely more than zero.

Sorry to hear that you bought a neglected C. There’s no more trouble free and more simply maintained landing gear than the Moony Johnson Bar. Of course there are people who are afraid to use a grease gun for fear of messing up their manicure.

I regret so much injuring my shoulder and having to give up my Johnson bar C. My F/J has had its share of electric gear problems.

The electric gear and flap Mooneys use the exact same mechanisms, just have electric motors replacing Armstrong power. We've owned the J since 2006, and have had ZERO flap/gear issues besides one set of rubber biscuit replacement, and those rubber biscuits are basically wear items anyway. Concerns about electric gear and/or flap issues are so far down on my worry list that I don't even think about it, the stuff just works.

That said, it pays to have a Mooney savvy A/P do your annuals, as proper swing checks and gear pre-load are important (gear pre-load especially) for longevity.

 

[bflynn]

Okay, so I have some new info on the 1964 E model with the fuel bladders. I was able to look at it again yesterday and go through the logbooks a bit. This guy hasn't flown it much. It had 169 hours between 2012 and present. It's only flown about 15 hrs per year for 2017, 2018, and 2019. It was flown around 40 hrs per year from 2008 to 2012. It is at SMOH 1386. I think he said he used Camguard in the oil changes and he has been pretty meticulous about maintenance. (he leaves the doors open in the hangar so the rubber seals don't get damaged over time). How bad is all this? I didn't realize he had let it sit so much. He's also not budging much on price from $60k. Do you build in some sort of engine warranty in a deal like this? Like if it doesn't last to TBO (im hoping it lasts even to 1800 hrs) you cover 1/3 of the overhaul or something?

Yeah, at 60k, that's too much by about 15,000. The engine is about 70% to TBO, you're only 600 hours from a 25-30k balloon payment. The bladders are nice, but the 430 don't really add anything.

If he had all the speed mods to make this a 155 kt airplane, then maybe it's approaching 60k, but in my experience watching Mooney prices, speed mods do not contribute significantly to the sale value.

I say let him hold it and it can rust on him or he can replace the engine.

 

[steingar]

Yeah, at 60k, that's too much by about 15,000. The engine is about 70% to TBO, you're only 600 hours from a 25-30k balloon payment. The bladders are nice, but the 430 don't really add anything.

If he had all the speed mods to make this a 155 kt airplane, then maybe it's approaching 60k, but in my experience watching Mooney prices, speed mods do not contribute significantly to the sale value.

I say let him hold it and it can rust on him or he can replace the engine.

I disagree. Most of the E's I've seen have been going in that range. The bladders are a huge deal, they mean never having an expensive wing sealing job ever. They ever go bad they can be redone in situ for about an AMU. All the E's I've seen sell for less than that had no GPS and leaky tanks.

I bought a C because I didn't want to pay the upcharge for an E. I am pretty happy with my decision too, but had I seen an E with the right stuff at the right price I'd not have hesitated. I would have never bought a Tiger. I feel they are overpriced for what they are.

 

[atbroome]

Hey here is a Tiger for sale...or maybe not. If this was a Traveler in TX I'd assume it was posted by SPC:

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified-1583237-grumman-tiger-aa5b.html

 

[asicer]

Hey here is a Tiger for sale...or maybe not. If this was a Traveler in TX I'd assume it was posed by SPC:

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified-1583237-grumman-tiger-aa5b.html

"I can't stand to do another IFR cross country with two kids kicking my seat while I hold a crying baby and my wife changes a diaper."

I wonder if there's enough room to do that in a short body Mooney.

 

[zaitcev]

The Johnson bar, manual flap Of the Mooney is bullet proof and will add zero to maintenance costs.

I had no trouble with electric gear and flaps. In fact one of my annuals was $800 total (I opened and closed the airplane myself). The $20k annual that I'm finishing right now was caused by corrosion and engine case cracking. A corrosion can happen to Tiger too.

 

[zaitcev]

When I got back into flying 3 years ago I searched for a decent Tiger for some time. Only thing out there were beaters in the 40K range. Once you got them up to speed with avionics etc you were in the 80 plus range. Those few with all the bells and whistles were close to 100K.

This was my experience too. I only bought a Mooney because it was cheap.

But also, I was desperate for knots within the budget. So many people say that a small speed difference does not matter. My experience was that making 135 knots in Arrow versus 115 knots in Cherokee makes a very large difference when flying between New Mexico and East coast. It was a difference between making 1 stop somewhere in Arkansas or Illinois and 2 stops in Missouri and Ohio.

I would totally get a Bonanza if I could fit into a cheap one. But they are strangely tight inside, despite being larger than Mooney. In older ones my knees are jammed solid against the lower edge of the panels and at times I cannot even pull the mixture. And if it has radios on the left, I cannot even sit in it, period. But I can easily fit into Mooney or Tiger.

 

[steingar]

Hey here is a Tiger for sale...or maybe not. If this was a Traveler in TX I'd assume it was posted by SPC:

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified-1583237-grumman-tiger-aa5b.html

8 grand more than the E, 20 knots slower, and not even as well equipped. I rest my case.

 

[1RTK1]

Getting wet is one thing, it's worse when one found mud somewhere near the edge of the apron and then steps on the seat with that foot while boarding. I suppose one solution is to fly to Class C airports or better only.

Why would you step on the seat? You lift the seat with the top of your foot then step on the seat pan to get in if you can’t reach the floor

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Sorry to hear that you bought a neglected C.

People say Mooney drivers are condescending but I say nah, you just don't know them like I do.

We had to replace the flap check valve actuator cable when it snapped inside the sheathing. That cost more than zero. On the itemized invoice for every annual there was a line item for swinging the gear and it was more than zero. If that means we bought neglected C then I guess we'll just have to find a way to make our piece with that.

 

[zaitcev]

We had to replace the flap check valve actuator cable when it snapped inside the sheathing. That cost more than zero.

Our friend steingar, who posted in this thread, also lost flaps on his C this year. Apparently it was an issue with rubber gaskets in the master pump. But I'm not going to claim that his gaskets are more expensive than my electric motor when it goes out eventually, because obviously they can't be. I'm just saying that hydraulic flaps are not as bulletproof as some think.

 

[danhagan]

What altitude are you at? I fly out of 4600. Haven’t ever actually flown it full tanks yet. Maybe something to try and see how it goes. Never really thought about pushing it.

I flew at 4100, desert SW. My UL was 978 pounds up from 960 as the mechanic re-weighed it at annual. Previous owner did a TON of avionics work, and just did a addition/subtraction from original items.

Getting wet is one thing, it's worse when one found mud somewhere near the edge of the apron and then steps on the seat with that foot while boarding. I suppose one solution is to fly to Class C airports or better only.

Why would you step on the seat? You lift the seat with the top of your foot then step on the seat pan to get in if you can’t reach the floor

Pete has been in my old one in Ruidoso NM. I entered without stepping on the seat or lifting and stepping on the pan (but I did do the pan trick with some less than agile pax). The RV I cannot get into without stepping on the seat. I can lift it also, but I use a beach towel to keep dust off the canopy when it is in the hangar, so I just throw it on the seat and step on the towel instead.

If you fly a canopy type AC long enough, you'll get VERY good at slightly opening the canopy, deploying an umbrella and getting out without much if any water getting in ... don't slip off the wing though

 

[wrbix]

People come up with all sorts of illogical rationalizations as to why they don’t own Grummans.
I will never again, in my own airplane, crawl across the right seat to get into PIC position. That a REAL advantage of a canopied aircraft.

 

[steingar]

Yeah, I've spent money on gear and flaps. More than zero, like the man said. But I suspect I would need to have both those systems rebuilt with brand new parts before I could spend the price difference between my Mooney and a similarly equipped Tiger. And Tigers get maintenance squawks too. I imagine whatever drives their flaps can break as well. And after all that I'm still quite a bit faster. A vintage Mooney is the most bang for your buck in all of GA. Nothing but nothing goes that fast on so little. And absolutely nothing will lift a half ton while doing it.

 

[Flybuddy]

The Tiger will fly more efficiently and nicer than either of those older Mooneys.

Not true--the Tiger would, by far, be the least efficient. I have a friend who owned the fastest Tiger (he won the Grumman gang races year after year as well as racing it at Oshkosh and SunNFun and performing well). I spent the night at his house in Indiana and we both left together next morning going to Fort Myers FL. I was in a nice 1962 C model Mooney. We were both IFR at same altitude, I was in front and he was a few miles in trail. We were up high and both at full power. I was running 2300 on the prop and burning 8.3 gph, he was at 11+ gph. He kept pace (about 142 knots) fairly well but had to refuel in Georgia. I made it all the way to Ft.Myers with 10+ gallons remaining. Having flown several Tigers, including his, the others were at least 10 knots slower (his was heavily modified). An E model Mooney with cowling mod would have at least a 20 knot advantage over an average Tiger, hold more fuel and burn less.
Also, the short body Mooneys fly as "nice" as Tigers and have a sports car feel.

 

[eman1200]

Sorry to hear that you bought a neglected C. There’s no more trouble free and more simply maintained landing gear than the Moony Johnson Bar. Of course there are people who are afraid to use a grease gun for fear of messing up their manicure.

I regret so much injuring my shoulder and having to give up my Johnson bar C. My F/J has had its share of electric gear problems.

sorry to hear that you bought a neglected F/J

 

[MBDiagMan]

The electric gear and flap Mooneys use the exact same mechanisms, just have electric motors replacing Armstrong power. We've owned the J since 2006, and have had ZERO flap/gear issues besides one set of rubber biscuit replacement, and those rubber biscuits are basically wear items anyway. Concerns about electric gear and/or flap issues are so far down on my worry list that I don't even think about it, the stuff just works.

That said, it pays to have a Mooney savvy A/P do your annuals, as proper swing checks and gear pre-load are important (gear pre-load especially) for longevity.

My gear problems have been electrical. The gear in my Johnson bar C, which was the topic of discussion was flawless and maintenance free.

 

[N1120A]

My club has a Tiger and I love it. Then again my only other experiences are in Cessnas. I believe you mentioned 38 gallon fuel capacity? That’s just the tabs. Filled up you get close to 52 gallons but then it’s a 2-place. And one other thing to make sure you are aware of the Tiger wings have a 12,000 hour limit on them. It’s a fun plane to fly and my favorite for XC flights. If you ever come through Salt Lake and want a ride let me know.

Can’t give feedback on Mooneys because unfortunately I’ve never been in one.

All Travelers and some (only about 10%) of Cheetahs have 38 gallon tanks. All Tigers have 53/51 useable.

 

[danhagan]

I will never again, in my own airplane, crawl across the right seat to get into PIC position. That a REAL advantage of a canopied aircraft.

Well there's that, but I like the nice cool breeze after landing with the canopy open ... rather than asking my PAX to hold the only door open during taxi

I have a friend who owned the fastest Tiger (he won the Grumman gang races year after year as well as racing it at Oshkosh and SunNFun and performing well). I spent the night at his house in Indiana and we both left together next morning going to Fort Myers FL. I was in a nice 1962 C model Mooney. We were both IFR at same altitude, I was in front and he was a few miles in trail. We were up high and both at full power. I was running 2300 on the prop and burning 8.3 gph, he was at 11+ gph. He kept pace (about 142 knots) fairly well but had to refuel in Georgia.

Your "friend" doesn't know how to use the RED knob then ... at 8500 max RPM should be 8.3 -8.7 GPH, I flew 9500 and 10500 exclusively and was always right at 8.1 GPH. With 51 gallons useable out of 52, that's quite the endurance. I admit not getting above 135 knots in a no wind situation, but I could ALWAYS out endurance most other AC or their pilot's bladder

You indicated you could hold more fuel, but unless the web was wrong, the Mooney C is also 52 gallons total. Did you have long range tanks?

 

[Flybuddy]

Well there's that, but I like the nice cool breeze after landing with the canopy open ... rather than asking my PAX to hold the only door open during taxi



Your "friend" doesn't know how to use the RED knob then ... at 8500 max RPM should be 8.3 -8.7 GPH, I flew 9500 and 10500 exclusively and was always right at 8.1 GPH. With 51 gallons useable out of 52, that's quite the endurance. I admit not getting above 135 knots in a no wind situation, but I could ALWAYS out endurance most other AC or their pilot's bladder

You indicated you could hold more fuel, but unless the web was wrong, the Mooney C is also 52 gallons total. Did you have long range tanks?

With my friend I'll be kind and explain that his engine as well as airframe were very modified and exceeded standard power and RPM. It's easy to do, my last plane was an Rv6 with a 180 lycoming and at altitude I would burn better than 11 gph (I'd get 174 kts though)..My 62 C model Mooney had bladders, in 62 the standard model had 48 gallons, that bumped to 55 with bladders and I stopped having to chase leaks.

 

[danhagan]

With my friend I'll be kind and explain that his engine as well as airframe were very modified and exceeded standard power and RPM. It's easy to do, my last plane was an Rv6 with a 180 lycoming and at altitude I would burn better than 11 gph (I'd get 174 kts though)...

But you're comparing your Mooney with modified fuel bladders to a Tiger modified for "speed only and horse power" by various mods ... more accurate would be stock Tiger to stock Mooney C comparison. The OP trying to decide between the two choices needs accurate info.

 

[Flybuddy]

A Mooney of any kind is simply more efficient than a Tiger which is what I was responding to and even the fastest Tiger couldn’t pass the slowest Mooney. Given the same engine a fixed pitch prop at altitude at full throttle will burn about 2 gph more than a constant speed. A simple retractable gear also adds to the efficiency.
The bladders are a common mod and one of the Mooney’s he’s considering had them.

 

[hindsight2020]

 

[Rcmutz]

Yeah, I've spent money on gear and flaps. More than zero, like the man said. But I suspect I would need to have both those systems rebuilt with brand new parts before I could spend the price difference between my Mooney and a similarly equipped Tiger. And Tigers get maintenance squawks too. I imagine whatever drives their flaps can break as well. And after all that I'm still quite a bit faster. A vintage Mooney is the most bang for your buck in all of GA. Nothing but nothing goes that fast on so little. And absolutely nothing will lift a half ton while doing it.

And if that was the case, they’d be selling for more than they are. The market speaks.

 

[Rcmutz]

A Mooney of any kind is simply more efficient than a Tiger which is what I was responding to and even the fastest Tiger couldn’t pass the slowest Mooney. Given the same engine a fixed pitch prop at altitude at full throttle will burn about 2 gph more than a constant speed. A simple retractable gear also adds to the efficiency.
The bladders are a common mod and one of the Mooney’s he’s considering had them.

Keep thinking that.