Is this a step up?

[PilotAlan]

I've been looking at what I'm going to step up to next year. I'm looking hard at a Tiger, but that's led to some interesting discussions about "stepping up".

1 - People have told me that going from a Cherokee to a Tiger is not "stepping up". But an Arrow or a Mooney Ranger would be considered a "step up", even though a Tiger is comparable to either speed wise.

2 - The idea of a 140kt airplane with lower insurance (fixed gear), simpler maintenance, a carb rather than the expense of maintaining fuel injection, and a fixed pitch prop (without the cost of a CS prop and the occasional AD associated) is attractive.

Looking at various aircraft, the purchase price of a Tiger is about the same as a comparable year Arrow or Mooney Statesman (180hp carbureted) with similar equipment.
As we all know, purchase cost is a small fraction of overall cost of ownership. It seems to me that a Tiger gives me almost everything an Arrow or Statesman gives, with a *much* lower cost of ownership.

Am I missing here? Is it just the desire to fold the wheels?

 

[gprellwitz]

There's no real need to fold the wheels. Buy the plane for the mission. They add expense in both maintenance and insurance, so if the mission can be fulfilled without them, they're an unnecessary accoutrement.

OTOH, do you always have the 10K' runway needed for a Tiger?

 

[poadeleted20]

Am I missing here? Is it just the desire to fold the wheels?

Shhh.....


...don't wake the sleeping Arrow owners -- it will only raise the price you have to pay for your Tiger.

IOW, no, you're not missing anything here, unless you need to build retractable time for aviation employment purposes.

 

[bbchien]

Alan, the problem is service ceiling in an aircraft that has- fixed drag.

If you want to fly west, the Mooney is clearly superior. Even the Arrow is a bit better but the svc ceiling of the 200 hp Arrow is 15,000 feet ( I think yours is 14,100 or the like), which is mimimally more helpful flying west. The 200 hp Mooney will get you to 18,000. 13,800 for the Tiger.

I would not cross the Rockies with a service ceiling less than the peaks.

Ya pays yer money and takes your choices.

 

[Turboz1r]

Hello,

Let me start off by saying that I have owned both an Arrow and a Tiger. I owned the Arrow for five years, and went through some costly maint items with the retract gear and C/S prop. Arrow = 135 kts. After owning two Grumman two place airplanes, a Yankee and Lynx, one always wants to move up to a Tiger. I purchased my 77 Tiger two summers ago, and am loving it. Tiger = 135-140 kts. The arrow was good, but the Tiger is MUCH more fun to fly. The Grummans are low cost as far as maint items. No moving parts such as gear, prop or nose wheel strut. The Tiger is a great plane with some small limitations. It will take alot to make me want to switch to something else.
Good luck in your search. It took me around 7-8 months to find the right one, but I could not be happier.

Mike in NJ

 

[PilotAlan]

I would not cross the Rockies with a service ceiling less than the peaks.

Well, not an issue for me. I won't cross the high Rockies in anything not turbocharged. Even with a Mooney Statesman, I would go the south route thru NM, or north thru Wyoming.
I'm a chicken when it come to the mountains.

 

[Steve]

I delivered a Tiger a few years ago to Caldwell, ID from Long Island, NY. I took it across the divide at 12k on the Victor airway between Ft. Bridger, WY and Burley, ID on a cool, clear October day. I think it must have had a climb prop on it (or the tach was reading low) as I could redline it all the way to 10k. It handled fine at 12.

Alan, the problem is service ceiling in an aircraft that has- fixed drag.

If you want to fly west, the Mooney is clearly superior. Even the Arrow is a bit better but the svc ceiling of the 200 hp Arrow is 15,000 feet ( I think yours is 14,100 or the like), which is mimimally more helpful flying west. The 200 hp Mooney will get you to 18,000. 13,800 for the Tiger.

I would not cross the Rockies with a service ceiling less than the peaks.

Ya pays yer money and takes your choices.

 

[PilotAlan]

I delivered a Tiger...

OK Steve, please explain your avatar. You gave me flashbacks, and I'm curious the motivation for it.

 

[Ghery]

Alan, the problem is service ceiling in an aircraft that has- fixed drag.

If you want to fly west, the Mooney is clearly superior. Even the Arrow is a bit better but the svc ceiling of the 200 hp Arrow is 15,000 feet ( I think yours is 14,100 or the like), which is mimimally more helpful flying west. The 200 hp Mooney will get you to 18,000. 13,800 for the Tiger.

I would not cross the Rockies with a service ceiling less than the peaks.

Ya pays yer money and takes your choices.

Must have been a hot day the one time I tried to out climb some smoke over the Cascades in the club's 200 hp Arrow. It was really struggling to get to 11,500 MSL. High density altitude, I guess. I just never thought of the Arrow as being happy up high, but...

 

[poadeleted20]

Book service ceiling is based on max gross and standard day. Change the weight or OAT, and everything changes. I know a guy who takes advantage of winter winds in his Tiger solo up at 17K without a problem, sucking on O2. OTOH, in the summer, crossing the Rockies with a full load, a Tiger may not make 13,500 MSL. As long as Alan's not flying west out of Denver, or does so only at 2200 lb or lighter, a Tiger should do him fine.

 

[Dr. O]

Whether or not it is a step up is based on your perception, not ours...

Get some time in one before buying to be sure you will be happy...

denny-o

 

[poadeleted20]

Whether or not it is a step up is based on your perception, not ours...

Concur. In comparison to a 180 Cherokee, I'd call a Tiger a step sideways. It's just a different solution point within the boundaries of what you can hang on the back of a O-360-A engine. The Tiger is faster and more responsive to control inputs. The Cherokee carries more useful load and is better on short/unpaved runways. There are also visibility and cockpit ergonometric differences. Thus, the choice between the two is more a matter of personal preference than gross mission capability (although there are minor differences in that regard).

To Alan, I'd say fly a Tiger, and if he likes it better than his Cherokee, go for it. OTOH, if his 180 Cherokee isn't meeting his mission requirements, the Tiger probably won't, either, and he'll probably have to go to something with more than 360 cubic inches displacement to get what he wants.

 

[nyoung]

I don't know if you are open to experimentals (or how often you use the rear seats in the Cherokee), but a used RV6/7 would smoke anything available by Piper/Cessna/Beech/Grumman.

Another idea (that admittedly is quite a jump financially) is a used SR20. Some of the original models are available in the low $100s. Fixed gear simplicity, low fuel burn, but still a reasonable cruise speed.

2 - The idea of a 140kt airplane with lower insurance (fixed gear), simpler maintenance, a carb rather than the expense of maintaining fuel injection, and a fixed pitch prop (without the cost of a CS prop and the occasional AD associated) is attractive.

Am I missing here? Is it just the desire to fold the wheels?

 

[PilotAlan]

To Alan, I'd say fly a Tiger, and if he likes it better than his Cherokee, go for it. OTOH, if his 180 Cherokee isn't meeting his mission requirements, the Tiger probably won't, either, and he'll probably have to go to something with more than 360 cubic inches displacement to get what he wants.

I would say the Tiger is a question of want more than need. My Cherokee 180 more than meets my needs payload wise, but I'd like:
1 - More speed
2 - Newer
3 - Better avionics and an autopilot
The cheapest way to get better avionics is to buy them already installed. I don't see spending $30k for an IFR GPS and an autopilot in a $35k aircraft.

Since I'm already looking at buying another plane, and the O-360 class of airplanes meets my needs and budget, the question becomes which aircraft in the O-360 class has the best mix of performance and cost of ownership.
The Tiger seems to be the walk-away favorite in those terms.

I'd love a Beech 33 and 175kts, or a 201, but I don't think the cost/benefit ratio is there.
I guess the thing that didn't make sense to me was the feeling that an Arrow or Ranger/Statesman/Executive were a "higher class" of airplane (e.g. a "step up" from a Cherokee), when the only real difference I saw was two fold the gear have CS props, and one doesn't.

 

[PilotAlan]

I don't know if you are open to experimentals (or how often you use the rear seats in the Cherokee), but a used RV6/7 would smoke anything available by Piper/Cessna/Beech/Grumman.

I looked hard at the RV-6/7, but the lack of baggage space is a killer. I would love it, but my wife and I frequently take trips, and the baggage compartment simply won't work.
RV-10s are getting close attention, but their purchase price is sky-high right now.

Another idea (that admittedly is quite a jump financially) is a used SR20. Some of the original models are available in the low $100s. Fixed gear simplicity, low fuel burn, but still a reasonable cruise speed.

I have been looking hard at SR-20s, but their maintenance is through the roof. Easily triple the annual cost of ownership for a Tiger/Arrow/Mooney, and double a Debonair.
The issue for me is not purchase price (within reason, the >$175k purchase price for an RV-10 is simply not doable), but overall cost of ownership. Just the annual insurance delta alone for an SR-20 would pay for all my annual and all my yearly maintenance on my Cherokee.

 

[nyoung]

Curious what you have been quoted for the SR20 ?

Just the annual insurance delta alone for an SR-20 would pay for all my annual and all my yearly maintenance on my Cherokee.

 

[sba55]

I'd love a Beech 33 and 175kts, or a 201, but I don't think the cost/benefit ratio is there.

This will be easier if the comparisons are at least somewhat based on similar airplanes. A Beech 33 is quite a bit larger and more expensive than 201s as its a completely different class of airplane. You're not also looking at 210s, are you?

What's wrong with a 201? Still low displacement engine, mx costs are only slightly higher, and you do get the speed advantage you're looking for. While the total ownership costs will be slightly higher, you'll get a lot more capability in return for a small increase in cost vis-a-vis an Archer/Tiger. That would be my choice.

-Felix

 

[bigred177]

What would be wrong with a more powerful/bigger engine? Seems that you could always still pull it back to 180hp even if it is more. Then you have it if you ever want to get somewhere a little faster and burn a bit more fuel.

 

[RogerT]

I've been looking at what I'm going to step up to next year. I'm looking hard at a Tiger, but that's led to some interesting discussions about "stepping up".

1 - People have told me that going from a Cherokee to a Tiger is not "stepping up". But an Arrow or a Mooney Ranger would be considered a "step up", even though a Tiger is comparable to either speed wise.

2 - The idea of a 140kt airplane with lower insurance (fixed gear), simpler maintenance, a carb rather than the expense of maintaining fuel injection, and a fixed pitch prop (without the cost of a CS prop and the occasional AD associated) is attractive.

Looking at various aircraft, the purchase price of a Tiger is about the same as a comparable year Arrow or Mooney Statesman (180hp carbureted) with similar equipment.
As we all know, purchase cost is a small fraction of overall cost of ownership. It seems to me that a Tiger gives me almost everything an Arrow or Statesman gives, with a *much* lower cost of ownership.

Am I missing here? Is it just the desire to fold the wheels?

Maybe there's a certain status with having folding wheels. Who knows. I
used to have a Tiger. When I bought it I was thinking about an Arrow
because I had a couple hundred hours in them and was familiar with
them. But after hearing many good reports about Tigers and the fact that
I got within a couple knots of the same cruise and no folding wheels or
constant speed prop to maintain .. I went with the Tiger. It was a great
plane. I sold it because I had a lot in it and my flying didn't really take advantage of the plane. Now I just enjoy riding around in my SP eligible
Sonex and my cost of flying is the lowest ever.

RT

 

[kgruber]

The only thing that turns me off about the Grumman lineup is their history with Jim Bede. This coming from a guy with all sorts of Traveller time and "GUARANTEED" BD-5 positions.

 

[PilotAlan]

Curious what you have been quoted for the SR20 ?

Insurance for an SR-20 was in the neighborhood of $3000 for the first year (with a $150k hull), with a stable rate after a couple years of about $1800. Compare to $595/yr for my Cherokee, on a hull of $47k.
I understand that's largely due to the cost of even minor repairs.

From Cirrus owners, they quote somewhere a range center of $10k/yr for maintenance. Even the low end of $8k for maint would be four times what I pay now. The parachute repack alone averages out to $1200/yr (about $12k every 10 years). That alone is about 75% of my annual maintenance expenses now.
Add a failed MFD or an overheated brake and things get way outside what I am willing to pay in a big hurry.

In short, I don't want to be in a position where I am afraid of my plane.
If my engine spun a bearing now, I can pay for a new engine. But if I had an SR20, I could not handle a spun bearing and a failed MFD/PFD at the same time.
Or rebuild the brakes from an overheat. Or whatever.

The same is true with a 201/Arrow. I could afford to rebuild an engine, but not replace the prop, or the hub, or a broken trunnion or leg bracket at the same time.

Seriously, am I being paranoid? Are the horror stories overblown?

 

[Steve]

Heh.

A lot of subtleties involved there, a fondness for things mathematical, construction solutions, fundamental concepts, etc.

Mainly just reminds me that perceptions are affected by how one views the relationship of things. (might need the high waders about now).

:yinyang:

OK Steve, please explain your avatar. You gave me flashbacks, and I'm curious the motivation for it.

 

[poadeleted20]

I would say the Tiger is a question of want more than need. My Cherokee 180 more than meets my needs payload wise, but I'd like:
1 - More speed
2 - Newer
3 - Better avionics and an autopilot

In comparison to a 180 Cherokee, you can certainly get that in a Tiger, especially #1, as the Tiger (130-135) is an honest 10-15 knots faster than a 180 Cherokee (120 or so).

 

[poadeleted20]

The only thing that turns me off about the Grumman lineup is their history with Jim Bede.

The only thing any Grumman has to do with Jim Bede is some design and construction features, and in that regard, Bede's brilliant. Just don't do business with him, and he has no part in the business of supporting Grummans. And never did.

 

[wabower]

Well, Doh! Everybody knows subtitles are supposed to be in a different language.

Heh.

A lot of subtleties involved there, a fondness for things mathematical, construction solutions, fundamental concepts, etc.

Mainly just reminds me that perceptions are affected by how one views the relationship of things. (might need the high waders about now).

:yinyang:

 

[Dr. O]

You might look at a Debonair... It's got 4 seats, collapsing wheels, constant speed prop, ramp presence, and speed...

denny-o

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Heh.

A lot of subtleties involved there, a fondness for things mathematical, construction solutions, fundamental concepts, etc.

Mainly just reminds me that perceptions are affected by how one views the relationship of things. (might need the high waders about now).

:yinyang:

Got a bigger verision? Pretty cool.

But that is from a guy who wears a T shirt with the definition of the Laplace Transform...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

What would be wrong with a more powerful/bigger engine? Seems that you could always still pull it back to 180hp even if it is more. Then you have it if you ever want to get somewhere a little faster and burn a bit more fuel.

It may be true that you can pull it back to 180hp and get the same *fuel* cost, but when you have extra cylinders, higher overhaul costs, higher maintenance costs, etc. the price is NOT the same. Also, the bigger engine means more weight, which means more power (and thus fuel) required to get the same performance.

Besides, who EVER pulls their engine back that far? Comparing, for example, the various Comanches, running the 180 at 75% results in 135hp, which is only 54% power on the 250 or 34% on the 400. I bet you can't find a single Comanche 400 owner who runs it at 34% in cruise...

 

[bigred177]

It may be true that you can pull it back to 180hp and get the same *fuel* cost, but when you have extra cylinders, higher overhaul costs, higher maintenance costs, etc. the price is NOT the same. Also, the bigger engine means more weight, which means more power (and thus fuel) required to get the same performance.

Besides, who EVER pulls their engine back that far? Comparing, for example, the various Comanches, running the 180 at 75% results in 135hp, which is only 54% power on the 250 or 34% on the 400. I bet you can't find a single Comanche 400 owner who runs it at 34% in cruise...

No doubt they don't, but they can haha. There is probably more fuel burned for the same horsepower just from the extra displacement too, but it might be nice for the possibly small added expense, to go faster if you wanted.

How much more fuel would you really burn from the extra weight of the little bit bigger engine?

 

[gprellwitz]

No doubt they don't, but they can haha. There is probably more fuel burned for the same horsepower just from the extra displacement too, but it might be nice for the possibly small added expense, to go faster if you wanted.

Actually, can you pull it back that far? Is 30 - 40% within the recommended operating range for the airplane?

 

[bigred177]

Yea, probably not on that one. You caught me, I was being a bit too broad. If you have the spendy for a Comanche 400 you can probably afford the 20gph.

I was thinking more along the lines of a 200-220hp plane and pulling it back to 180 if you didn't want to burn the gas. Or something along the lines of a 300hp Cherokee Six vs a 260hp version. Things like that.

When I was flying down to Austin last weekend we pulled the Super Viking back to 10-11 gph and were still doing 20-30 kts faster than the Cherokee 180 could.

 

[jsstevens]

I talked to a buy at an FAA safety meeting a few years ago who tried to talk me into joining their flying club. They had a 172 and a 182. He told me he flew the 182 at 110 knots (I don't remember the MP/RPM now) and burned 8-9 gallons of gas/hr. I said "That's the same as a 172!" and he said "Yes, but it's much more comfortable." I've never riden in a 182, so I don't know how comfortable, but he was a believer in throttling back and going slower to save money.

John

 

[PilotAlan]

I had thought about a 182, i would eat the extra fuel and OH costs, but my wife's too short to see over the glareshield. If she puts enough cushions on to see over, then the yoke travel is blocked by the legs.

But that also goes back to the step up question. No one would question a Skylane being a step up from a Cherokee, but a Tiger is not.

 

[wabower]

Two minutes with a wrench solves the right-seat yoke problem.

I had thought about a 182, i would eat the extra fuel and OH costs, but my wife's too short to see over the glareshield. If she puts enough cushions on to see over, then the yoke travel is blocked by the legs.

But that also goes back to the step up question. No one would question a Skylane being a step up from a Cherokee, but a Tiger is not.

 

[PilotAlan]

Two minutes with a wrench solves the right-seat yoke problem.

Removing the left seat yoke will make her checkride problematic.....

She's getting her PPL and has to be able to fly whatever we get. Sorry, i should have been more clear.

 

[wabower]

Oh. Well in that case, good for her. The yoke assembly on the older 180-series airplanes can be turned 180 deg on the shaft, which provides an additional ~8" of space between legs and bottom of yoke.

Removing the left seat yoke will make her checkride problematic.....

She's getting her PPL and has to be able to fly whatever we get. Sorry, i should have been more clear.

 

[PilotAlan]

Oh. Well in that case, good for her. The yoke assembly on the older 180-series airplanes can be turned 180 deg on the shaft, which provides an additional ~8" of space between legs and bottom of yoke.

Well that's just great. I had my options narrowed down, but now......
[sarc] Thanks, Wayne [/sarc]

Seriously, that just may have given me a new option. Thank you.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

How much more fuel would you really burn from the extra weight of the little bit bigger engine?

Well... There's not only the bigger engine, but more substantial structure to hold it, larger fuel tanks (which weigh a little more even with the same amount of fuel, but you're probably going to be carrying more fuel anyway).

Just for the heck of it... Let's keep going with the Comanche comparison, simply because it had the most widely varied engine power options for the most similar structure (in fact, the 180 and 250 were the same airframe, only the engine, accessories, and mount differed):

...............Empty weight.....MT + 60 Gal + 200lb pilot.....Extra (total) HP for same climb rate
Comanche 180........1530...................2090...............0 (180)
Comanche 250........1690...................2250...............14 (194)
Comanche 400........2110...................2670...............50 (230)

So, figure about 1gph extra for the Comanche 250 to climb like the 180, and about 3gph extra for the Comanche 400 to climb like the 180, with all three airplanes having a 200lb pilot and 60 gallons of fuel. If you top off the Comanche 400 (100 gallons), it'll take 251hp, or an extra 71hp/4gph, over the 180 with full (60gal) fuel. I'm basing all of the above on equivalent power loading.

For cruise, if my calculations are correct, at gross weight the Comanche 400 needs about 116hp more than the 180 just to stay level at Vy... Then, you add power from there. So, figure 6gph more at the same speed. That's a lot of engine to be wasting! Go fast.

 

[wabower]

Well that's just great. I had my options narrowed down, but now......
[sarc] Thanks, Wayne [/sarc]

Seriously, that just may have given me a new option. Thank you.

These are flipped.

 

[bigred177]

Well... There's not only the bigger engine, but more substantial structure to hold it, larger fuel tanks (which weigh a little more even with the same amount of fuel, but you're probably going to be carrying more fuel anyway).

Just for the heck of it... Let's keep going with the Comanche comparison, simply because it had the most widely varied engine power options for the most similar structure (in fact, the 180 and 250 were the same airframe, only the engine, accessories, and mount differed):

...............Empty weight.....MT + 60 Gal + 200lb pilot.....Extra (total) HP for same climb rate
Comanche 180........1530...................2090...............0 (180)
Comanche 250........1690...................2250...............14 (194)
Comanche 400........2110...................2670...............50 (230)

So, figure about 1gph extra for the Comanche 250 to climb like the 180, and about 3gph extra for the Comanche 400 to climb like the 180, with all three airplanes having a 200lb pilot and 60 gallons of fuel. If you top off the Comanche 400 (100 gallons), it'll take 251hp, or an extra 71hp/4gph, over the 180 with full (60gal) fuel. I'm basing all of the above on equivalent power loading.

For cruise, if my calculations are correct, at gross weight the Comanche 400 needs about 116hp more than the 180 just to stay level at Vy... Then, you add power from there. So, figure 6gph more at the same speed. That's a lot of engine to be wasting! Go fast.

Man, that's a heck of a comparison there. Thank you.

I agree though, 16-18gph and 200 kts ground speed sounds better to me.