Let's talk Grummans

Anthony said:
How many times do you fly into soggy grass strips with anything? The Tiger is It is a MUCH better all around airplane for how people fly 95% of the time.
Click to expand...
This asssessment (from an owner - even better) seems to be consistent over the years. Also consistent is the advice to pay attention to the 5%.

-Skip
 
Anthony said:
How many times do you fly into soggy grass strips with anything?
Click to expand...

A grass strip? 2 or 3 times per month.

A soggy grass strip? Once every other month or so.

Why? Because I can and have a plane capable of it. And...

...grass is where it's at! It was in the 70's and it still is today.

Personally I would never own a plane that's not excellent on grass, I love it too much. But to each his own.
 
asicer said:
From their respective POH's.

MGW takeoff ground roll, 0degC, SL
172N=720
AA5B=741

MGW takeoff ground roll, 40degC, 8000PA
172N=2095
AA5B=2247

MGW landing ground roll, 0degC, SL
172N=495
AA5B=395

MGW landing ground roll, 40degC, 8000PA
172N=780
AA5B=662
Click to expand...

You haven't been here long enough to get the running joke.
 
The mechanic has to take the wings off to annual it, as I have seen and recall. They will complain and charge extra. Not that big a deal, but no other airplane Ive ever heard of requires that.
 
I just bought a '77 Tiger last month. Last aircraft was a '74 C185 which I flew for many years. With only 12 hours or so in the Tiger, I am quite impressed, so far. It is well-used and slightly out of rig, with the standard issue McCauley prop, but I have been seeing 130 kts on the GPS very regularly. As far as I can tell, 65% power on the Tiger is about the same speed as 65% on the 185, on way less fuel.

My current home field is at 5950 elevation and about 4300 ft. long. The Tiger gets up and climbs out fine (~400 fpm) with two 185 lb guys (myself and my son) in the front at 7000 ft density altitudes. The climb is anemic compared with the 185, but with it, I was based in Alaska near sea level with cool temps pretty much all the time.

As has been stated, the Tiger handles wonderfully, has a great view and is fairly simple, fast and efficient. It also handles crosswinds very well.

With my limited experience, I can recommend a Tiger. :)
 
Just curious, Bryan, and piggybacking on your research - in your original post, you wrote: "For not much more budget, the Tiger seems to work better on paper."

How so? What criteria make it better?
 
G-Man said:
Just curious, Bryan, and piggybacking on your research - in your original post, you wrote: "For not much more budget, the Tiger seems to work better on paper."

How so? What criteria make it better?
Click to expand...

My kids are growing like weeds and the useful load on the tigers will last longer as they get bigger.

The speed difference gives me the option to stretch a bit further.
If I recall the 172 I flew was around 105 kts. If I can get 130 I can still to the local stuff but also go a bit further.

I am also partial to low wings.

But all of that is on paper. I have never sat in one so I may get in it and hate it. :dunno:
 
The tiger is probably going to be more fun for you. Fly it enough to really get chance to see how it handles. Lot bigger pool of 172's. One thing with a 172. When you grow out of it and get ready to move up to my 205 :) it will be easy to sell. I have several 172s and they are all over on speed. From 105 kts to 122 kts. Funny thing is the one with the most hours and the slowest is the one everyone likes to fly most.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
But all of that is on paper. I have never sat in one so I may get in it and hate it. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Flew in Ron's once, handled nice, good flying plane. We just ended up liking 25kts a whole lot more.
 
G-Man said:
Just curious, Bryan, and piggybacking on your research - in your original post, you wrote: "For not much more budget, the Tiger seems to work better on paper."

How so? What criteria make it better?
Click to expand...

Well, "better" is subjective. I used to be based at Front Range (KFTG) with my Tiger. It was fine in high DA even in summer if I kept it under gross. Winter was not an issue. The Tiger is a good 15 knots faster than comparable 180 HP planes (except for the DA40, and retracts). They have good usefull loads, good cabin room, good range (51 gallons at 10 GPH) and handle nicely. So I don't want to speak for Bryan, but he's probably looking at those factors "on paper".
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
But all of that is on paper. I have never sat in one so I may get in it and hate it. :dunno:
Click to expand...
You won't. Tigers and Cheetahs are great. I had a student with a Tiger back when I was at Boerne Stage and it was more fun than the Cherokee 180 I was flying.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Okay,

I had been learning about 172s.
For not much more budget, the Tiger seems to work better on paper.

I have been googling like a mad man learning about them.

1. Help me understand the wing structure. It seems unique.
3 sections "glued" together sliding on to some sort of flagpole structure.
I read up in the delamination and as far as I can tell, it has never led to a crash.

2. The nosewheel looks flimsy but I spoke to a former Grumman pilot that says they are quite sturdy. Can I land it on grass fields?

3. Useful load. Geez I have seen numbers as low as 700 and as high as 1200 published in different places.

What is a realistic UL for a mid 70s Tiger? What about cruise speed?


Misc:
I don't care about everything getting wet in the rain. I have departed in a downpour 1 time and it was optional.

Flying w/ the canopy open... Is that true and pretty effective at keeping cool on the ground / in flight?

Legroom / Ergonomics / baggage room / quirks?

Lethargic climb rumors abound. I assume that limits me from fields I probably wouldn't fly to anyway.

Anyway, Pros / Cons ?
Click to expand...

I don't have but one ride in a Tiger, but at one Ag operator we had a Traveller for our gopher plane, so figure what I say +20hp.

Dirt and grass, not a problem, pretty much 80% of what that plane saw. Home base was 3300' of reasonably smooth, not perfect, grass, no matter how hot or heavily loaded in N Illinois was I ever still on the ground mid field on takeoff. The plane never showed any problems with the gear.

Yes canopy open in flight is real, however there are limits (which are quite sufficient), it's a very nice feature.

The feature though that made it the gopher plane it was was the back seat. It's not uncomfortable for one, and that's all 160hp hauls back there, but when it folds down into that nice big flat cargo deck to net down cubitainers, the plane comes into its own for utility. With the canopy all the way back, and the back seat down, it's the easiest GA single to load cargo into short of a 206/Cherokee Six.

It's also a very pleasant plane to fly. Not sure what UL on a Tiger is, but 180hp is always going to be in the neighborhood of 1000lbs. It nevery really turned into an issue for me to check with the Traveller since we were volume stopped long before we hit weight for what we were hauling, but IIRC it was in the 700s.
 
Bryan, you are surely familiar with an arrow. A tiger will do exactly what the arrow will do in every way, but without needing to fold up the wheels.
 
One thing I forgot to mention...

With the canopy completely open all four occupants can get in and out at the same time if all of you are limber enough.
 
Henning said:
I don't have but one ride in a Tiger, but at one Ag operator we had a Traveller for our gopher plane, so figure what I say +20hp.
Click to expand...

The Traveller is 150 HP unless you do the STC upgrade. Tiger is 180, so +30. The 30 extra ponies do make a difference as does the drag clean up. The Traveller is a good, solid plane though, and good deals can be had on them.
 
timwinters said:
A grass strip? 2 or 3 times per month.

A soggy grass strip? Once every other month or so.

Why? Because I can and have a plane capable of it. And...

...grass is where it's at! It was in the 70's and it still is today.

Personally I would never own a plane that's not excellent on grass, I love it too much. But to each his own.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I operated a lower horsepower AA5 off grass and have no complaints with how it performrmed, and it was pretty soggy all spring.
 
Anthony said:
The Traveller is 150 HP unless you do the STC upgrade. Tiger is 180, so +30. The 30 extra ponies do make a difference as does the drag clean up. The Traveller is a good, solid plane though, and good deals can be had on them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry, correct, this had the 160hp upgrade which is why I said it, sorry to not make that clear.
 
Tigers, Cheetahs, and Travellers are fine on grass. Those that operate them regulary off of grass often just take the wheel pants off.
 
Anthony said:
Tigers, Cheetahs, and Travellers are fine on grass. Those that operate them regulary off of grass often just take the wheel pants off.
Click to expand...

We never did no matter how many times the boss told us too.:rofl: Just wouldn't be right to have one without pants.;)
 
coloradobluesky said:
The mechanic has to take the wings off to annual it, as I have seen and recall. They will complain and charge extra. Not that big a deal, but no other airplane Ive ever heard of requires that.
Click to expand...

This is a totally false statement by the way. That is not required in the least. It may be suggested as the plane nears its spar attach fitting life. They are however supposed to pull the nose strut and inspect, clean, grease and re-assemble though most do not.
 
I have a friend with a Tiger and I am jealous of his numbers compaired to my 0-300 powered 172. I have worked on a few. The only issue we seem to have with them is the nose gear. It's not that they are weak but need to be pulled out during annual or they will become rusted into place. The Tiger's we do this to the gear will pretty much fall out yearly, some have not been done in a long time, those can take several hours. All of the owners have great things to say about them and enjoy them. One owner flies to Catilina at least 20X a year, that runway has pot holes that can eat a plane up. His gear has been fine every year.

EDIT, sorry Grum man, didn't see your post.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
But all of that is on paper. I have never sat in one so I may get in it and hate it. :dunno:
Click to expand...

This is the reason I finally gave up on the AA5B. I felt like finding a Unicorn might be easier...

Then I found one. A good copy is every bit as good as described. Well built (not a Beech, but still very nice), good feel on the controls, visibility is excellent, etc.

At the time, the $40K copies were desperately lacking in some area - to the point I worried about what I couldn't see. The +60K copies were high on engine time or something like that. Found a nice copy for $80K which seemed to be the mark at the time (about 5 years ago) for a really good one.

In short, they hold their value well and for good reason.

(By the way, I pulled out of the effort due to the recession finally hitting my bottom line - - - -)

I wouldn't turn one down...
 
asicer said:
One thing I forgot to mention...

With the canopy completely open all four occupants can get in and out at the same time if all of you are limber enough.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. If the first two people put their weght on the steps on both sides at the same time, it will pivot backwards on the main gear and bend the tail tie down ring. (BTDT)

Need front seat passenger #1 to climb up and stand on front of wing, then front seat passenger #2 does same on other side, then back seat passengers climb up and get in, then front seat passengers get in.

But your point is still well made...alot easier than 3 or 4 people through a single door.
 
brian];1971522 said:
At the time, the $40K copies were desperately lacking in some area - to the point I worried about what I couldn't see. The +60K copies were high on engine time or something like that. Found a nice copy for $80K which seemed to be the mark at the time (about 5 years ago) for a really good one.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The Tiger looks to be a great airplane, but $80K strikes me as a little steep. That'd buy a lot of Mooney. Hell, that's getting into Bonanza money (yeah, I said it!).
 
kayoh190 said:
Interesting. The Tiger looks to be a great airplane, but $80K strikes me as a little steep. That'd buy a lot of Mooney. Hell, that's getting into Bonanza money (yeah, I said it!).
Click to expand...

$80k was a fair price for a good Tiger before '08's market collapse.
 
My best use of folded down rear seats:
 
Henning said:
$80k was a fair price for a good Tiger before '08's market collapse.
Click to expand...

Ah, I got the impression that he was talking about after the collapse. I've been looking at a Cherokee 180 as my first airplane, and this thread got me thinking about Tigers. But $80K is a little more than I want to spend. My budget is around $60K or so.
 
Van Johnston said:
Need front seat passenger #1 to climb up and stand on front of wing, then front seat passenger #2 does same on other side, then back seat passengers climb up and get in, then front seat passengers get in.
Click to expand...

That's true getting in, and I guess I never noticed it because I'm typically either faster or slower than the person in the copilot's seat.

However, getting out is a totally different story: Everyone scrambles on to the wing at the same time and then everyone jumps off the wing at the same time with the front seat pax jumping over the leading edge of the wing and the back seat pax jumping off the trailing edge. :D
 
kayoh190 said:
Ah, I got the impression that he was talking about after the collapse. I've been looking at a Cherokee 180 as my first airplane, and this thread got me thinking about Tigers. But $80K is a little more than I want to spend. My budget is around $60K or so.
Click to expand...

I think these days $60 will but a decent Tiger, and I have seen Travellers go under $40. I'm not sure, but I think you can put a 180 and a late model cowl on them to make them perform like a Tiger. Allows you to upgrade later when you can afford to without giving up any money you spend on the panel now.
 
Did Tigers (or other variants) have some life limited parts? I vaguely recall something about wing or spar 10K hour limit. Or am I confused?

I really like how they look and hope to get a ride in one someday.

John
 
jsstevens said:
Did Tigers (or other variants) have some life limited parts? I vaguely recall something about wing or spar 10K hour limit. Or am I confused?

I really like how they look and hope to get a ride in one someday.

John
Click to expand...

There is something, not sure if it's the 1 or 5 series, but IIRC Fletchair has an answer to it.
 
Just weighed a Grumman and it came out just over 23,000 pounds empty.

Crazy to see a deduction of 405 pounds of engine oil.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single+Engine+Piston/1977/Grumman_American+General/AA5B+Tiger/2163751.html

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1063552_Grumman+AA-5B+Tiger.html
Click to expand...

Henning said:
I think these days $60 will but a decent Tiger, and I have seen Travellers go under $40. I'm not sure, but I think you can put a 180 and a late model cowl on them to make them perform like a Tiger. Allows you to upgrade later when you can afford to without giving up any money you spend on the panel now.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...looks like I might need to add another airplane to the list!
 
kayoh190 said:
Interesting. The Tiger looks to be a great airplane, but $80K strikes me as a little steep. That'd buy a lot of Mooney. Hell, that's getting into Bonanza money (yeah, I said it!).
Click to expand...

Take about $20K off that price. $80K was just after 2008 and I quit looking in 2010. Heck, even my old Bo has taken about a $5K hit in the past 3 years or so. When I'm done flying, I'm going to seal up that old bird and mount a tap on the front of it - it will make one H### of a keg!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top