Let's talk Grummans

SixPapaCharlie

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
16,415
Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
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 ?
 
They're decent airplanes overall. I'd take one over a 172 in a heartbeat. They fly well and are comfortable. Canopy is great when taxiing in the summer and in the pattern. Still not fast enough to be a real cross country plane, imho.
 
bradg33 said:
They're decent airplanes overall. I'd take one over a 172 in a heartbeat. They fly well and are comfortable. Canopy is great when taxiing in the summer and in the pattern. Still not fast enough to be a real cross country plane, imho.
Click to expand...

So what would be a typical cruise speed.
130kts is my sweet spot.
 
FletchAir down at Boerne Stage (5C1) is the regional guru of Grumman. He will be an excellent resource. I'll PM you another one.
 
Great aircraft, plenty sturdy.

Just have good fundamentals and you'll be happy with a Grumman.
 
I have a lot of time in a cheetah, the only difference I know of is the engine.

It will operate out of a grass strip just fine, but they will take slightly more runway to get off the ground.

I fly in NW Florida where in the summer its 105 with 90% humidity and the canopy is a life saver. Cracking it gives you a good amount of airflow. Legroom is decent front and back, the baggage compartment is a decent size as well. They are quite comfy to fly, very light on the controls, elbow on the armrest and one finger to keep her steady. I always seem to just slide it onto the runway in comparison to a Cessna but maybe thats a pilot quirk and not a plane quirk.

Id take a Tiger or a Cheetah over a 172, every day of the week.
 
Seanaldinho said:
I have a lot of time in a cheetah, the only difference I know of is the engine.

It will operate out of a grass strip just fine, but they will take slightly more runway to get off the ground.

I fly in NW Florida where in the summer its 105 with 90% humidity and the canopy is a life saver. Cracking it gives you a good amount of airflow. Legroom is decent front and back, the baggage compartment is a decent size as well. They are quite comfy to fly, very light on the controls, elbow on the armrest and one finger to keep her steady. I always seem to just slide it onto the runway in comparison to a Cessna but maybe thats a pilot quirk and not a plane quirk.

Id take a Tiger or a Cheetah over a 172, every day of the week.
Click to expand...


Thank you
 
Visibility is amazing. Huge windows, plus the top of the glareshield is low. You get the sense of sitting at a low desk on a mountaintop.

N116MC-06.jpg


Another nice feature is that the back seat folds down flat like a station wagon -- great cargo room.

Opening the canopy just this far gives you great ventilation in hot, humid conditions. As long as the canopy isn't opened past the placard (8 inches or so), airflow tends to pull it closed.

spb001008-02.jpg
 
Last edited:
Seanaldinho said:
Id take a Tiger or a Cheetah over a 172, every day of the week.
Click to expand...

Unless you want to go off airport. Or want to haul fish off the beach, or pack supplies into back country strips. just ain't that kind of aircraft :)
 
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...

Useful load on most of Tigers I've seen run in 900-950lb range. Cheetahs are around 850lbs. The Tiger I fly is 900lbs. Measured on a four course GPS track I can get more than 135kts pretty easily on ~10gph at 8500ft density altitude and just under 75% power.

I haven't noticed the nosewheel to be flimsy but unlike an oleo strut it does get a bit bouncy over rough terrain. Just make sure you land it on the mains, slow down your taxi speed and apply a little back stick if the going gets bumpy. Coming off a Cirrus, I'd imagine you already have these concepts down pat.

De-lamination is pretty much a non-issue these days. You're probably referring to the purple glue. I seem to recall that it only affected 3 planes, only 1 of them is still flying and it's not for sale.

Yes, you can fly with the canopy open but only 8" or so and only below 112kts. There is a placard that shows the canopy open limit in flight. Prior to takeoff and after landing you can open it as far as you want. Taxiing to the runway with the canopy back and your elbow over the side is just like cruising the boulevard in a convertible.

Cabin is quite roomy for people, both front and back but there isn't much space for knick-knacks. Between the front sets is a center console for flaps and trim. The pilot/copilot sit on top of the wing spar and the rear pax sit on an enclosed structure so there's no underseat stash space front or rear like in a Cessna. Also, no cup-holders. Main baggage space is bigger than a C172 but the Cessna's tailcone space (post-1974) beats the Tiger's hat shelf.

I've taken off from a 4100MSL field with the temp/dewpoint at 28/-1 and the altimeter at 30.16. This works out to a 6300ft density altitude and I still got 500-600fpm in the climb 150lbs under gross. One thing to watch for is Vy in a C172 is 74kts at SL and 72kts at 10000ft. In a Tiger it's 90kts at SL and 79kts at 10000ft so you can't just memorize one number and still expect things to work out like in a Cessna.
 
Last edited:
You could go fly one at RBD... with Slipstream Aviation. Mischa is a decent guy.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
...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?...
Click to expand...

Kinda dicey actually. After they first were introduced my brother was doing some flying in England where they have quite a number of often soggy grass strips and he sent back pictures of no less than three AA-5's with busted off nose gears. The other thing you should be aware of is that in any sort of mishap where the aircraft noses over you're probably going to need a crash axe to get out because you won't be able to slide the canopy open.

They are good airplanes but don't fool yourself into thinking they are slam dunk better than a 172 because they aren't
 
Go lurk on the Grumman-Gang for a while, and see if AYA has an event near you.
 
I prefer wood canoes. Grummans are too loud.
 
Tom-D said:
Unless you want to go off airport. Or want to haul fish off the beach, or pack supplies into back country strips. just ain't that kind of aircraft :)
Click to expand...

Who the hell does that anyway? :)

The Tiger will cruise at 135 KTAS 75% at altitude, with a useful load around 1,000 lbs.
 
Last edited:
Silvaire said:
Kinda dicey actually. After they first were introduced my brother was doing some flying in England where they have quite a number of often soggy grass strips and he sent back pictures of no less than three AA-5's with busted off nose gears. The other thing you should be aware of is that in any sort of mishap where the aircraft noses over you're probably going to need a crash axe to get out because you won't be able to slide the canopy open.

They are good airplanes but don't fool yourself into thinking they are slam dunk better than a 172 because they aren't
Click to expand...

How many times do you fly into soggy grass strips with anything? The Tiger is much better than a 172 mainly because it is 180 HP, and has a lower drag airframe. It is a MUCH better all around airplane for how people fly 95% of the time.
 
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 any experience with the 4 place Grumman's just the two place ones.

First of all there is no comparison to a 172. A 172 is a trainer, the Grumman is much much more comfortable, much better handling, much faster, less maintenance, parts seem to be cheaper, and in my opinion they are just as easy to land as a Cessna. Even though interior dimensions may be similar, the Grumman feels much larger on the inside.

The nose wheel is no more flimsy than any other airplane with a free castering nose wheel. You would really have to miss-use it to damage it. If you fly like a bone head and smack the nose first then you are going to have problems in any airplane. I fly my 2 place Grumman off of all sorts of grass strips, some of which are more like a close cut field and never had an issue with the nose strut.

In a Grumman the spar is the fuel tank. It's like a 6" diameter pipe that slides into a socket under the seats. Very robust and very easy to take apart if the need arises.

Flying with the canopy cracked is one of the best parts of Grumman flying. Even cracking it open 1" gives massive amounts of ventilation. In the summer I rarely need to open it more than that. Actually it seems the more it's open the less effective it is.

All the Grumman's climb at about the same rate as their competition in most cases. The misconception comes from the fact that they are covering more horizontal distance per foot of altitude than their competition so it feels like you aren't going up as fast. I regularly climb as rapidly or more so than a Cessna 150 in my "hot wing" AA1, I however am going 89 mph instead of 60 something for the Cessna.

The one exception that applies to all Grumman's is hot days with high density altitudes. On a near standard day I can still climb at 5-700 fpm at gross at 800' msl. If it's a hot day with high density altitudes in the mid 2k to 3k that same performance can degrade to 250 fpm. It's a trade off you make for the better handling and speed. I normally set my limits at 2,500' paved and 3k grass for 9 of the 12 months. For the three hottest months I add 500' to my safety net. I can do less but the departure end has to be pretty clear. I can get into about anywhere!

Even though it's a factory built spam can in a way, I always get good parking spots at fly-ins because they look sporty. It's always getting confused with Vans RV's by the tower folks. Once you fly one I will be surprised if you can bring your self to buy a 172.
 
Bryan, I've given some transition training in a Tiger, and while I don't have a bunch of time, I liked it a lot. In fact, I was just flying in one last night giving some avionics training (at OUN in fact)!

Performance is really nice compared to other similar airplanes (Cherokees and Cessnas). I don't have any real-world performance figures at hand, but takeoffs and landings were not a problem, nor was climb rate. Aircraft is reasonably comfortable. The sliding canopy is wonderful on a hot day. As previously mentioned, glareshield is low so you get a great view (and people tend to be climbing all the time until they can get the new sight picture down).

Last night we were headed westbound and doing 130-135 kts ground speed. Then eastbound we were doing about 150-155. Outbound and return headings were a little bit different, so it's not a perfect comparison. Also, he was, admittedly, running the engine pretty hard, but that's still pretty fast for a 180 hp single.

The main landing gear is pretty "spongy" (I guess?), which cushions landings nicely but doesn't seem to want to spring you back up into the air too much like a Cessna. Yet it handles firm landings better than a Cherokee.

The ground steering you already have down from the Cirrus.

Go fly one!
 
Last edited:
SixPapaCharlie said:
So what would be a typical cruise speed.
130kts is my sweet spot.
Click to expand...

I used to flight plan for 132 kts and 10 gph.

Landing and taxiing is very Cirrus-like. Handling in the air is lighter and more sporty, but still stable enough to be a good instrument platform.

Overall, a lot of bang-for-the-buck with the simplicity of fixed gear and fixed pitch prop.

Owned this 1976 model from 1992 to 2003:

14015040080_e882122b2d_c.jpg
 
Tiger owner here. Here's my take:

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.

- I can't speak to that but the ones made with purple glue are well known by S/N, so are easily avoidable.

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?

- Yes

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?

Our useful,load is 877# after we actually had it weighed a few years ago.

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?

- as noted in a previous answer, you can crack the canopy about 6inches at 120 mph and below in flight. It is not recommended for takeoff and landing. Definitely keeps you cool taxiing.

Legroom / Ergonomics / baggage room / quirks?

- I am 6'3" and 220 and it's fine for me in the left seat. When someone else flies in the left and I sit in the right, I have to 'fold up' a little to avoid interfering w the controls. Note the seat does not adjust up or down, only back and forth.

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

- most of those rumors are based on the original MacCauley prop. There are several STCs that replace the MacCauley with a Sensenich, and my guess is the majority of Tigers out there have the Sensenich prop now. I've departed Centennial, Colorado Springs, and Riudoso in the summer time (albeit morning departures and long runways) with no problem.

Quirks - plane is so slick it doesn't slow down as fast as you are used to. You really have to control speed on final and learn your sight picture else you will float a long way down the runway.
 
In the Tigers, fuel is not in the spars. Has tanks.

I trained in 172s, now have a Tiger - sedan vs sportscar.
Second the Grumman Gang recommendation. Great owner groups support (Grumman Gang, American Yankee Assoc, Grumman Pilots Assoc). In TX you're close to Fletchair - one of the Grumman guru shops with great parts support.
Fly one, shop one, own one - you won't look back.
www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48872.
Wish Cap'n Ron were still around.


Besides, low wings just look cooler! We know appearance is important to you.:yesnod:
 
Ok, this is all great info.
I am going to go rent one and check it out.
 
As a Tiger owner for 15 years, I concur with the others. I flight plan for 130 KTAS but that is at 65% power, and 9.6 GPH at altitude. It also includes time in the pattern. My actual useful load was 961 lbs.

Having trained in Cessnas, then rented, and owned a Piper Cherokee, I will concur that for me the Tiger was the best balance of performance, cost, and load capabilites. Ron Levy checked me out in my Tiger, and it was well worth it as he is a wealth of knowledge on all things Grumman. If you are serious about obtaining one, he would be first on my list to talk to. He still participates on the AOPA board.
 
Last edited:
Of course there is runway length consideration... :D
 
That's great you can rent one. I flew one some, years ago. I haven't owned the 4 seaters but had a "super Yankee" AAlC with a 0-320. So, from that plane I tend to agree with everything that's been said about them. That being said, I fly a fair amount of planes. . The Grumman was the only plane I just didn't care to fly. I didn't care for everything getting soaked every time there was any kind of rain. But was fairly easy to get in. I thought it was little quirky in IMC conditions. Maybe that sports car feeling? Thought the nose gear looked little flimsy. Kind of hated not being able to be supported by factory. Even though fletchair has about everything.Still whenever I see one I have to walk over and look at one. If you like the way they fly, might be good plane for you, as it probably flys, most like your dads cirrus. I do like a Cessna 172 for flying around though if your going to stay pretty much local. Especially if you can get Mogas.
 
I owned a Cheetah for five years and loved it. It had the Scott "high compression" STC (making it the functional equivalent of a 160 hp engine, though for paperwork reasons it was limited to 157 hp/2650 rpm) and got around 122 KTAS on 7.6 gph.

Tigers are a good 10-15 KTAS faster than other 180-hp fixed-gear singles, while Cheetahs only beat their 150/160-hp competition by 5-7 KTAS or so. Though they look identical, the difference is that the aerodynamic plumbing inside the Tiger's cowl has much less drag (thanks, Roy LoPresti). Tiger has a side-draft carburetor, while the Cheetah inherited its more orthodox arrangement from the earlier Traveler.

How to tell a Cheetah from a Tiger on the ramp? Cheetah has a small triangular air intake on the front of the cowl under the spinner, and small louvers on the lower sides of the cowl; Tiger has none of those.

This "Tiger" from the '78 brochure is actually the prototype Cheetah in Tiger paint:

aa-5b_1977.jpg


Here's a Tiger cowl:

aa-5b_7812.jpg


Structurally Tiger and Cheetah are the same, except the wall of the spar tube is slightly thicker on the Tiger. Near the end of the production run, a handful of Cheetahs were built with Tiger spars. Problem is, nobody knows exactly which s/ns are affected. You need to get inside the wing with a micrometer to be sure. Also, Tigers had 52-gallon fuel capacity standard. Cheetah's standard fuel capacity was 37 gallons (again, carried over from the Traveler), but most were ordered with optional Tiger-sized tanks.

asicer said:
Useful load on most of Tigers I've seen run in 900-950lb range. Cheetahs are around 850lbs. The Tiger I fly is 900lbs.
Click to expand...
Useful load on my Cheetah was 801 lb.

Grum.Man said:
I don't have any experience with the 4 place Grumman's just the two place ones.
Click to expand...
The two-place models (AA-1 series) are a blast. I gave primary instruction in the very early ones. But the four-seat AA-5 series is definitely more sedate and refined, kinda like comparing a Mazda Miata to a 3-series sedan.
 
I also prefer the ground handling characteristics of the castoring nose wheel. Makes tighter turns easier.
 
Are the LoPresti Tiger cowls in production yet?

I've seen one on another aircraft and thought it added to the ramp appeal in a big way. Owner was happy with speed and cooling increase.
 
I'll be in the minority here...

I've flown a yankee and I really was not a fan... Everything about it felt cheap and flimsy to me. A little too touchy, too low to the runway when landing.

YMMV

Regarding 172's the nice thing there is you can turn it into anything you want, whereas a grumman is one thing and will only be one thing. You can put flap gap seals on a 172 with wheel pants and it will cruise decently, or put a STOL kit on and some big wheels and it'll be a bush plane, or put bigger fuel tanks in it and make it a true endurance XC plane, or make it a taildragger. The possibilities are endless with a 172. Limited with a Grumman, but then again if what the Grumman does is what you want it to do then perfect!

I am one for the Cessna's afterall.
 
Nice airplanes do have some limitations like all airplanes,have a tough time entering during rain and mist. Go do a rental ,ask all your questions during a check out ,then rent one for a few hours. A lot of plane for the money usually.
 
Pilawt said:
Visibility is amazing. Huge windows, plus the top of the glareshield is low. You get the sense of sitting at a low desk on a mountaintop.
Click to expand...

That's the nice way to say "some doofuses keep pulling the nose up to create a Cessna sight picture" :)
 
I have a few hours in a Cheetah.

I remember the thud on landing. The stall break is more sudden and pronounced vs P and C brands.

Otherwise it didn't leave me with a lasting impression above the typical P & C models....
 
EdFred said:
Of course there is runway length consideration... :D
Click to expand...

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
 
I know where there is a Tiger (AA5B) on the line, and I've considered transitioning to it.

It looks like a really nice all-around airplane. There is only one feature that gives me pause. It's a fixed gear and landing off airport, especially in bay mud, implies some egress difficulties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top