Piper Archer vs. Grumman Tiger

Bonchie

Bonchie

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
1,505
Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
Looking at Tigers compared to Archers I'm seeing for sale and...

- They are cheaper. Below mid-time, IFR, GPS equipped with good interior under 60k asking. Compare to the similar Archers asking 65-75k, most with marginal interiors.
- They are faster
- They have about the same fuel burn
- Generally better equipped for the price. Better avionics to better interiors from what I've seen.
- Better visibility
- Better handling
- More backseat legroom
- About the same useful load, perhaps a touch less depending on the plane

With that said am I missing something with these two planes? I was pretty set on an Archer for my mission (4 place, 900-1000lb useful, 10gph, fixed gear, low end of the scale on maintenance) but after researching the Tiger, I'm not seeing much reason it shouldn't top the list.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy is pretty close to you and is one of our experts on the Grumman line.

I'd take advantage of the proximity, bribe him with a good lunch, and go fly in his airplane. By the end of the day, you'll have complete education on what you need to know to make an informed decision about the Tigers, Cheetahs and Cheegers.
 
I'll have to do that. He's only a 45 minute flight from me.
 
To Clarify, I'm looking at the mid-late 70's models of each, not their newer counterparts.
 
Bonchie said:
With that said am I missing something with these two planes?
Click to expand...
The Archer is a better short field airplane (and by "short" I mean less than 2500 feet paved runway at sea level) and better on unpaved runways. Other than that, no, I don't think you missed anything.

I was pretty set on an Archer for my mission (4 place, 900-1000lb useful, 10gph, fixed gear, low end of the scale on maintenance) but after researching the Tiger, I'm not seeing much reason it shouldn't top the list.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I've owned two Grumman AA-5x's for a total of almost 20 years and 3000 tach hours (compared to a few hundred hours in PA28's belonging to FBO's, clubs, and trainees), so I'm a bit prejudiced. :wink2:

If you want to learn more about Grummans, see:
http://www.aya.org
http://www.grumman.net

If you want to see some Grummans, the next AYA fly-in in the Mid-Atlantic region is:

Millville, NJ (KMIV)


Time: 11:00
What: Lunch at airport - Flight Line
Millville Army Air Field Museum


HOST
Mr. Daniel Schmitz
(978)239-9670
ne@aya.org

...unless you happen to be near Rockport TX (KRKP) next week where there will be about 75 of them gathered for the AYA's annual convention.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The Archer is a better short field airplane (and by "short" I mean less than 2500 feet paved runway at sea level) and better on unpaved runways. Other than that, no, I don't think you missed anything.
Click to expand...

What are the numbers on the Tiger as far as takeoff/landings rolls go?
 
Bonchie said:
What are the numbers on the Tiger as far as takeoff/landings rolls go?
Click to expand...
Depends on weight, elevation, wind, altimeter, temperature, and runway surface, but sea level, standard day at max gross on a level paved runway, the book figures for takeoff are 866 roll, 1551 over 50-foot obstacle. Personally, under those conditions, based on 8000 hours in light planes including 3000 in Grummans, I would not go with less than 2300 feet of runway. Landing distances are about half the takeoff distances, so as long as you know you'll be able to take off, landing should not be a problem.

The problem is that you can land in a lot less distance than you can take off, so it's not hard at all to land a Grumman (or a Piper, or a Cessna, or a Beech, or any other light single, for that matter) on a runway from which it can leave only on a flatbed truck. So, check the takeoff numbers before you land.
 
Pretty much everything you mentioned is correct. Go fly an Archer and then fly a Tiger. I assure you that you'll be sold on the Tiger after that. I miss my good ole 1974 Traveler.
 
A very nice bonus with the Grumman is no hydraulic landing gear. No leaks, don't have to add fluid or air, the plane always sits level.
 
I'll give you another one - it's much easier to get in and out of a Tiger with its sliding canopy vs the passenger-side door on an Archer...

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
Velocity173 said:
Pretty much everything you mentioned is correct. Go fly an Archer and then fly a Tiger. I assure you that you'll be sold on the Tiger after that. I miss my good ole 1974 Traveler.
Click to expand...

It's what happened to me. Was shopping for an Archer. Decided to stop by Hortman Aviation at KPNE on the way home from KPHL to try flying a Tiger. I got interested when I found how easy it was to climb into the cabin (my only reservation about the Archer is a feeling of climbing into a cave through the one entry door). I was near ready to switch when we levelled off and saw the view out the large windows from the relatively high seat position and over the relatively low nose angle. We did some steep turns and I was hooked by the handling.
 
bkspero said:
It's what happened to me. Was shopping for an Archer. Decided to stop by Hortman Aviation at KPNE on the way home from KPHL to try flying a Tiger. I got interested when I found how easy it was to climb into the cabin (my only reservation about the Archer is a feeling of climbing into a cave through the one entry door). I was near ready to switch when we levelled off and saw the view out the large windows from the relatively high seat position and over the relatively low nose angle. We did some steep turns and I was hooked by the handling.
Click to expand...

Yep, flying the PA-28 series is like flying a truck. AA-5s so light on the controls. Of course most homebuilts even lighter. Vis is great but not so bad where you're getting a sun burn and need a hat. I think they even look better. Landing gear all fiberglass "face saver" and forgiving. Just don't want to bounce it on the nose. :nono:
 
I've owned an AA5 Traveler and an AA5B Tiger.

The Tiger:

14015040080_2d3e3cf25b.jpg


I put a fair chunk of change into the panel, installing a 430 and a backup attitude indicator while getting rid of the ADF, Loran, second Narco VOR and glovebox and painting the whole thing "Boeing Gray" as opposed to the rather chintzy beige:

14202204412_789268b49b.jpg




Sold it in 2003 to buy a demo Cirrus SR22 which I sold in 2007 to buy my Sky Arrow to continue to fly sans medical. No regrets.

What always impressed me was comparing the Tiger to an Arrow. Fairly similar performance, but the Tiger does it with 20 less hp, fixed pitch prop and fixed gear. Amazing.

Kudos to Roy Lopresti!

With the folding rear seat, its easy to load bulky items in the back through the canopy - I've had two full-sized bicycles back there before.

Two points favoring the Archer:

1) Piper is still in business. Fletchair can still provide some Tiger parts, but eventually there's a finite supply.

2) The Tiger, as much as I loved it, felt a little less "substantial" than a typical Piper. Plastic parts seemed a little flimsier, that sort of thing.

But like Cap'n Ron I'm obviously biased, but for me the Tiger wins hands down!
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
1) Piper is still in business. Fletchair can still provide some Tiger parts, but eventually there's a finite supply.
Click to expand...
While they haven't built any planes yet, TrueFlight has the type certificate and is having new parts made by suppliers. Fletchair also has a number of PMA's and is having new parts made. About the only piece of a Tiger you can't easily get is the carburetor air box, which doesn't often wear out and is reparable with standard sheet metal techniques.
 
Ron Levy said:
While they haven't built any planes yet, TrueFlight has the type certificate and is having new parts made by suppliers. Fletchair also has a number of PMA's and is having new parts made. About the only piece of a Tiger you can't easily get is the carburetor air box, which doesn't often wear out and is reparable with standard sheet metal techniques.
Click to expand...

Good to know.

I would consider another Tiger if...

1) I could fly it without a medical, and,

2) I could make it experimental in order to do my own work and annuals on it as I can with my E-LSA Sky Arrow.

I don't see that as happening any time soon, though.
 
Ron, I haven't shopped for a Tiger recently but I did about twelve years ago, what are the years to avoid due to the glue issue? Or is that an OWT? Or are all those planes already corrected/retired?

I was counseled on this when I was shopping but it's been too long ago to remember any details.

Ron Levy said:
The problem is that you can land in a lot less distance than you can take off, so it's not hard at all to land a Grumman (or a Piper, or a Cessna, or a Beech, or any other light single with a fixed pitch prop, for that matter) on a runway from which it can leave only on a flatbed truck. So, check the takeoff numbers before you land.
Click to expand...

FTFY...totally agree when it comes to the 172 that I formerly owned. It'd get down and stopped in a much shorter distance than it could get off. My 182, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. If I can get it down and stopped, It will get back out. I can't speak for the later "pick-up truck" 182s but the old straight tails get off the ground quickly.

(Sorry for the thread drift)
 
Last edited:
dukeblue219 said:
I'll give you another one - it's much easier to get in and out of a Tiger with its sliding canopy vs the passenger-side door on an Archer...

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not so good in the rain to get in or out.:(
 
timwinters said:
Ron, I haven't shopped for a Tiger recently but I did about twelve years ago, what are the years to avoid due to the glue issue? Or is that an OWT? Or are all those planes already corrected/retired?



I was counseled on this when I was shopping but it's been too long ago to remember any details.
Click to expand...


Tigers built in 1974 and 1975 used the "purple passion" glue. I believe the problem has been a nonissue for decades after a corrective AD was issued, but mine isn't from that era so I am not really an expert.
 
brien23 said:
Not so good in the rain to get in or out.:(
Click to expand...

True. Best to keep a small umbrella in the cabin just in case.

If that's a big consideration, then it may be worth trying to convince the OPs wife of the value of a high wing. Crawling out an Archer's one door onto the wing in the rain is no picnic, either.
 
Pilawt said:
Fly a Tiger. You'll be hooked.

Talk to Ron, as Mike suggested. Join the American Yankee Association, the type club for the Grumman-American series. It's one of the best type clubs around. They can steer you to instructors and maintenance facilities familiar with the breed. Also check out the free web group, The Grumman Gang.
Click to expand...

What he said, Grumman makes a hell of a plane.
 
I looked at them briefly before buying my Archer. All my offline aviation experts told me I wouldn't want it because the company was out of business and maintenance would be high. Some of my internet research also suggested they had poor performance when loaded to max gross and didn't make a good IFR platform.

I have no first knowledge of any of these issues but maybe someone else here can confirm or deny. :yesnod:
 
FastEddieB said:
I've owned an AA5 Traveler and an AA5B Tiger.

The Tiger:

14015040080_2d3e3cf25b.jpg


I put a fair chunk of change into the panel, installing a 430 and a backup attitude indicator while getting rid of the ADF, Loran, second Narco VOR and glovebox and painting the whole thing "Boeing Gray" as opposed to the rather chintzy beige:

14202204412_789268b49b.jpg




Sold it in 2003 to buy a demo Cirrus SR22 which I sold in 2007 to buy my Sky Arrow to continue to fly sans medical. No regrets.

What always impressed me was comparing the Tiger to an Arrow. Fairly similar performance, but the Tiger does it with 20 less hp, fixed pitch prop and fixed gear. Amazing.

Kudos to Roy Lopresti!

With the folding rear seat, its easy to load bulky items in the back through the canopy - I've had two full-sized bicycles back there before.

Two points favoring the Archer:

1) Piper is still in business. Fletchair can still provide some Tiger parts, but eventually there's a finite supply.

2) The Tiger, as much as I loved it, felt a little less "substantial" than a typical Piper. Plastic parts seemed a little flimsier, that sort of thing.

But like Cap'n Ron I'm obviously biased, but for me the Tiger wins hands down!
Click to expand...

Now that's a plane!

You ditched that and a chunk of change for a cirrus :confused:
 
James331 said:
Now that's a plane!

You ditched that and a chunk of change for a cirrus :confused:
Click to expand...

Sure you're joking, but...

...I originally had aspirations to get a Diamond Twinstar. At one, bright, shiny and brief moment in my life I could just swing that sort of money for a toy.

The Twinstar kept getting delayed, so the Cirrus filled in nicely. At $330k by far the most expensive purchase of my life, homes included.

One interesting fact is that the Cirrus was more fuel efficient than the Tiger, which itself was no slouch. My main recurring trip was from S FL to Copperhill, TN. About 5 hours in the Tiger at 132k and 10gph. With 50 gals usable, almost always requiring a fuel stop.

In the Cirrus, about 170k and 13.5 gph, making the same trip in about 3:30 on less fuel altogether.

Really quite amazing efficiency, but still too expensive to keep in order to fly just as a hobby and easing into retirement. The Sky Arrow is a much better fit.
 
Last edited:
Half joking ;)

I've just never seen the performance to the dollar amount on the cirrus, to each their own.
 
FastEddieB said:
Good to know.

I would consider another Tiger if...

1) I could fly it without a medical, and,

2) I could make it experimental in order to do my own work and annuals on it as I can with my E-LSA Sky Arrow.

I don't see that as happening any time soon, though.
Click to expand...
The Congressional ball appears to be rolling on the first, but the second isn't likely to happen in the foreseeable future (unless you get an A&P/IA). Of course, you can still do most of the work for both regular maintenance and the annual inspection under the supervision of an A&P/IA -- that's what I do, and it keeps my maintenance expense way down.
 
timwinters said:
Ron, I haven't shopped for a Tiger recently but I did about twelve years ago, what are the years to avoid due to the glue issue? Or is that an OWT? Or are all those planes already corrected/retired?
Click to expand...
The year of the blue glue was 1975, although the calendar year, not the model year, so a few 1976 model planes are also affected. Good news is Fletchair has the s/n's of all the affected aircraft.

That said, we're not seeing too many new delamination problems these days unless there are serious corrosion issues, too. After 40 years, it seems those that are going to have serious problems have already had them. The testing for delamination is pretty easy if the mechanic involved knows how, so you shouldn't be burned by any surprises once you inspect the plane before purchase (unless you don't get a proper pre-buy by a Grumman-savvy mechanic on one of the affected planes). Those affected planes with those problems have either been repaired with the Service Kit procedure or aren't airworthy.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Tigers built in 1974 and 1975 used the "purple passion" glue. I believe the problem has been a nonissue for decades after a corrective AD was issued, but mine isn't from that era so I am not really an expert.
Click to expand...
I don't think any 1974 model planes were affected, since the blue glue was only used in calendar 1975. However, Fletchair has the s/n's of the affected aircraft, so that's where to check once you have the s/n of a Grumman built in 1975 in which you are interested.
 
cowman said:
I looked at them briefly before buying my Archer. All my offline aviation experts told me I wouldn't want it because the company was out of business and maintenance would be high. Some of my internet research also suggested they had poor performance when loaded to max gross and didn't make a good IFR platform.

I have no first knowledge of any of these issues but maybe someone else here can confirm or deny. :yesnod:
Click to expand...
Too bad you didn't check it out first-hand -- you might have enjoyed owning/flying one after you found out most of that was OWT's.
 
Owned both...just sold my archer. Should have never sold the Tiger. Archer was a great plane but IMO it didn't handle as well as the Tiger, Tiger had better cruise and more room. I loved the canopy and visibility in the Tiger. At 6'4" 275 it was much easier getting in and out of the Tiger. I could go down a list of things I preferred on the Tiger over the Archer and I honestly don't think there is one thing I can say I like better on the archer than the Tiger. They are very similar though and I liked both planes. Just one better than the other.
 
Ruthless53 said:
Owned both...just sold my archer. Should have never sold the Tiger.
Click to expand...

That's the problem I'm having now. Have owned my Tiger 5 years (first plane) and it has been wonderful for long XC trips. The only potential for me to change would be to go to something with two seats now that my son is graduating (only child) and I don't really need a 4 seater much longer ... have been toying with getting an RV-7.

We have huge winds in my area and the Tiger is far easier to handle in large crosswind than the high wings I trained in ... almost seems like cheating.
 
You might consider a short-body Mooney....20-30 kts on the Grumman.... still on 10gph....a bit tighter in the back though...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
awquick said:
You might consider a short-body Mooney....20-30 kts on the Grumman.... still on 10gph....a bit tighter in the back though...
Click to expand...
...as well as considerably more expensive to insure and maintain -- and that assumes you really can cruise 165 KTAS on 10 gph in one, which I don't think is a given.
 
awquick said:
You might consider a short-body Mooney....20-30 kts on the Grumman.... still on 10gph....a bit tighter in the back though...


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

Plus the lighter wallet from initial cost, mx, insurance.

How much is 20kts worth?

For that price hike I'd want near triple that difference.
 
I can taxi and fly with the canopy open in my Tiger which is great on those really hot days. In the Arrow I used to rent, you could crack the door on taxi, but it was additional work if passenger wasn't good with the door.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I own an Archer, but frankly was not looking for an Archer when I bought it. It just so happened to be a low-time, well-maintained airplane with predominantly one owner during most of its life, was local to me, and had been maintained by a mechanic who had an excellent reputation. The Tiger is a slightly better performer, but not a significantly better one, and I wouldn't trade a pristine Archer for a "mature" Tiger to get a nominal increase in cruise speed.

My recommendation is to find the class of plane for your mission, and then find a good one that isn't going to cost you an arm and a leg to acquire. The Tiger is a great airplane with a solid support network, but I sure wouldn't fly to the opposite coast to get one if there was a good Archer nearby. Either way, make sure that a pre-buy is done by a mechanic familiar with the aircraft type, and I would including a rigging check as part of the pre-buy, especially for the Archer.


JKG
 
Ron Levy said:
...as well as considerably more expensive to insure and maintain -- and that assumes you really can cruise 165 KTAS on 10 gph in one, which I don't think is a given.
Click to expand...

You can definitely do that in a J model. Not so sure about an older short body. Maybe one with all the speed mods could pull that off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top