Got to fly the Tiger

SixPapaCharlie

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
16,012
Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
I posted in the N. Tx Flying friends FB group asking if anyone had a Grumman Tiger and wanted to talk to me about their plane.

A man chimed in and said sure, come on out.
I flew to his house and he went over every inch of the plane with me w/ a fine tooth comb.

He says Hop in and off we go. Turns out the guy is also a CFI so we went up and put the plane through a checkride. 1/2 way through, he pops open the canopy and we did the remainder of the flight with it open. That is a really awesome feature.

The plane was quicker than I expected.
It feels very solid.
Stalls were absolutely benign to the point of being boring.
Not as responsive as the Cirrus but much more so than a 172
It was smaller than I expected but not uncomfortably small.
We were somewhat shoulder to shoulder but neither of us were FAA standard size humans.
The two biggest complaints I have heard were non issues
* It seemed to have plenty of climbing ability.
* It is dead simple to enter and exit.

PLENTY of legroom in the back seats.
Storage capabilities are awesome, Back seats come out and you could fit a smart car in the back.

He let me land it twice and I think because I have been in the Cirrus, it wasn't much different.
He warned me that the sight picture is pretty low and the castering nose wheel can be different from most planes. Both true in the Cirrus

This flight confirms it remains at the top of my list.

One thing I will do though is add to my check list "DUCK!"
He closed the hatch and got me pretty good in the back of the head because I was leaning to the right looking at something. Ouch!

All in all, it is fast enough, carries enough weight, fits a variety of missions, low to normal fuel burn. No blue knobs or retract gear to mess with.

hmmmm. He never showed me how to operate the chute though.


2004 Grumman Tiger
Short clips of the interior

Exterior:

Tiger 1.jpg
 
Oh also small world.
It turns out he and my 2nd CFI are neighbors and served in the navy together.
His wife is a pilot locals around here will know (Liz). She flies the Little Toot biplane and came to the KSEP fly-in a few years back.

We landed and my CFI was giving instruction to a student so we all got to shoot the breeze for a bit.
That was fun.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I posted in the N. Tx Flying friends FB group asking if anyone had a Grumman Tiger and wanted to talk to me about their plane.

A man chimed in and said sure, come on out.
I flew to his house and he went over every inch of the plane with me w/ a fine tooth comb.

He says Hop in and off we go. Turns out the guy is also a CFI so we went up and put the plane through a checkride. 1/2 way through, he pops open the canopy and we did the remainder of the flight with it open. That is a really awesome feature.

The plane was quicker than I expected.
It feels very solid.
Stalls were absolutely benign to the point of being boring.
Not as responsive as the Cirrus but much more so than a 172
It was smaller than I expected but not uncomfortably small.
We were somewhat shoulder to shoulder but neither of us were FAA standard size humans.
The two biggest complaints I have heard were non issues
* It seemed to have plenty of climbing ability.
* It is dead simple to enter and exit.

PLENTY of legroom in the back seats.
Storage capabilities are awesome, Back seats come out and you could fit a smart car in the back.

He let me land it twice and I think because I have been in the Cirrus, it wasn't much different.
He warned me that the sight picture is pretty low and the castering nose wheel can be different from most planes. Both true in the Cirrus

This flight confirms it remains at the top of my list.

One thing I will do though is add to my check list "DUCK!"
He closed the hatch and got me pretty good in the back of the head because I was leaning to the right looking at something. Ouch!

All in all, it is fast enough, carries enough weight, fits a variety of missions, low to normal fuel burn. No blue knobs or retract gear to mess with.

hmmmm. He never showed me how to operate the chute though.


2004 Grumman Tiger
Short clips of the interior

Exterior:

View attachment 45501
Click to expand...
Size wise, how does the interior compare to a Cherokee? I saw a post somewhere that the yoke hits your knees on taller pilots? I'd love to fly one.
 
I thought in the video I saw his hand on your inner thigh. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but do u think that's influencing your decision?

Anyways, real nice plane. Any Grumman I bought wouldn't be that nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That is a good question and probably complicated to answer. This was a 2004 model and it had an updated smaller yoke I know the older ones had a little bit larger yoke so it wasn't an issue for me. Also I'm 5-10 but I'm pretty short in the Torso and long legged. I didn't have any issues there at all I felt like head to toe there was plenty of room shoulder to shoulder it was kind of cramped but he was a pretty big guy. It's been a long time since I've been in a Cherokee other than Ed Fred Comanche. I think it's a little bit wider. It definitely felt wider than the 172.
 
eman1200 said:
I thought in the video I saw his hand on your inner thigh. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but do u think that's influencing your decision?

Anyways, real nice plane. Any Grumman I bought wouldn't be that nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
yes. Whatever version I buy is going to be about one-third the price of what he said he paid for this. He said the performance on this one and the old ones is pretty much the same. But whichever version I end up purchasing will be a much older and more scary plane for my mom to imagine me flying around in.
 
Ranchoa said:
Size wise, how does the interior compare to a Cherokee? I saw a post somewhere that the yoke hits your knees on taller pilots?
Click to expand...
I'm 6'3" and change, and owned a Cheetah for five years. The Cheetah was very comfortable for me; no interference with the yoke.

The Grumman cabins are an inch or two wider than a C-172, and an inch or so narrower than a PA-28 -- but the low panel height, expansive windows and slightly bug-eyed upper cabin cross-section make it seem much more roomy and less claustrophobic than a PA-28. Headroom is ample, too.
 
Bryan, Tiger is a fantastic plane. I've got a bunch of time in them. I absolutely love the plane. The one in the video is one of the ones made in Martinsburg WV. They all has the Tango Echo at the end of the N number for Tiger Experience.
 
That's a nice looking Tiger, for sure. They are on my shortlist if I decide to buy. I currently have a great shared situation with a Cardinal, which is also a great airplane.
 
Grummans AA1/5s have always been a super bang for the buck, mainly I think because folks don't know about them.

I think if people knew about them they would beat out 172/52s and the PA28s
 
Nice airplanes, and the one in the pics is a beautiful example. Had friends who have owned both Cheetahs and a Tiger.

But when I owned singles they were all Cherokees of various types. The prices for Tigers were always at a premium to comparable fixed gear Cherokees at that time (don't know if that still applies), so one paid for that extra cruise performance. Layering in availability of airframe parts, greater familiarity with Cherokees by the mechanics, slightly lower hull insurance and so forth kept pushing the decisions to the Pipers on my budgets at the time.
 
So how much useful load do you lose when you have the chute installed? ;)
 
Earlier AA's feel roomier, relative to leg room particularly, because they do not have the throttle quadrant.
Texas is a great place to own a Grumman due to the proximity of FletchAir. If I were in the market in TX, would contact them - they have a good handle on the fleet in that area.
 
Last edited:
I learned to fly in a Tiger. It wasn't the Grumman, it was the American General Tiger, which they only built for a couple years, but is the same thing . AG-5B. I did my first solo and got my private pilot certificate in one. Always thought it was a neat plane. :)
 
wrbix said:
Earlier AA's feel roomier, relative to leg room particularly, because they do not have the throttle quadrant.
Click to expand...

Yup. I suspect the throttle quadrant also partially blocks the view of the fuel gauges. I never cared much for most throttle quadrants especially in planes that were initially designed with knobs (certain year Mooneys are another example).
 
FlightofTwo said:
I learned to fly in a Tiger. It wasn't the Grumman, it was the American General Tiger, which they only built for a couple years, but is the same thing . AG-5B. I did my first solo and got my private pilot certificate in one. Always thought it was a neat plane. :)
Click to expand...
Lane, is that you?
 
Somehow, when I read this thread, I keep thinking of a song by Ronnie James Dio.
 
Great, now I'm going to spend the rest of the day looking at Grumman Tigers on Controller...
 
labbadabba said:
Great, now I'm going to spend the rest of the day looking at Grumman Tigers on Controller...
Click to expand...

lol yup. it looks like there are quite a few mid-late 70's models out there for very reasonable prices. here's my thing with grummans, and it won't make sense to a lot of people:

in golf, the 'look' of a club makes a big difference. if you're standing over the ball with one of those big fat stupid 'game improvement' irons, it just doesn't look right. this is how I feel about the grummans........they just don't LOOK right to me. it's stupid, I know, but that's how I look at them. don't get me wrong, I'd fly one but they aren't typically in my plane searching routine. the reality is, they'd be perfect for what I'm looking to do. sometimes it's the same with women.......maybe they don't "look right" but I'll still give them a few laps in the pattern if ya know what I mean..........
 
eman1200 said:
lol yup. it looks like there are quite a few mid-late 70's models out there for very reasonable prices. here's my thing with grummans, and it won't make sense to a lot of people:

in golf, the 'look' of a club makes a big difference. if you're standing over the ball with one of those big fat stupid 'game improvement' irons, it just doesn't look right. this is how I feel about the grummans........they just don't LOOK right to me. it's stupid, I know, but that's how I look at them. don't get me wrong, I'd fly one but they aren't typically in my plane searching routine. the reality is, they'd be perfect for what I'm looking to do. sometimes it's the same with women.......maybe they don't "look right" but I'll still give them a few laps in the pattern if ya know what I mean..........
Click to expand...

Lol, strangely I've always agreed. They look like a cross between an RV and a M20C to me. I think part of the ugly duckling factor is the lack of a clean line as the canopy section blends into the empennage. The LoPresti cowls help dress it up but something seems off about the proportions. That said, *almost* everything I read about them suits my mission.

Reasonably fast and efficient
Low acquisition cost
Simple systems for maintenence (fixed prop, castoring wheel, welded mains, 2 tanks) just stay away from the purple glue
Decent useful load. Usually between 900 and 1,000 lbs useful for the Tigers, a 150 or so less for the Cheetah


The downsides
Not the most stable instrument platform
Some have stated you need to wear an umbrella hat when flying in rain...
Like long runways (not a huge downside for me because I also happen to like long runways...)
 
Man that one is a beaut. I recently checked out in a SR22. Definitely a lot of similarities to the Tiger.
 
I keep thinking to myself that I should sell the Skyhawk and buy a Tiger.
 
eman1200 said:
I thought in the video I saw his hand on your inner thigh. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but do u think that's influencing your decision?
Click to expand...

eman if you've noticed he hasn't denied it or even commented on it. Must have been a private thingy. :)
 
I don't have too much of an opinion on the appearance. They look unique.
They are inexpensive for the missions they fit and I was convinced when he opened that canopy in flight.

It gets hot here. Being able to open that canopy adds days to flying season I bet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top