Grumman Tiger, good bad and ugly

The Tiger and Archer are great planes with the Tiger being about 10 knots faster and it has better visibility over the low Glare sheild. I have flown both and currently own an Archer. I chose the cherokee line because many more were built and the parts are available with Piper still producing the Archer today. Piper actually has orders for 200-300 of them from flight schools. The useful load is also higher on the Archer by about 100 pounds depending on year and you can carry 100 lbs more in the cargo compartment. My guess is that the resale on the Archer will be better. I do miss the castering nose wheel on the Tiger for tight taxi turns.
 
Well Bryan has one. So thats a Pro or a Con depending on your view of him..
 
Baron62 said:
My guess is that the resale on the Archer will be better.
Click to expand...

Put mine on Banstormers when I sold it. Second caller. All of the first 10 sent a pre-buy contract hoping #2 would fail (he was getting a loan). Number one didn't get it as his contract arrived minutes after #2. All 10 were on the first day of the listing. Never had a tire kicker either!
 
Nothing much to add. I owned a well-used Tiger ('77 with ~5000tt) for about two years. No canopy leaks whatsoever. Loved the ability to open the canopy in flight for photos, etc. Honest, fairly quick, nice handling, low maintenance aircraft. I switched to an RV to get improved high altitude performance since I'm based at 6000msl and fly to destinations which are higher. Service ceiling on the Tiger is around 13.5 IIRC, and the climb performance is fairly leisurely at altitude, even with just 2 pax. Great airplane, though.
 
A fellow who used to hang out here, and is still on the AOPA board, flies a Tiger. I've never heard Ron say a negative thing about his. I'd love to try one some time.
 
Ghery said:
A fellow who used to hang out here, and is still on the AOPA board, flies a Tiger. I've never heard Ron say a negative thing about his. I'd love to try one some time.
Click to expand...

That be Ron Levy. He is the Grumman Association’s (AYA.org) Safety Officer.
 
My 1976, owned from 1992 to 2003:

18175025779_6080b1c24e_z.jpg
 
Ghery said:
A fellow who used to hang out here, and is still on the AOPA board, flies a Tiger. I've never heard Ron say a negative thing about his. I'd love to try one some time.
Click to expand...
Actually Cap’n Ron’s is a Cheetah (AA-5A) upgraded to Tiger specs as I recall - ? “Cheeger”
 
danhagan said:
Put mine on Banstormers when I sold it. Second caller. All of the first 10 sent a pre-buy contract hoping #2 would fail (he was getting a loan). Number one didn't get it as his contract arrived minutes after #2. All 10 were on the first day of the listing. Never had a tire kicker either!
Click to expand...

No tire kickers unless you count me before you officially posted to Barnstormers. :D Yours was very well cared for with a very reasonable asking price so I am not surprised it sold so quickly.
 
If I remember my Grumman lore correctly, the only structural difference between a Cheetah and a Tiger is the wing spar wall thickness. Late in the production run the factory used Tiger spar parts on about thirty Cheetahs -- only problem is, no records were kept as to which ones. Only way to know for sure is to go in there with a micrometer.
 
Kansas Flyer said:
She's Beautiful!

I get tempted by looking at Yankees on barnstormers. They just look like so much fun.
Click to expand...

I miss my AA1A. Incredibly fun to fly, and the full bubble canopy is exhilarating. For a while after I bought my AA5 I had two planes. More often than not I chose to fly the AA1A for the sheer fun of it, with those short wings, it rolls might quick. It's a Miata in the sky...the AA5 is more pedestrian.
 
How "underpowered" is a 150hp Traveler?

Also, how are they for stalls, etc? I'm a Cherokee guy so I'm spoiled by fake stalls that's why I ask.

Low time guy on 3500' paved at 1000'MSL going to be ok in summer? Are they grass planes at all?

TIA.
 
There is a bit of difference in power between the 150 hp, and the 160 high-compression engines on a Traveler, but most of that demonstrates itself in climb phase. A fully loaded 150 hp Traveler on a hot Texas summer day climbs pathetically initially. That being said, I've been all over the lower US in mine, and have never really had a complaint. Service ceiling is probably a little lower than comparable other planes due to the smaller wing surface.

All the 4 seater Grummans have the same stall characteristics. Stalls are docile. They are all prohibited from spins, however. There are plenty of old stories of people stalling them in, usually in the pattern to land, because they try to fly them at the speeds of something like a Cessna or such, that has much more wing surface for lift. Remember you are flying something that responds much more like a sports car than a station wagon. Getting a good checkout, preferably with someone who actually knows them well, will help develop good speed management.

3500' paved should not be an issue, unless you're talking brutal 95 degree plus heat. Once again, it's learning the plane's performance under those conditions.

Are they grass planes? That's a maybe. Once again, we get into the climb performance, and grass only adds time to the ground roll. The other thing to consider is that the factor that gives you that great visibility over the nose means that the ground clearance with the prop is less than in many other plane types, and the chance of a prop strike from hitting that unexpected hole is higher. While I'd not worry too much about a grass strip in my Tiger, in the Traveler I tend to shy away from grass unless it is a long runway and very well groomed.
 
I fly out of a 3000 ft runway and have never sweated it, usually make the turn off before mid field even on blistering hot days. Fly the right speeds and you won’t float. Stalls are benign. I can’t really comment on climb performance of a traveler, mine is a tiger.
 
Texashikergal02's post is spot on. I had a Cheetah with the Bill & Carol Scott high-compression cylinder STC, and it did reasonably well -- noticeably better than the stock 150 hp on initial acceleration and climb.

Technically, though, it can't be called "160 hp". At 2700 rpm the modified engine would indeed produce 160 hp, just like the O-320-D of a Piper Warrior II. But going from the original 150 hp to 160 hp is more than a 5% increase, and under FAA regulation they would have had to recertify the airframe-engine combination. So the Scott STC requires that the redline on the tach be re-located to 2650 rpm, which rates the engine at 157 hp, and within the 5% limit.
 
Todd82 said:
How "underpowered" is a 150hp Traveler?

Also, how are they for stalls, etc? I'm a Cherokee guy so I'm spoiled by fake stalls that's why I ask.

Low time guy on 3500' paved at 1000'MSL going to be ok in summer? Are they grass planes at all?

TIA.
Click to expand...

A stock AA5 will climb out at 500-600 fpm on a standard day fully loaded. On a hot summer day it's pretty laggard at 10000 feet, not unlike most 4 place singles on 140-150 hp. With the high compression STC, I can maintain 500 fpm up to 10000 feet, and takeoff climb is 700-800 fpm depending on conditions, even with the Sensenich prop STC with 61" pitch.

Stalls are benign. Not a lot different than a C172.

I'll fly out of any 3000 feet paved runway with plenty of margin. My home airport is 1134 alt with 5300 feet, and I will normally clear the windsock midfied by 50 feet or more even in summer. Grass is fine if you have enough runway. Fly by the POH and Bob's your uncle. However, unlike a 172 with 40 degrees flaps, this is not an airplane for a 1200 foot grass strip with obstructions.
 
Owned one for about three years. It wouldn't be a "fit" for my needs now, but I do miss it from time to time because it was such a good bird. Here are my thoughts:

1) Excellent visibility - best of any plane I am aware of in this "class" with the possibly exception of RV-type experimentals
2) Excellent handling - same as above
3) Fast and efficient - I remember block burns of 10gph, less in cruise, and pretty standard cruise of just shy of 130 knots.
4) Cheap to buy (relatively), cheap to insure, cheap to maintain - I remember my annuals usually clocked in around $1,500. Super well known and reliable engine, easy to work on (according to the mechanics) and pretty simple systems.
5) Never had canopy issues in terms of leaking or felt like the exposure to rain was a real downside in any way.
6) Awesome space in the back seat (could fit two full-sized bikes with front tires off plus bags) when the rear seats are folded down.
8) I loved the castering nosewheel. Once you're used to it, it's like, why isn't every plane this way?

A couple downsides:

1) It's not a high-lifting wing or a great high DA bird. We used to fly out of a field at 7,000' and you'd really need to be careful with your loading at that elevation.
2) Useful load wasn't great. Really a three person plane, two at high DA. With four you're pretty maxed out, even at sea-level.
3) I got my instrument rating in the plane. The lightness of controls means it's not the *ideal* platform for instrument flying, although I didn't really have a problem with it. Autopilot (I just had a wing-leveler) is really helpful here.
 
How not to land a Grumman on an ice runway.
 
Baron62 said:
The Tiger and Archer are great planes with the Tiger being about 10 knots faster and it has better visibility over the low Glare sheild. I have flown both and currently own an Archer. I chose the cherokee line because many more were built and the parts are available with Piper still producing the Archer today. Piper actually has orders for 200-300 of them from flight schools. The useful load is also higher on the Archer by about 100 pounds depending on year and you can carry 100 lbs more in the cargo compartment. My guess is that the resale on the Archer will be better. I do miss the castering nose wheel on the Tiger for tight taxi turns.
Click to expand...

The resale on Cherokees and 172s tends to be better just because flight schools help with that market. The purchase price tends to be higher, however, and the quality of the panels varies GREATLY. Lots of Cherokees and 172s out there with crappy orange radios and rather useless ADFs. Even older Tigers tend to have better panels and solid autopilots.

When it comes to product support, I think the Grummans are underrated in that sense. Between Fletchair, AuCountry and Tiger, you really don't have an issue. Obviously the engines are basic Lycomings, so no problem there. Garmin even STC'd them for the GFC500.

As for UL, that is highly variable. Newer Archers have terrible ULs, especially if you don't take the AC out. 900+ pound ULs on the Tiger are not uncommon, and going G5 could push some into the 925-950 area. Pretty good, if you ask me.

1RTK1 said:
I fly out of a 3000 ft runway and have never sweated it, usually make the turn off before mid field even on blistering hot days. Fly the right speeds and you won’t float. Stalls are benign. I can’t really comment on climb performance of a traveler, mine is a tiger.
Click to expand...

I regularly fly a Tiger out of the sadly chopped 3500' runway at SMO, and I have no problem getting up and to a safe altitude before doing that VFR departure procedure over the VOR and golf course. Out of MYF, I'm often flying before the end of the displaced threshold and over my 50 foot obstacle shortly after.

There's a woman with a Tiger who landed and took off from a tiny private runway near Escondido without major issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top