Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
I hear they’re great if you don’t need a chute. ;-)
Grumman Tiger, good bad and ugly
- Thread starter Groundpounder
- Start date
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
Grumman pilots don’t need no stinking chutes..
Last edited:
NHWannabe
Line Up and Wait
Where in NH and is the club accepting new members? I'm based at KASH, there is a Grumman there with a for sale sign in the window. Close to the tower by the taxiway.
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
An unfortunate accident
BrianNC
En-Route
Some rescue. It couldn't have gone any better. He lands by the fuel farm where the fire department already was because someone was showing the FD how they load fuel, handle spills, etc. The guy explaining had been an EMT until a week before and came over and put his hands on him and told him to stay calm the FD was coming to cut him out. The helicopter was already at the field he had just flown out of. Cut out, the copter landed and took him, and within 12 minutes of him hitting the ground he was in ICU. Crazy.
TheFB
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2017
- Messages
- 330
- Display Name
Display name:
TheFB
So sad and so fortunate at the same time. I bought my Grumman 16 months ago. The guy in the video, Roscoe, gave me hours of phone advice and ideas while I searched for my plane; he is an IA and Grumman guru. That is without any promise more than hopefully, after I got licensed, I’d have him do my annual one year. Great guy.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
If you fly one, you'll want one. That's what happened with me. I barely knew they existed, then someone in our club said I should give the club AG5B Tiger a shot. I ended up buying it.
They are faster and better priced than 172s and Cherokees. They are speed competitive with fixed 182s, Arrows and others. They are less likely to have been flight school beaters. They tend to have working autopilots and decent panels, because they are owner operated. Just about every A&P has worked on them and knows the planes decently, and there are some absolute experts who are passionate about them. The ownership community is vibrant and super helpful. They are very stable IFR panels with heavy wing loading on clean, short Hershey Bars that makes them more like a Mooney or Bonanza in turbulence than a Cessna or Piper. The controls are responsive, but that helps more than it hurts. They are excellent in crosswinds and super easy to land if you manage speeds. They aren't amazing short field planes, but you don't need miles either. My UL is 915, and the airplane is both easy to keep in CG and handles like a dream up to that weight. The spar is life limited to 12000 hours, but can be replaced for less than a new engine if you want to keep your plane, but very few even come close
They are faster and better priced than 172s and Cherokees. They are speed competitive with fixed 182s, Arrows and others. They are less likely to have been flight school beaters. They tend to have working autopilots and decent panels, because they are owner operated. Just about every A&P has worked on them and knows the planes decently, and there are some absolute experts who are passionate about them. The ownership community is vibrant and super helpful. They are very stable IFR panels with heavy wing loading on clean, short Hershey Bars that makes them more like a Mooney or Bonanza in turbulence than a Cessna or Piper. The controls are responsive, but that helps more than it hurts. They are excellent in crosswinds and super easy to land if you manage speeds. They aren't amazing short field planes, but you don't need miles either. My UL is 915, and the airplane is both easy to keep in CG and handles like a dream up to that weight. The spar is life limited to 12000 hours, but can be replaced for less than a new engine if you want to keep your plane, but very few even come close
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,938
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
Even the older Traveler (AA5) will outrun a C172. Get the HC STC and you can cruise at 2550 rpm at 7.5 gph and 117 kt and have more than anemic climb rates. An AA5A will do better speed at the same fuel consumption. The HC STC turns the AA5 and AA5A series into the plane it should have been out of the factory. Same or better fuel consumption, but better climb with a higher pitch prop to boot as another STC option. The Traveler can be a great buy as they get overlooked. They are a tad slower than the Cheetah, but have much better engine cooling with the wide maw in the cowling.
Groundpounder
En-Route
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,848
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Display Name
Display name:
Emerson Bigguns
Sorry for not responding to this. The "club" turned into a two way partnership and we bought an F33A.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
172s go for utterly stupid prices today because of the training market demand. After the kids get finished putting 14,000 hours of touch & go on them there won't be a decent used one left on the planet.
But better priced than a Cherokee seems a stretch. The only Tigers I've seen priced under a comparable Cherokee were clapped out junk. Any half-decent example of a Tiger goes for a hefty premium over a Cherokee, and still gets snapped up quickly from what I've observed.
The Tiger performance reputation is well deserved, and there seem more buyers than sellers of the good ones.
Friend of mine who flew a rented Tiger for years decided to try to buy one. Finally gave up in frustration and bought a share of a very nice 200 hp Mooney M20E - about the only thing comparable for high speed on low hp.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,723
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
What has posterity done for me lately. An airplane I can fly\acquire today will always be a "better" airplane than a plane I can't find until tomorrow.
I flew a Tiger for my Commercial Cross-Country. It was a lot of fun. Fairly fast (in comparison to C172s or PA28, closer to a PA28R or C172R) and economical in the fuel burn. I got every ounce of performance out of that plane taking it over some high orographic clouds over the Sierra Nevadas at 14,000ft, the plane didn't seem to have any trouble flying at that altitude and I used thermals and mountain wave to get it a bit above the listed service ceiling of 13,800 so its definitely an airframe more limited by the engine and its power than anything else (engine was full throttle and would sputter if I moved the mixture in either direction so there was no more power to be had out of the engine and probably not much more altitude either and I definitely needed the thermals/mountain wave to get above 13,500).
The canopy can suck in rain, even a light rain or drizzle. In fact I would say a light rain or drizzle is probably where it would be the worst. As noted by Van Johnston, I probably wouldn't be flying in a moderate or heavy rain but in a moderate or heavy rain I could see myself getting into the cockpit and shutting the canopy quickly and being "comfortable" in the cockpit... With a light rain or drizzle you might take your time a bit more but more importantly, the heavy rain tends to sap the heat and humidity out of the air whereas the light rain that heat and humidity tends to linger (or even get worse) which can make the cockpit very uncomfortable... Guess it depends where you are and what the heat/humidity is like...
Still reminds me of this quote:
There is something to be learned from a rainstorm. When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and run quickly along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed, though you still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything.
The canopy can suck in rain, even a light rain or drizzle. In fact I would say a light rain or drizzle is probably where it would be the worst. As noted by Van Johnston, I probably wouldn't be flying in a moderate or heavy rain but in a moderate or heavy rain I could see myself getting into the cockpit and shutting the canopy quickly and being "comfortable" in the cockpit... With a light rain or drizzle you might take your time a bit more but more importantly, the heavy rain tends to sap the heat and humidity out of the air whereas the light rain that heat and humidity tends to linger (or even get worse) which can make the cockpit very uncomfortable... Guess it depends where you are and what the heat/humidity is like...
Still reminds me of this quote:
There is something to be learned from a rainstorm. When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and run quickly along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed, though you still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,419
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Kind of reminds me of why Malcolm Forbes did not bother to carry a rainsuit on his motorcycle. Being the eternal optimist, when it started raining he’d press on, assuming it would stop soon. By the time he realized it wasn’t going to, he was wet anyway!
Back on point, I’ve owned a Traveler and a Tiger, and yes, they do leak in any sort of rain at all.
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
I haven’t had any leaks when flying in the rain in my tiger.
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,938
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
Nor in my Traveler or my previous AA-1A. If your Grumman leaks in flight, there is a serious problem with the canopy seal. The slipstream should keep water from gaining ingress in the canopy junction anyway while in flight. Now, when the plane is stationary, it's another thing. Pooling water may cause a few drips here and there. Most Grumman owners use a canopy cover when parked to keep these drips from getting in the cockpit.
SoCal RV Flyer
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2016
- Messages
- 3,037
- Display Name
Display name:
SoCal RV Flyer
Likewise in my RV-9A. The forward edge of the canopy serves as the mold for the windscreen fairing, so when you lay it up in fiberglass, a perfect overlapping fit is assured.
woodchucker
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
woodchucker
I have a checkout scheduled in our club Tiger tomorrow. Haven’t flown for 3 months so we’ll see how that goes.
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
Piece of cake
woodchucker
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
woodchucker
Just got my checkout today. Fun airplane. I found it a bit slippery on landing though, only four under my belt thus far. First go I decided to just do a go around because we were still quite high. Second go the nose came down a bit hard but the rest were okay. Floated the last landing quite a bit but it’s a non-factor if you have runway to play with.
Only did one takeoff from a stop and the plane was headed left right away. I did a bit of brake tapping to bring it back but my instructor basically said after to rely on the rudder.
Any specific tips on managing a takeoff from a full stop? Other than waiting for the rudder to have enough authority to respond?
Only did one takeoff from a stop and the plane was headed left right away. I did a bit of brake tapping to bring it back but my instructor basically said after to rely on the rudder.
Any specific tips on managing a takeoff from a full stop? Other than waiting for the rudder to have enough authority to respond?
mr_happyland
Pre-takeoff checklist
One thing you can do is start off pointed a little to the right. That way you will be more or less straight down the runway by the time you have rudder authority without needing to use the brakes.
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
From a full stop full power, as soon i I release the breaks I apply full right rudder, I have never had the need to tap the brakes on any take off, use a lot of rudder and it will straighten out.
Last edited:
If this isn't a short field takeoff (e.g. "line up and wait" from the tower), try being a little smoother with bringing in the power.
TheFB
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2017
- Messages
- 330
- Display Name
Display name:
TheFB
I don’t have that problem so I wonder if your nosewheel was straight when you applied full power. Right rudder has plenty of authority at low speeds; Tigers have big tails....
I haven’t touched my brakes except to get straight before I apply full power.
I haven’t touched my brakes except to get straight before I apply full power.
danhagan
En-Route
What others said, aim a little right or anticipate and you won't need brakes. Owner before me was going through pads at every annual (they are only $12 total) ... I replaced and was on the same set on year 10.
They're faster than the Cessnas, so abeam the numbers use 1500 and not 1700 RPM, slow to white arc flaps and you generally won't even have to trim much at all. Practice the site picture. I generally was 90 downwind, 80 base and 70 short final unless doing power off 180's.
If in MPH, Tigers rotate and stall EXACTLY at the same number (on mine it was 60 MPH)
Last edited:
woodchucker
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
woodchucker
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
1) It sounds like you were off speed on your landings. It's much more important in a Tiger than a Cessna or Cherokee. 70 knots on short final, unless you are on a short field and use 65, 500 fpm nose down attitude, flatten out and run out of elevator while applying just a touch of back pressure. It's pretty fool proof.
2) Point a little right, or make sure you start with rudder in right away. If you're doing a static take off, a single brake stab should keep you right on for the rudder to take over. I find that Tigers tend to need much less right rudder on take off and climb than even other 180 HP singles. Just a little to balance on the ground.
Actually, Tigers rotate under stall. You rotate at 55 knots and clean stall is 58 knots. That's why you get that characteristic dip into ground effect and then it just levitates off.
Low RPM numbers definitely are a thing. I generally need to bring back the RPMs to about 1400-1500 to configure for any instrument approach - especially because the first flap setting gives you a bunch of lift. I actually try to briefly establish about an 800 fpm descent before adding the first setting.
In the pattern, I usually fly around 2000 to get the speed down, then drop to 1600 at the numbers with the first flap setting, and then 1400 when going to base and final.
That's too slow, unless you are doing a short field.
danhagan
En-Route
Mine was in MPH, but your numbers look good if in knots. It's going to rotate and stall at the same speed. If you look at the POH, flaps don't really do much at all (1-2 knots) on your stall speed and are used to steepen the approach mainly.
In MPH, my approach was 70, knowing touchdown was happening at 60 with flaps at least half out (they will give better drag than no flaps). Sometimes on calm days I'd go to 65 on very short final if I wanted a very short landing.
Takeoff is reverse: Rotate (60 MPH no need to yank it off), level in ground effect accelerating to at least Vx before leaving ground effect ... I always accelerated to Vy as I'm in a hot climate and the Tiger CHT's would get high very fast. CFI I flew with once wanted to do the take off, and flew it like the 152 trying to rotate at 55 and climb at 55, he found the "mush area" quickly and understood why we accelerate in ground effect as rotate and Vx are not the same speed like the 152.
danhagan
En-Route
Mine was a 1976 with ASI in MPH. During the required transition training, was able to stare down the ASI in both take off and landing modes several times ... on my plane, both occurred every time at exactly 60 MPH. Used 70 on final and it worked great, would slow to 65 MPH on very short final if I wanted a REALLY short landing. My goal was 1.2 Vso on final if no gusts. I never had a problem floating a landing ....
woodchucker
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
woodchucker
Okay I think that might make sense on why I was consistently high turning final. I was using closer to 1800 rpm at the numbers. I did notice that first notch really ballooned the aircraft also. The checklist we were provided does specify 65 kts on short final though.
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,938
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
Landing: 75-80 mph works well for me on final approach. It's not significantly different for the Tiger. Short field in the AA-5 is 70 mph, and I think 73 mph for the AA-5B. All from the POH, and these speeds work well. If you add 5 mph for gustss, and 5 mph for the wife, 5 mph for safety, and 5 mph for good luck, you will become a runway overrun statistic. Fly by the POH. The AA-5X series handles crosswinds well. I fly the pattern at 90 kt (105 mph), 2100 rpm, toss out flaps just before base and reduce throttle to 1800 rpm and retrim to descend at about 500 fpm, then roll out on final, pull throttle back and trim to 75-80 mph on final. Your numbers will be slightly different for the AA-5B. Haven't flown one in a while. But you get the gist.
Takeoff: Unlike Cessnas, Grummans won't fly themselves off the runway. A light pull at 55-60 mph in the AA-5 will rotate and break it free of the ground, and as others have mentioned, it will accelerate in ground effect before climbing at Vx or Vy. If you over-rotate, it will take a lot longer to reach Vx or Vy and start climbing. Grummans have good rudder authority, so if you anticipate P-factor on initial takeoff roll, you can minimize use of brakes to maintain heading. The rudder comes alive at about 20 mph, and I haven't needed braking to maintain heading in any crosswind that's flyable.
Takeoff: Unlike Cessnas, Grummans won't fly themselves off the runway. A light pull at 55-60 mph in the AA-5 will rotate and break it free of the ground, and as others have mentioned, it will accelerate in ground effect before climbing at Vx or Vy. If you over-rotate, it will take a lot longer to reach Vx or Vy and start climbing. Grummans have good rudder authority, so if you anticipate P-factor on initial takeoff roll, you can minimize use of brakes to maintain heading. The rudder comes alive at about 20 mph, and I haven't needed braking to maintain heading in any crosswind that's flyable.
Doggtyred
En-Route
This.. All of this... I have about 75 hours in rental Tigers and Cheetahs.. Almost as fast as an Arrow II on less horsepower, with gear hanging out in the breeze. Great visibility. Flies like a champ. Did several cross countries with a wing leveler. One of the very few certificated/factory built planes I'd consider owning.
Speed management is key on approach and landing. 5 extra knots and you might end up going around. Plan ahead.
But.. easy to load. Loved to fly it.. and doing a max performance takeoff in it was quite an experience as well..
steingar
Taxi to Parking
For the price of an average Tiger you could get an E model Mooney and go a crapload faster.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
I've seen ones that say 65-70. 70 is where you go if you want to grease it and handle a crosswind well. 65 is where you go if your field is short and you don't mind a firmer, though still safe landing.
You can fairly easily fly a Tiger off with just trim. Also, 55 mph isn't going to get you anywhere but into a stall horn and maybe settling back down. 55 knots, however, will let you get up nicely.
Also, with all this talk about ground effect, that doesn't mean push the nose down into a soft field. That will slow your climb. Just let it fly up and kinda levitate. The airplane naturally wants to get to 90 anyway, just help it along.
Likely with quite a bit less useful load (which is kinda sad), crap avionics and who knows what history. Not to mention having to Johnson Bar the gear every time and have a much older airplane.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Guess again Chuckles. Most short body Mooneys will easily lift 1000 pounds. I've bladders in mine, so I can only lift 960. The prices on the Tigers I've seen would get a Mooney E with roughly the same avionics as are in the Tigers themselves. Those same prices get a C with every bell and whistle you can imagine, and it would still handily outrun your Tiger. I'll race you in my C, which is a pokey example of the breed,and I'll still leave you in the dust.
Moreover, the older Mooneys have the Johnson bar gear and hydraulic flaps, which are stone simple and easily maintained. Sorry, a short body Mooney is the biggest bang for your buck in GA. Nothing will outrun one for the price outside of experimentals, and even then it isn't easy. Tigers have been overpriced for the last 15 years, I'll never know why. I guess folks really get into that whole canopy open thing. Whatever.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
The Mooney Space folks suggest 914 or less for an E, with many getting closer to 850. The Cs actually tend to have higher ULs. Also, you end up with that tiny rear seat, while I've had a 6'5" guy sit in the back of my plane and be comfortable.
I'm a huge Mooney fan, but you're also talking about significantly older aircraft when you are talking about E and C models.
As for outrunning my Tiger with a C - I doubt it. The max structural cruising on the C is 130 knots, which is 5 knots under what I do when I'm just cruising around. I can easily throttle to 140-145. My mechanic has a Tiger that will run with an M20J, though that is extensively modified.
Also, the reason people like Tigers goes beyond their speed and simplicity. Compared to my Tiger, your M20C handles like a dump truck.
BrianNC
En-Route
I don't really have a dog in this fight but I just happened to be reading a review of the M20C a few weeks ago from the Mooney Owners website so I thought it was relevant to the discussion. Here is the TAS figures from a NSEW run and then averaged. 143.5 KTS at 7k, and 146.75 KTS at 4k.
http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20C Evaluation/M20C_Evaluation_Report.html
woodchucker
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
woodchucker
This thread is about Tigers? Not a performance comparison between Tigers and other aircraft.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Ohh, and there’s more. I just found out tonight that those Tigers have fixed prop! That’s the only reason one would could keep up with a Mooney in cruise. Factor in the climb and forget it. With a speed prop there is no way a Tiger can climb like a Mooney. Can’t even come close. And I doubt the Tiger has the Mooney’s service ceiling. The Tiger isn’t even a complex aircraft. Yet they sell for the price of one.
Oh, and to the guy talking about maneuvering speed (of which I can’t even recall a mention in the POH, though I could be wrong) my Mooney will cruise in the yellow at 75% power. Try that in your Tiger. And we Mooney drivers don’t really sweat the turbulence. Mooneys are stout. Last year a guy crashed one into a house. He and his family walked out with bruises. Try that with your Tiger.
We Mooney pilots don’t need parachutes because if you crash under control you’re encased by a steel roll cage. The Mooney will take care if it’s occupants. Beats a damn canopy hands down.
The only thing a Tiger has over a short body Mooney is they’re 10 years younger. I just don’t see that big a difference in an airplane that’s 40 years old vs one that’s 50.
Oh, and to the guy talking about maneuvering speed (of which I can’t even recall a mention in the POH, though I could be wrong) my Mooney will cruise in the yellow at 75% power. Try that in your Tiger. And we Mooney drivers don’t really sweat the turbulence. Mooneys are stout. Last year a guy crashed one into a house. He and his family walked out with bruises. Try that with your Tiger.
We Mooney pilots don’t need parachutes because if you crash under control you’re encased by a steel roll cage. The Mooney will take care if it’s occupants. Beats a damn canopy hands down.
The only thing a Tiger has over a short body Mooney is they’re 10 years younger. I just don’t see that big a difference in an airplane that’s 40 years old vs one that’s 50.