Grumman Tiger seat to canopy height

Simon Gibson

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
10
Location
Chattanooga
Display Name

Display name:
bigtallguy75
Hi everyone,

I’m looking to buy a four seat plane to haul the family around and am leaning towards either a Tiger or a Cherokee 180. I’m 6’5” and I’ve seen mixed answers about whether or not I’ll even fit in a Tiger.

Do any of you know the actual distance from the seat to canopy? I’m 39” tall sitting down.

I know there are other planes with more room, but the budget is $40-50k so I’m a bit limited.

Thanks.
 
I am 6' 3 1/2" and fit ok. I don't know my sitting height. I do lean to the right and duck my head a little to close the canopy. I fly with the seat all the way back, and that is just right for me.

If no one else chimes in with an answer to your original question, I will try to remember to measure next time I visit the hangar.
 
Four seat to haul the family....How many in the family, what size are they, if kids, how long before you outgrow that 4 seater which really doesn't work for 4 adults.
 
We have 2 young kids, 3 year old and 9 month old. They weigh about 50 pounds together right now. I imagine as they get bigger we’ll need more useful load, but that’s years away. Hopefully by then I can swing for something bigger, or leave the kids at home to fend for themselves...
 
You will probably fit just fine but you're going to smack yourself in the back of the head with it every time you close it. But once it's closed you should fit no problem
 
Did you look at Mooney? The founder and designer was around your height.

Good luck,

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
I looked at some Mooney’s, but it seemed harder to find a nice one in my price range. There seems to be a lot of Cherokee 180s and Tigers that come close, so I’ve focused on those for now.

Thanks for the help so far.
 
I'm 6' 2" and have a lot of time in them. It seemed I had more than a couple inches clearance. I couldn't lean my head to the side though without making contact. When you get the 'measurement' keep in mind it may be straight up from the middle of the seat. I'd try to find someone with one to let you try it on for size. Where are you? Someone around here is likely to know someone who has one near you.
 
Measured mine, furthest back on the sear cushion to top 37”, that is non compressed with no one sitting in it. Better sit in one before pulling the trigger.
 
Sounds like it might be close. Thanks for measuring!

I’m in Chattanooga.
 
Have you tried on a Cherokee for fit? I'm 6'2" and it barely fits me. Headroom isn't the issue, but the relationship between the seat and the yoke is. I can barely get my knee out of the way to steer left.
 
I haven’t tried sitting in either yet, but from what I’ve read it didn’t seem to be a problem with tall guys in the Cherokee. Looks like I have at least two planes to try on...
 
I’m 6’2” w 34” inseam....never found headroom lacking even when I used David Clark’s....seat can go back far enough that I can’t reach the pedals.
 
I'm 6'5" and do not fit in Tigers or Cheetahs.

If I remove all the seat padding and sit on the plastic, I can just barely fit without a headset.

34" inseam.

In contrast, I have no issues with headroom in PA28's or C172s.
 
It really depends on where on your body your height is located. If it's in your torso as it seems to be, you might have an issue.

I think I need about 40" sitting (not accounting for any headset clearance). AA5's have about 2" or 3" less than I need, bare minimum.

I can tell you for sure it's not anywhere close to 46" and there's no way to articulate the seat vertically as it sits on top of the wing spar. You might gain an inch with thin seat padding, but that's it.
 
I haven’t tried sitting in either yet, but from what I’ve read it didn’t seem to be a problem with tall guys in the Cherokee. Looks like I have at least two planes to try on...
I'm 6'3" and never had a problem fitting in a Cherokee. The real problem for you there might be a lack of leg room in the back. I regularly fly a 140 and I'm pretty sure the 180's have the same cabin dimensions. With the front seat all or most of the way back there is almost no leg room even for a little kid. I think Warriors and Archers have more room in the back so you may want to look into those instead.
 
I regularly fly a 140 and I'm pretty sure the 180's have the same cabin dimensions.
No ... the Cherokee 180, even with the pre-1973 short fuselage and cabin, has more rear-seat room than any Cherokee 140.

Screen Shot 2018-05-29 at 8.06.54 AM.png

The Cherokee 140 of 1964 was originally intended as a stripped down, two-seat trainer version with no rear seat. The rear cabin bulkhead was moved forward and the baggage door eliminated. The shelf above the spar carrythrough became a large baggage area. After a year or so Piper started to offer a "2+2 Family Cruiser" option package for the 140, with snap-in rear seats.

The photos above are from 1965; a -140 on the left and a -180 on the right. The two young ladies in the left photo are in the snap-in seats in what was the baggage area of a Cherokee 140. Notice the backs of their chairs are right up against the rear bulkhead; while Grandma in the right-hand photo has a high-backed bench seat with a large baggage area behind it. Starting in 1969 an optional molded rear bulkhead was offered for the 140, with a hat shelf and tiny baggage area behind the snap-in seats.

It gets confusing, because from 1961 through 1967 there was also a "Cherokee 150" -- same engine and exterior dimensions as the 140, but with the same full four-seat interior, baggage compartment and baggage door as the Cherokee 180 (1962).

Early Cherokee 180s (and the old -150s and -160s) are tight on rear-seat legroom, but not as bad as a -140. Starting in 1973 the Cherokee 180 had the lengthened fuselage with several welcome inches added to the rear-seat legroom.
 
Last edited:
Looking at the diagram from the POH I think it’s tight, but it also looks like the seat reclines a bit so maybe that will buy me a few inches.

I’m taking lessons at Collegedale right now, hopefully have that done in the next few months if the weather cooperates.
 
Looking at the diagram from the POH I think it’s tight, but it also looks like the seat reclines a bit so maybe that will buy me a few inches.

I’m taking lessons at Collegedale right now, hopefully have that done in the next few months if the weather cooperates.
Cool! Good luck and have fun!
 
Last edited:
No ... the Cherokee 180, even with the pre-1973 short fuselage and cabin, has more rear-seat room than any Cherokee 140.

View attachment 63499

The Cherokee 140 of 1964 was originally intended as a stripped down, two-seat trainer version with no rear seat. The rear cabin bulkhead was moved forward and the baggage door eliminated. The shelf above the spar carrythrough became a large baggage area. After a year or so Piper started to offer a "2+2 Family Cruiser" option package for the 140, with snap-in rear seats.

The photos above are from 1965; a -140 on the left and a -180 on the right. The two young ladies in the left photo are in the snap-in seats in what was the baggage area of a Cherokee 140. Notice the backs of their chairs are right up against the rear bulkhead; while Grandma in the right-hand photo has a high-backed bench seat with a large baggage area behind it. Starting in 1969 an optional molded rear bulkhead was offered for the 140, with a hat shelf and tiny baggage area behind the snap-in seats.

It gets confusing, because from 1961 through 1967 there was also a "Cherokee 150" -- same engine and exterior dimensions as the 140, but with the same full four-seat interior, baggage compartment and baggage door as the Cherokee 180 (1962).

Early Cherokee 180s (and the old -150s and -160s) are tight on rear-seat legroom, but not as bad as a -140. Starting in 1973 the Cherokee 180 had the lengthened fuselage with several welcome inches added to the rear-seat legroom.
Interesting. I had been led to believe that there was no difference in interior dimensions on the early birds like mine.
 
Interesting. I had been led to believe that there was no difference in interior dimensions on the early birds like mine.
It's a common misunderstanding. The history of the Cherokee line is convoluted.

The first Cherokee to be certified was the PA-28-160 (1961), with full-sized permanent bench seat in back, plus baggage area and baggage door. Externally it was identical to your -140. A few months later the PA-28-150 was certified, identical to the -160 with slightly less performance and useful load, but able to use cheaper 80-octane fuel. At the end of 1962 came the restyled "Cherokee B" line, including the -150, -160 and the new PA-28-180, and offering wheel fairings and an alternator for the first time.

Cherokee B 1964.jpeg

A year later the PA-28-235 was introduced. The interiors of the -150, -160, -180 and -235 were all identical to each other. In fact, the engineering prototype airframes of the -160, -180, and -235 were all the same airplane, N2800W, modified over and over again.

Meanwhile, Piper desperately needed a trainer to equip its dealer and flight school network. Cessna was fast building a loyal customer base with its loss-leader 150, which kinda looked like its larger corporate siblings. But Piper's only new two-seat trainer in 1961-63 was the high-wing, tube-and-fabric Colt, derived from the old Tri-Pacer, and which looked nothing like Piper's more profitable current models.

Colt 1963.jpeg

They were working on a nifty little low-wing, two-seat trainer, the PA-29 Papoose, but its new composite airframe structure was not ready for prime time -- or even direct sunlight, as it turned out. The PA-29 project was abandoned, leaving Piper still without a "modern" trainer.

In 1964 as a stopgap move Piper took the Cherokee 150, removed the back seat, moved the aft cabin bulkhead forward one station (making the baggage door unnecessary), de-rated the engine to 140 hp (2450 rpm), lowered the gross weight to 1950 lb, and called it the PA-28-140 Cherokee 140. To compete with the 100 hp Cessna 150's operating economy, Piper quoted a 50% "instructional cruise" power setting.

Cherokee 140 1964.jpeg

A year later, Piper pencil-whipped the 140's power and weight specs to equal the Cherokee 150 (150 hp at 2700 rpm, 2150 lb gross weight), and offered the "2+2 Family Cruiser" package.

Cherokee 140 1965.jpeg

Meanwhile, the "Cherokee C" came out in mid 1964, encompassing the PA-28-150, -160 and -180. This was mainly a cosmetic change, with the new 235-inspired fiberglass cowl and a slightly larger instrument panel; while the Cherokee 140 kept the original panel and metal cowl.

Screen Shot 2018-05-29 at 4.05.24 PM.png

By 1967 the PA-28-140 was far outselling the -150 and -160. The -140 had a little less cabin room in back and a little less style, but identical performance to the -150, at 77% of the -150's purchase price. So the -150 and -160 were discontinued.
 
Interesting. I had been led to believe that there was no difference in interior dimensions on the early birds like mine.

There is no difference in back seat room or fuse length between early Cherokees. The (rear seat) stations between the early -180 and -140's are identical and driven by the spar carry through location.

Yes, the baggage area and baggage door were deleted (on the 140), if you're counting that as interior room.

The fuse stretch came iirc 1973 with the Challenger and Warrior.
 
There is no difference in back seat room or fuse length between early Cherokees. The (rear seat) stations between the early -180 and -140's are identical and driven by the spar carry through location.
Yes; but the 140's rear seats are an add-on on top of what is finished as a cargo load floor over the spar carry-through. This leaves slightly less room than does the permanent rear bench seat in the short-body -150/-160/-180/-235. The difference is not great, but is evident in the photos in Post #21 above. I'd sure rather spend an hour riding in the back of a Cherokee B 150/160/180 than in a Cherokee 140's jump seats.

The fuse stretch came iirc 1973 with the Challenger and Warrior.
1972 for the Cherokee Arrow II; 1973 for the PA-28-180 Cherokee Challenger and PA-28-235 Cherokee Charger (names changed in 1974 to Cherokee Archer and Cherokee Pathfinder, respectively).

The Cherokee Warrior debuted as a 1974 model and had the stretched cabin from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Looking at the diagram from the POH I think it’s tight, but it also looks like the seat reclines a bit so maybe that will buy me a few inches.

I’m taking lessons at Collegedale right now, hopefully have that done in the next few months if the weather cooperates.

There's a slight angle built in to the seat back, but the recline position is fixed. Otherwise, reclining the seat back further would buy an inch or two.

I hope you fit. Wish I did.
 
Also consider flying in a swimsuit since it's a grumman and you're going to be wet all the time. That means a thinner fabric between you and the seat saving a touch more room.
 
BrYan, better explain this is an old longstanding joke here lest someone take you seriously....would anyone?

The OP is a new member, not up to speed on AA OWTs.
 
BrYan, better explain this is an old longstanding joke here lest someone take you seriously....would anyone?

The OP is a new member, not up to speed on AA OWTs.


Oh yeah...
Here on POA when you say "I am considering a Grumman" someone will come along and say:
"But in the rain you will get wet when entering and exiting."
Followed by: "What you really need is a bonanza"

I am a grumman driver and I love my plane.
I've switched over to a wetsuit though. Keeps me warm and dry.
 
To the OP: Contact Zaitcev on this message board. He was interested in a Tiger and I left him check out the dimensions, which he said would not work .... I believe he is 6'4". My CFI was 6'2" or 6'3" and hit his head closing the canopy.
 
Oh yeah...
Here on POA when you say "I am considering a Grumman" someone will come along and say:
"But in the rain you will get wet when entering and exiting."
Followed by: "What you really need is a bonanza"
......because it never rains on Bonanza drivers....
....and they always have cross country tailwinds, and winds are always right down the runway on landing and TO.
 
Back
Top