Is it just me or...

[EdFred]

...are Grumman owners eerily similar to Mac(intosh) owners?

To paraphrase Chris (Iceman):
I spend about 1/5 the amount of time dealing with whether I can fly into an airport or not than you Grumman people spend defending/talking up your plane.

**removes gloves**

 

[Anthony]

...are Grumman owners eerily similar to Mac(intosh) owners?

To paraphrase Chris (Iceman):
I spend about 1/5 the amount of time dealing with whether I can fly into an airport or not than you Grumman people spend defending/talking up your plane.

**removes gloves**

HA! Yes! Its fun dispelling the Grumman myths, most of which are based on limited fact. Just a few of the more common myths:

1. Grummans require Class B length runways.

2. Grummans are hard to maintain and get parts for.

3. Grummans are hard to land.

4. Grummans are hard to taxi due to the castoring nosewheel.

5. You get wet when it rains due to the canopy. (Golf umbrellas, last I checked have been invented. How often due you start or end a flight int he rain?)

6. Grummans stall violently, without notice, and enter an uncontrollable spin for no reason whatsoever.

 

[gkainz]

"If it was really built by Grumman, where's the tail hook."

 

[poadeleted3]

HA! Yes! Its fun dispelling the Grumman myths, most of which are based on limited fact. Just a few of the more common myths:

1. Grummans require Class B length runways.

2. Grummans are hard to maintain and get parts for.

3. Grummans are hard to land.

4. Grummans are hard to taxi due to the castoring nosewheel.

5. You get wet when it rains due to the canopy. (Golf umbrellas, last I checked have been invented. How often due you start or end a flight int he rain?)

6. Grummans stall violently, without notice, and enter an uncontrollable spin for no reason whatsoever.

It is interesting, because most of those really are untrue.

1) Grummans do require a bit more runway but, like Sundowners/Musketeers with wide comfy cabins and slow speed, that is the tradeoff for outstanding cruise performance. 2500 is hardly B class and, despite my conversations to the contrary, isn't all that much of a hardship. Heck, a couple of the places I rent from won't let me take a Skyhawk into strips shorter than that without a special checkout.

2) Don't know about #2. I just show up and rent the plane

3) Grummans are the easiest plane to land yet in my oh so extensive aviation experience So far I've flown Warriors, Cherokee 180s, Skyhawks, Skylanes, C150s & C152s, and Arrows, and none of them land anywhere near as easily as the Tiger.

4) The castoring nosewheel makes the Tiger the easiest to handle plane on the ground of any I've flown yet (see prior paragraph for extensive aviation resume)

5) I've flown a number of times in the rain. Cessna wins this one hands down, it's just nice to have some shelter when it's dumping.

6) The Grumman stall is every bit as benign as the Cherokee's, IMHO, and easier to deal with than the Cessna's.

 

[Anthony]

"If it was really built by Grumman, where's the tail hook."

If it really was a Gulfstream where's the GE turbofan?

 

[gkainz]

Anthony, I think you need to mock up some kind of lightweight tail hook for the Tiger, just to make it feel more at home in the Grumman stable!

 

[Anthony]

Anthony, I think you need to mock up some kind of lightweight tail hook for the Tiger, just to make it feel more at home in the Grumman stable!

I'll start working on the STC and get back to you in 10 - 20 years.

 

[EdFred]

I'll start working on the STC and get back to you in 10 - 20 years.

It doesn't need to be permanently attached. Some HT cable and a piece of bent plate should do the trick.

 

[ScottM]

...are Grumman owners eerily similar to Mac(intosh) owners?

To paraphrase Chris (Iceman):
I spend about 1/5 the amount of time dealing with whether I can fly into an airport or not than you Grumman people spend defending/talking up your plane.

**removes gloves**

I have noticed this same phenom with Ercoupes owners and I expect it to get worse with the latest cover photo form AOPA.

 

[SCCutler]

I have never flown an AA5, but I dearly loved the AA1 I used to fly around in. Seemed to me to be the most airplane in its class, and a heckuva lot of fun.

 

[poadeleted20]

Grummans are hard to land -- if you don't fly them at the proper airspeed, which is slower than most non-Grumman pilots think, and they are less forgiving of landing off-speed (slow or fast) than the typical C/P/B plane. They pay off the skilled pilot with a bunch of extra speed and delightful handling.

 

[jesse]

Never flown one, would love to.

And btw, I want to buy a Powerbook

 

[ScottM]

Never flown one, would love to.

And btw, I want to buy a Powerbook

Powerbook very cool, bought one for my niece's HS grad. I am so envious!!

Also got my mom a MAc and I covet that as well. I am in a company that mandates PCs Hate 'em

 

[tonycondon]

I have noticed this same phenom with Ercoupes owners and I expect it to get worse with the latest cover photo form AOPA.

the thing most people dont get about the ercoupe is how simple it is. they say "i want a plane with more control (rudder pedals)" well it gives you all the rudder you need, even in steep banks.
Must be scared of a plane that tries to not let you kill yourself. Plus it was the first JATO plane in the US and was tested using the merry go round takeoff technique.
Hardest part of my checkout in it was taxiing to the runway.

-1.5 hour ercoupe expert

 

[jesse]

-1.5 hour ercoupe expert

You d*** kids think you know everything!

 

[NC Pilot]

...are Grumman owners eerily similar to Mac(intosh) owners?

To paraphrase Chris (Iceman):
I spend about 1/5 the amount of time dealing with whether I can fly into an airport or not than you Grumman people spend defending/talking up your plane.

**removes gloves**

Could be because they are designed by folks that put a lot of thought into the design and tried to optimize the machine for a specific purpose. They can work better than other machines, especially when used by ones that know how to get the most out of them.

 

[SkykingC310]

Ok, well I just erased everything that I was going to post because after reading it, I realized I wasn't being very nice to Grumman owners. I don't really have anything nice to say so I just won't say anything at all.

 

[JasonCT]

lol Did I start all this with my simple request for people to share their Grumman thoughts

~Jay

 

[EdFred]

lol Did I start all this with my simple request for people to share their Grumman thoughts

~Jay

Nah, Anthony and I have been going at each other for the past year, or maybe even longer on this. Really, if the Grumman would reduce its takeoff roll a bit I would have considered it. Some of the first planes I inquired about were the Yankees. But mine came along, and I bought it.
I bought my plane with the "need" to land on a 1700' grass strip at 1400' MSL and land there in the summer months. Most Grumman (Tiger) owners would shy away from that. Other than that, I'd consider one. Except now I have so much in mine, that I can't justify getting rid of it for a few extra knots.

 

[AirBaker]

...are Grumman owners eerily similar to Mac(intosh) owners?

Thats Great...

 

[Tom-D]

I have found many old wives tales are told about rag/tube/wooden aircraft also.

You must have a hangar

You must recover every 10 years.

All the tubes rust out.

 

[infotango]

the thing most people dont get about the ercoupe is how simple it is. they say "i want a plane with more control (rudder pedals)" well it gives you all the rudder you need, even in steep banks.
Must be scared of a plane that tries to not let you kill yourself. Plus it was the first JATO plane in the US and was tested using the merry go round takeoff technique.
Hardest part of my checkout in it was taxiing to the runway.

-1.5 hour ercoupe expert

My first flight in a GA airplane was in a beautifully restored Ercoupe.....
Anybody care to guess when this happened? Took off NORDO from KCGS, and flew along the beltway, right up to the DCA Bravo to the SFC line. Clear day, you could see the white house and downtown DC, did a few turns around the Mormon Temple too.
The plane was pretty simple to fly, I had no trouble, even with 0 hours.


(edit, I noticed google spellchecker changed whitehouse to wh*re house lol)

 

[Anthony]

I bought my plane with the "need" to land on a 1700' grass strip at 1400' MSL and land there in the summer months. Most Grumman (Tiger) owners would shy away from that.

Ed is right. I would hope Tiger owners would stay away from that scenario. I know I would. Now attach the JATO system from the Ercoupe and I might do it. I just would hope the tailhook doesn't come down at the wrong time.

 

[EdFred]

Ed is right. I would hope Tiger owners would stay away from that scenario. I know I would. Now attach the JATO system from the Ercoupe and I might do it. I just would hope the tailhook doesn't come down at the wrong time.

Maybe we could install a catapult system for ya?

 

[RogerT]

Grummans are hard to land -- if you don't fly them at the proper airspeed, which is slower than most non-Grumman pilots think, and they are less forgiving of landing off-speed (slow or fast) than the typical C/P/B plane. They pay off the skilled pilot with a bunch of extra speed and delightful handling.

I had a Tiger for a little over 4 yrs and I thought it was one of
the easiest planes I'd ever flown to land. Very controllable thru the
flare. I've owned C/P/B and the Tiger was way more fun. While it's indeed
true that the best, most predictable landing comes from the right speed
over the fence for the weight .. you could salvage a bad approach
pretty easily.

RT

 

[gkainz]

I have found many old wives tales are told about rag/tube/wooden aircraft also.

You must have a hangar...

Tom,
I've been lusting after a Bellanca Viking for some time now, and the "must hangar" thread is prominent in all the Viking owners discussions. Your thoughts on that?

 

[poadeleted20]

.. you could salvage a bad approach pretty easily.

The Navy used to have a safety poster showing the bits and pieces of what once had been a Douglas (later McDonnell, now Boeing ) A-4 Skyhawk laid out in their appropriate relative locations on a hangar floor. The caption was: "There's no approach that can't be salvaged!"

 

[Tom-D]

Tom,
I've been lusting after a Bellanca Viking for some time now, and the "must hangar" thread is prominent in all the Viking owners discussions. Your thoughts on that?

Hangar storage is always preferable for any aircraft, But I think that a Bellanca Wooden wing will withstand weather OK outside, as long as the aircraft is flown regularly, washed, waxed, and attended.

Nicks, chips and other dings will require attention more quickly than if stored inside, But I would not allow the lack of hangar stop me from buying a viking.