Need advice on partnership in Grumman Tiger

Archammer

Archammer

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
1,308
Location
Austin, Tx
Display Name
Display name:
FlyingSchmidt
Hello PoA bretheren and bretheren-ettes:confused:

So I am getting serious now, with the idea of going into a 1/3 buy of a Grumman Tiger and want to get some help from all y'all, since 99% of you have more time and expertise than I do when it comes to airplane partnerships and specific aircraft knowledge. I asked about a Grumman comparison a while back, and got some great info. I'd like to expand on that.

Some quick info for you:

We have not purchased the aircraft yet. This would be my first aircraft as an owner/fract owner. I have low total time, and flight experience in only a few aircraft, a Grumman not being on that short list.
I know that my mission is recreational flying, and short local trips with my wife on the weekends. There would be very little, if any, business travel. I don't have a lot of disposable income, but the numbers are showing that this is within my budget. I know that this is the type of plane for my mission.

My 2 potential partners have great experience and total time, and one is a close friend and business associate. Both of them have owned/operated Grumman Tigers in the past, and are interested in helping me learn and get into having my own aircraft. My friend has been very helpful so far, in teaching me about the process, etc., etc.

I'd be curious to know your specific thoughts of a Grumman Tiger as a "1st airplane" overall. Low maintenance? Insurance rates? Good fun? Any pitfalls or warnings?

Also, I'd like to know about fractional ownership from personal experience. I have the basic pros and cons, but I want to know any "insider info" that you might offer, good and bad.

As some of you know, I'm a big proponent of research and pre-planning, so that's why I'm reaching out here, because I am totally in the dark with this process, and I want to make sure that I make educated, and informed decisions.

You're the best... in advance :)
 
Last edited:
More knowledgeable people will come long but I've heard it's a great 1st plane with low general maintenance costs and a good cruise speed.
 
CapNRon would be a great person to ask...as he is a Grumman owner
 
Excellent first choice in aircraft. It's got good speed, visibility, support, and light controls. It'll make you spoiled if you go fly a Cessna. Make sure the nose gear support and mechanicals are checked very well by a Grumman expert before purchase.

I have little history with partnerships, but I would say if everyone is flexible, and wants to make it work, it'll work. If you have one person who doesn't want it to work, it'll never work right.
 
Archammer said:
Hello PoA bretheren and bretheren-ettes:confused:

So I am getting serious now, with the idea of going into a 1/3 buy of a Grumman Tiger and want to get some help from all y'all, since 99% of you have more time and expertise than I do when it comes to airplane partnerships and specific aircraft knowledge. I asked about a Grumman comparison a while back, and got some great info. I'd like to expand on that.

Some quick info for you:

We have not purchased the aircraft yet. This would be my first aircraft as an owner/fract owner. I have low total time, and flight experience in only a few aircraft, a Grumman not being on that short list.
I know that my mission is recreational flying, and short local trips with my wife on the weekends. There would be very little, if any, business travel. I don't have a lot of disposable income, but the numbers are showing that this is within my budget. I know that this is the type of plane for my mission.

My 2 potential partners have great experience and total time, and one is a close friend and business associate. Both of them have owned/operated Grumman Tigers in the past, and are interested in helping me learn and get into having my own aircraft. My friend has been very helpful so far, in teaching me about the process, etc., etc.

I'd be curious to know your specific thoughts of a Grumman Tiger as a "1st airplane" overall. Low maintenance? Insurance rates? Good fun? Any pitfalls or warnings?

Also, I'd like to know about fractional ownership from personal experience. I have the basic pros and cons, but I want to know any "insider info" that you might offer, good and bad.

As some of you know, I'm a big proponent of research and pre-planning, so that's why I'm reaching out here, because I am totally in the dark with this process, and I want to make sure that I make educated, and informed decisions.

You're the best... in advance :)
Click to expand...

"Fractional Ownership" is an FAA term that does not apply to what you are proposing. You are proposing a partnership.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-84.pdf
 
Last edited:
I'd own a tiger or a part of it any day. Great plane... over 100 hours in rentals and a couple long trips in one.. Love it.

Fixed gear, Fixed prop, No nosewheel steering linkages (castering nose wheel)... great vis.

its only downside is egress/entry in a rainstorm... something is getting wet.
 
Compared to other 180hp 4 seat 70s aircraft, are parts readily available?
 
I owned a Grumman cheetah and it was in a partnership (flight club).
I would recommend both, if the club is set up right it can be your least expensive way to fly. The Tiger is a good all around aircraft. Flies at a good speed, has more room in the cockpit then most, easy to maneuver on the ground (castering nose wheel) and light on the controls.
If you need advice on how to set up the flight club contact me off line and I'll give you info on how we did ours.
Tim
 
I rented one for awhile, much more fun to fly than the 172, but not more difficult. It's nice to be able to crack the canopy open a few inches in flight.
 
Don't listen to what everyone above said, The Tiger is a great plane! ;)
Tons of fun to fly, Simple, Fast and economical. It is very nimble. The only thing that might take some getting used too is that the plane has a free castoring nose wheel and steers on the ground by differential breaking which takes about 5 minutes to get comfortable with and one minute if you've ever done it in any other plane. The other thing is the sight picture out the front. Tigers have awesome viz and unlike a 172, mooney and even some pipers you sit very high and it almost looks as though the nose is pointed down in level flight. A fantastic plane!
 
Tiger is what I trained in and owned for the first two years! Awesome awesome airplane! Very simple to fly, good cruise speed, good useful load, simple cockpit! I liked the tiger better than the Archer I just sold. Very similar but the tiger was roomier and faster plus it was easier to grease a landing in the tiger. Bought it original and painted it, put new interior, and added 430 and a 496 and sold it for a profit :)! Love that plane!!

I
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    45.6 KB · Views: 76
Which model Tiger are you considering? An AG-5B was my first (and only) plane. I bought in with only 150 hours or so while finishing up my IFR in a rented 172 and there wasn't much of a learning curve, although like with any new plane you ought to have someone knowledgeable instruct you for a bit.

I'll just echo most of what the others have already said about the plane itself. Plus, a partnership with people who have owned planes before is a great way to start out with airplane ownership.

Make sure you can handle an extra $1000 every once in a while for unexpected items (not too often if it's a Tiger in good shape), and make sure you have a solid partnership agreement that fully explains the finances of operation AND OF HOW TO DISSOLVE THE PARTNERSHIP should someone want to leave, sell their share, die, etc.
 
AdamZ said:
Tons of fun to fly, Simple, Fast and economical. It is very nimble. The only thing that might take some getting used too is that the plane has a free castoring nose wheel and steers on the ground by differential breaking which takes about 5 minutes to get comfortable with and one minute if you've ever done it in any other plane. The other thing is the sight picture out the front. Tigers have awesome viz and unlike a 172, mooney and even some pipers you sit very high and it almost looks as though the nose is pointed down in level flight. A fantastic plane!
Click to expand...

Great information, and mentioning the castoring nosewheel; Should I assume that it will burn through brakes, and/or have more brake system problems because of that function?


Ruthless53 said:
Tiger is what I trained in and owned for the first two years! Awesome awesome airplane! Very simple to fly, good cruise speed, good useful load, simple cockpit! I liked the tiger better than the Archer I just sold. Very similar but the tiger was roomier and faster plus it was easier to grease a landing in the tiger. Bought it original and painted it, put new interior, and added 430 and a 496 and sold it for a profit :)! Love that plane!!

I
Click to expand...

Yours is beautiful!


dukeblue219 said:
Which model Tiger are you considering? An AG-5B was my first (and only) plane.

I'll just echo most of what the others have already said about the plane itself. Plus, a partnership with people who have owned planes before is a great way to start out with airplane ownership.

Make sure you can handle an extra $1000 every once in a while for unexpected items (not too often if it's a Tiger in good shape), and make sure you have a solid partnership agreement that fully explains the finances of operation AND OF HOW TO DISSOLVE THE PARTNERSHIP should someone want to leave, sell their share, die, etc.
Click to expand...

I would LOVE to find a 90 AG-5B, if not though, a mid 70's early 80's AA-5 is what we're looking at, somewhere in the $40-70k range. Great information on the partnership as well. Dissolution would have been something I may have overlooked, and having a "Grover" in my pocket instead of a "Benjamin" when it comes to airplanes. :)

0luke1 said:
I rented one for awhile, much more fun to fly than the 172, but not more difficult. It's nice to be able to crack the canopy open a few inches in flight.
Click to expand...

The sliding canopy and 2 side ingress/egress is my favorite function of that plane!

Ron Levy said:
For a lot more on Grummans, see:
Http://www,aya.org
Http://www.grumman.net
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info.

Doggtyred said:
Its only downside is egress/entry in a rainstorm... something is getting wet.
Click to expand...

Ahhh yes... My favorite part of that plane comes at a price... :) hehe


Awesome information everyone. Some gems in there!
 
Last edited:
I just purchased this tiger with two other partners and I couldn't be happier. Can't add anything more than what everyone else has said.
pe8umy8a.jpg
 
I love the damn pics of y'alls Tigers!! Gets me even more excited. Keep the plane porn a comin! :)

Also, if any of you Tiger owners are planning on coming to the AOPA Fly-in in San Marcos on the 26th, I would LOVE to talk to you, and have you tell me about your plane. We'll be in booth #34.

Hey AggieMike, I remember you posting a while back about looking at a Tiger, did you ever purchase one?

I'm also going to make a point to stop at the True Flight Booth, at Osh this year and pick their brains on how far along they are as well.
 
Last edited:
I like tigers, and a good partnership is a great way to own. But if you're not absolutely set on 4 seats, an RV-6(A) is about 30kts faster…on less fuel. They fly kind of similar, RV is better with it's stick and aerobatic, to boot. By the way, have you actually flown a Tiger? Flying one will answer many questions.
 
Archammer said:
Great information, and mentioning the castoring nosewheel; Should I assume that it will burn through brakes, and/or have more brake system problems because of that function?
Click to expand...
Only if you don't learn how to use them properly.
I would LOVE to find a 90 AG-5B, if not though, a mid 70's early 80's AA-5 is what we're looking at, somewhere in the $40-70k range.
Click to expand...
Not sure why anyone would want a 90's AG-5B if they could have a 90's AA-5B. All AGAC did with their design changes was detract from the original. The AG's are heavier, slower, run hotter, and have a more maintenance-intensive primer system along with the more expensive 28v alternator and 24v battery.
 
To each there own I guess..

When I recomend the Tiger I never feel the need to pump one model up while putting the other one down.. I think they are all great and you will be very happy with whichever model you choose.


1990 and above Tigers.

Typically lower total times and in better overall condition. At least 15 or more years newer.

Flat metal instrument panel. Much better looking and easier to add or remove instruments or avionics or reconfigure the panel.

Carbon fiber cowl. Already split in half so no need to remove the prop to get the cowl off. Carbon fiber so no cracking of the aluminum due to stress or vibration.

24 volt system although slightly more expensive if something breaks, it is a more modern system. Wire size can be smaller and lighter.

The primer system adds one electric push button and one electrically operated valve to the system, not my idea of anything to worry about. As a matter of fact the elimination of the manual plunger system with its associated orings might be a good thing.

Dual wingtip landing lights.. Very visible when you add a pulslight / wig,wag function.

Factory zinc chromate primed.

Even Though parts availability is very good across the board.. The factory will build new planes that are based on the newer Tigers not the older ones and therefore parts availability might be better in the years to come.

Good luck with your search..





Ron Levy said:
Only if you don't learn how to use them properly.
Not sure why anyone would want a 90's AG-5B if they could have a 90's AA-5B. All AGAC did with their design changes was detract from the original. The AG's are heavier, slower, run hotter, and have a more maintenance-intensive primer system along with the more expensive 28v alternator and 24v battery.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I've flown a couple of castoring nosewheel airplanes and contrary to what a lot of people think, they taxi pretty well with just the rudder. Don't automatically use ONLY the brakes, try the rudder. Reach out the window, you can feel the wind from the prop, even at taxi speeds. It's no big deal. Use the brakes only if you have to. Your friends will be IMPRESSED :D. Not saying you won't need the brakes now and then, but the models I have experience with work with the rudder pedal pretty well. Might need the brake turning with the wind when taxing. It's no big deal.

Now low wing vs high wing IS a pretty big deal. If you like the low wing and the seating comfort, sight picture, view etc, go for it.
 
coloradobluesky said:
I've flown a couple of castoring nosewheel airplanes and contrary to what a lot of people think, they taxi pretty well with just the rudder. Don't automatically use ONLY the brakes, try the rudder. Reach out the window, you can feel the wind from the prop, even at taxi speeds. It's no big deal. Use the brakes only if you have to. Your friends will be IMPRESSED :D. Not saying you won't need the brakes now and then, but the models I have experience with work with the rudder pedal pretty well. Might need the brake turning with the wind when taxing. It's no big deal.
Click to expand...
Most brake wear occurs when pilots taxi with too much power and drag the brakes to keep the speed down and when landing if the pilot chooses to sacrifice brake pads to make an early turnoff, come in way to hot and burn the brakes to avoid running off the end, or when making an actual short field landing on pavement. Applying brakes briefly when making a slow sharp turn is actually more detrimental to the tires than the brakes.

That said, if you regularly make long taxis with a brisk quartering rear crosswind you will wear the pads trying to stay on the pavement. Fortunately for most of us that rarely occurs and doesn't factor into average brake life.
 
Shane,

I'll be the first to admit that there isn't a tiger owner out there that would say no to getting the tiger for the first aircraft. It's a very easy to fly, fast (for its class), easy to maintain aircraft (plenty of parts). I'd only suggest being a little more careful on landings as you would a Cessna or piper counterpart only due to the nose wheel (fragile in comparison). A fair number of grummans that we're used for clubs and training have had nose collapses due to unwary or unknowing pilots (mine being one from the previous club history). Past that I would highly recommend owning one as a first plane, I did a lot of research and went with a Grumman myself.

Most others whom have had time in them would also agree that they are fun airplanes, most commenting more positively than negative.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    91.7 KB · Views: 33
I'm glad that you mentioned the 90 or newer versions for the reasons that you mentioned IFlyATiger. Looking through several things, it appears that is the smarter decision. I also like the idea of having new factory parts available if need be.

davidm767, that's great info about being gentle on the nose gear. Not having that strut and mechanism for the annual is a benefit, but comes at a cost.

I really appreciate the feedback about the brakes. Not having any flight experience in them, yet, it's good to know that rudder authority is quite effective at taxi speeds.


Shane
The Squawk Shoppe
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Well, here's another vote for the 70s version. The older version is lighter, and runs cooler as Ron mentioned.

The prop mod for getting rid of the yellow arc is the only change I would make to a AA5-B. The price is quite a bit lower as well.
 
Hi Shane,

Just to be clear. I would highly recommend any year Tiger. If you find a great 70's or a great 90's+ I would strongly consider either.

I know and like Ron also respect his knowledge so I didn't take it personally but needed to counter the negative comments made about the 90's series.


Archammer said:
I'm glad that you mentioned the 90 or newer versions for the reasons that you mentioned IFlyATiger. Looking through several things, it appears that is the smarter decision. I also like the idea of having new factory parts available if need be.

davidm767, that's great info about being gentle on the nose gear. Not having that strut and mechanism for the annual is a benefit, but comes at a cost.

I really appreciate the feedback about the brakes. Not having any flight experience in them, yet, it's good to know that rudder authority is quite effective at taxi speeds.


Shane
The Squawk Shoppe
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
I know zero about the Tiger, but I was in a 4-person partnership for several years and I found it to be an excellent way to get out of rentals.

It ALL depends on the partners, and the agreement. Make sure you have those bases covered to your satifaction, and go fly!
 
I owned a 79 Tiger for about 600 hours before selling and buying an A36 due to the family getting older (and heavier).

You've got one of the best Grumman experts less than a hour West of you -- David Fletcher with FletchAir (Grumman) Fleet Support. David did all of my annuals and has forgotten more about these planes than most will ever know.

I'd highly suggest taking any potential plane to him for an annual/prebuy before purchase. Even paying the ferry fuel to get it to him would likely save you a good bit of money sidestepping some problems that other people might not catch.

Other than that, my only advice is try to buy it with all the electronics you want already in it -- as you would with any plane.

As for flying it, the biggest gotcha will be hitting your approach speeds on landing. It's not hard, but an extra 5-7 knots will make the plane float down the runway further than a new owner would likely think. And that speed/float accounts for a several of the historical Tiger accidents. Just respect the speed and go-around if you're too fast and all is fine, even landing really short fields. In something like a Cessna or Piper, pulling the throttle nearly acts as a speedbrake; just not so in the Tiger -- the speed changes very slowly when you pull the throttle to idle in the pattern.

Other than than, there's no nasty tendencies of the airframe. It'll give you ample warning before a pretty non-eventful stall, really doesn't want to drop a wing or anything violent like you may expect from such a nimble airframe.

It's just a totally fun, efficient, great plane to fly so long as a 900-950# useful load fits your mission. If you need more than that, you'd be looking at a 182, Cherokee 6, Bonanza, etc...

While I totally love the A36, the Tiger has a very special place in my heart.
 
iflyatiger said:
Hi Shane,

Just to be clear. I would highly recommend any year Tiger. If you find a great 70's or a great 90's+ I would strongly consider either.

I know and like Ron also respect his knowledge so I didn't take it personally but needed to counter the negative comments made about the 90's series.
Click to expand...

I agree with both Ron and iFlyATiger.

I looked hard at both before buying mine. The Grumman experts I came across seem to slightly prefer the 70s models for the reasons stated -- but only slightly.

90s positives -- the panel typically looks better / cleaner. Lots of 90s models have a quality autopilot already installed (i.e. STEC 30). With STEC raising prices at a very rapid rate over the years, that can be a $15-17k bonus to figure into the equation. If you're planning on lots of longer cross-countries, a good AP is worth its weight in gold.

70s positives -- on average flies a few knots faster, little easier maintenance with the 14v system and primer system. Just be extra cautious with the 74-76 Tigers as they used a glue that was prone to causing delimitation. It was fixed in the 77-79 models. Of them all, the 78 and 79 are great with the biggest difference being the 78 has the very simple tractor-like gas caps while the 79 (the one I owned) has the leak-prone Cessna-like "killer caps" that need the o-rings replaced regularly to avoid unexpected water in the tanks. Not a big deal, but something to point out.

As with any plane, there are absolute gems and dogs from both vintage. I'd be much more interested in a quality maintenance history regardless of year than getting tunnel-vision on a particular age-range. It really doesn't make that much difference. There's some flight school abused 90s models that make a well cared-for 70s model the obvious choice. Likewise there's some 70s models that have lived out in the elements for 40 years that probably should be scrapped.

Then there are a few from both era where owners went truly nuts, sunk $50-100k+ in the planes (after purchase) and will never get $.25 on the dollar back when they sell. Once every blue moon, one of these come up and would be a great purchase. I've seen a few up-close at it's amazing how clean and beautiful these 40 year old planes can be. i.e. the engine compartment is cleaner than most kitchens, great avionics, flies fast and true, interiors that look at home in a Mercedes, etc. If one of those come on the market (there's probably not more than 10-15 out there), Vref it and add a little premium, and see what happens. You may just get lucky.
 
My 1976 AA5-B was my first plane and I later got my IFR ticket in it. No issue recommending it as a 1st airplane.
 
Archammer said:
I'd be curious to know your specific thoughts of a Grumman Tiger as a "1st airplane" overall. Low maintenance? Insurance rates? Good fun? Any pitfalls or warnings?
:)
Click to expand...

My first and only so far - don't have a desire to change AC unless I go to an RV-7 as I don't need 4 seats much longer. Maintenance has been pretty simple - most of my costs have been upgrades.

Archammer said:
Great information, and mentioning the castoring nosewheel; Should I assume that it will burn through brakes, and/or have more brake system problems because of that function?
The sliding canopy and 2 side ingress/egress is my favorite function of that plane!
Click to expand...

Once you get the hang of it, you'll learn to use prop wash at key times to help the turns. If you have a massive crosswind during taxi for takeoff, it's unavoidable. On the plus side, brake pads were $11 last time I changed mine 3 years ago and I still have an extra set in the hangar just in case.

Martymccasland said:
You've got one of the best Grumman experts less than a hour West of you -- David Fletcher with FletchAir (Grumman) Fleet Support. David did all of my annuals and has forgotten more about these planes than most will ever know.

I'd highly suggest taking any potential plane to him for an annual/prebuy before purchase. Even paying the ferry fuel to get it to him would likely save you a good bit of money sidestepping some problems that other people might not catch.
Click to expand...

My Tiger had to have an annual before purchase. Seller agreed to deliver to FletchAIR for annual. Ron Levy was the ferry pilot.

Martymccasland said:
As for flying it, the biggest gotcha will be hitting your approach speeds on landing. It's not hard, but an extra 5-7 knots will make the plane float down the runway further than a new owner would likely think. And that speed/float accounts for a several of the historical Tiger accidents. .
Click to expand...

One of the reports I read was that most Tiger accidents were in like the first 25 hours due to runway over-runs being too fast. I trained in Cessnas, then bought the Tiger. Not sure why, but it feels better in the flare especially in massive crosswinds. I've done 29G35 direct as my biggest crosswind ... Ron Levy set the record, but forgot what his XWind numbers were but they were absolutely rediculous.
 
Archammer said:
I'm glad that you mentioned the 90 or newer versions for the reasons that you mentioned IFlyATiger. Looking through several things, it appears that is the smarter decision. I also like the idea of having new factory parts available if need be.
Click to expand...
New parts are equally available for both AA and AG versions.
 
Ron Levy said:
New parts are equally available for both AA and AG versions.
Click to expand...

Awesome!

That's why I love it here. Thank all of you so very much for all your input, advice, and suggestions.

I knew very little about Grumman Tigers, and even less about ownership / partial ownership before I asked, and because of all of you, I feel much more confident with my newly acquired knowledge of both.

It's also nice to know, that A, I'm heading in the right direction to have an aircraft available to me within my budget, and B, that the Grumman Tiger still fits my mission across the board after getting all your information.

If any of you think of anything else, please don't hesitate to add to this thread, as if it doesn't help me, I'm sure that it will help someone else that comes along.

In addition to that, it looks like this is a GO decision, so we're going to start shopping. If y'all see anything that you believe might be "the one" for us, let me know so I can get it over to FletchAir, get my Aya.com membership and get her bought!

You guys are the best!
 
Last edited:
If it's the Tiger I see at Bergstrom all the time I know it's pretty and flies a lot. I bet you could do a lot worse.
 
You might post a message in the Grumman Gang, short and sweet, that you are looking to buy a Tiger in good condition.

There's always planes for sale not listed on Controller, Trade-A-Plane, etc... Could be a gem lurking out there belonging to someone losing a medical, getting tired of the escalating expenses, etc....

Also, might call Dave Fletcher and ask if he knows of any Tigers of sale. As many Grumman owners that he speaks with daily, he too may know of a Tiger for sale that you won't find online...
 
Martymccasland said:
As for flying it, the biggest gotcha will be hitting your approach speeds on landing. It's not hard, but an extra 5-7 knots will make the plane float down the runway further than a new owner would likely think. And that speed/float accounts for a several of the historical Tiger accidents. Just respect the speed and go-around if you're too fast and all is fine, even landing really short fields. In something like a Cessna or Piper, pulling the throttle nearly acts as a speedbrake; just not so in the Tiger -- the speed changes very slowly when you pull the throttle to idle in the pattern.
Click to expand...


I got ALOT more float from being a little fast in my Archer II than I did with the Tiger. It was a considerable difference. And as far as the nosewheel is concerned my dad basically taught me to treat every single landing as a soft field and hold the nose off the ground as long as you possibly can.
 
I owned 1/2 of an early 70's Grumman Traveler once upon a time. It was a fabulous plane. The extra 30 Hp in the Tiger will only make it better. With the laminar flow wing and short fuselage, these planes can stabilize in a spin pretty quickly, so I did some additional spin recovery training when I bought my share. That added confidence that I could effectively recover from an incipient spin before it stabilized. That wound up being expensive training because I got hooked on aerobatics and had to buy a share in a Pitts to satisfy that craving.

The wing skis are bonded rather than riveted to the tubular spar and to each other, so if the plane is repainted it is best if solvents are not used to take the old paint off. That can affect the adhesive used to bond the structure. I flew all across the country in my Traveler and think you will REALLY enjoy the Tiger. We bought our Traveler in 1981, and sold it 4 years later for almost double what we paid for it (not including the cost of new paint, a new interior and some new panel goodies). Still, it provided some really CHEAP and fun flying!
 
Flyhound said:
The wing skis are bonded rather than riveted to the tubular spar and to each other
Click to expand...
To be precise, the wing skins are bonded to the ribs, and the ribs are bonded to the spar.

, so if the plane is repainted it is best if solvents are not used to take the old paint off. That can affect the adhesive used to bond the structure.
Click to expand...
Only if the paint shop doesn't know what they are doing and doesn't follow the instructions in the Grumman maintenance manuals. There are many, many Grummans which have been chemically stripped properly by many shops which do know what they are doing, and followed the book procedures, and those planes are just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top