Tigers on grass

Teach someone about attitude and airspeed control, and they won't have problems.

Seems like every plane is "challenging to land." The 182. The Tiger. The Sundowner. The Mooney. Blah blah blah.

Common factor -- YOU JUST HAVE TO LAND AT THE PROPER AIRSPEED INSTEAD OF SCREAMING IN AT ANY OLD SPEED. That's a failure of instruction, not of aircraft design.
 
Ron Levy said:
Tom's statements are incorrect. The problems flight schools had in the early days involved instructors who didn't know how to fly anything that didn't fly like a Cessna 150. At schools with Grumman fleets like Hortman Aviation and what used to be Fletcher Aviation in Houston, where the instructors were properly trained to fly and teach in AA-1x's, students trained in AA-1x aircraft solo at about the same rates as students in more common trainers.
Click to expand...

first you disagree, then say the same thing, I never said it was the aircraft's fault.
 
If it hadn't been for the Club owner in my last "club," I would probably still be flying a Tiger. I loved that plane. A little longer on the takeoff roll, especially on a wet soft muddy grass field with two tall trees to go between at the end, but fun, nonetheless. Of course, then I wouldn't have had all the fun with the joys of ownership and lots of twin flying, either.
 
bbchien said:
Yes and that's a sad statement about our pilot community.....:(
Click to expand...

It's the same with low time CFIs that are conventional gear instructors, they only know 1 maybe 2 aircraft and believe they know them all.
 
I must be one of those really bad pilots. I don't remember so much as glancing at the airspeed indicator after short final on my landings this weekend. I doubt I ever have. I did notice the stall warning come on as I touched down home though. I honestly have no idea what speed my aircraft lands at. Folks who can watch an airspeed indicator while they land an aircraft are far better pilots than me.
 
steingar said:
I must be one of those really bad pilots. I don't remember so much as glancing at the airspeed indicator after short final on my landings this weekend. I doubt I ever have. I did notice the stall warning come on as I touched down home though. I honestly have no idea what speed my aircraft lands at. Folks who can watch an airspeed indicator while they land an aircraft are far better pilots than me.
Click to expand...
If you know the right attitude on final, you don't need to look at the ASI. If you don't know that attitude, you'll need to experiment a bit with pitch until you find the attitude that gives you the right airspeed on the desired descent angle, and then fly attitude without needing to look at airspeed.
 
wabower said:
Why isn't my phone ringing if you're in Dallas?
Click to expand...
:redface: Oh. :redface: Well, I was hoping to visit with you, but I was waiting to see if there was any time when we weren't going to soccer games or doing other kid things (they have three kids), but the days filled in, and I don't have a car. :sad:
 
Ron Levy said:
If you know the right attitude on final, you don't need to look at the ASI. If you don't know that attitude, you'll need to experiment a bit with pitch until you find the attitude that gives you the right airspeed on the desired descent angle, and then fly attitude without needing to look at airspeed.
Click to expand...

Being a high-terrain pilot, we must reinforce that when a flatlander goes to high DA, the sight picture will NOT be the same, and one SHOULD keep an eye on the airspeed indicator.
 
This reminds me of my PPL checkride, when the DPE put a cover on my airspeed indicator as he said I was looking at it too much. Lesson musta stuck, because I don't look at it anymore. I'll remember that if I hit high DA's. Most I've done was 6K feet.
 
PilotAlan said:
Being a high-terrain pilot, we must reinforce that when a flatlander goes to high DA, the sight picture will NOT be the same, and one SHOULD keep an eye on the airspeed indicator.
Click to expand...
If the descent angle is the same, and the AOA is the same (as it should be), the attitude should be the same. Now, for climbout, where due to reduced power available, the climb angle is lower, the attitude will be lower, but I'm not following how the attitude will change with DA on descent at the same glide angle at the same AOA. Likewise when landing at an airport with an unusually steep glide path (like the 6 degrees at Freeway W00), the attitude will be that much more nose down than normal, but that's independent of DA.
 
Ron Levy said:
If the descent angle is the same, and the AOA is the same (as it should be), the attitude should be the same. Now, for climbout, where due to reduced power available, the climb angle is lower, the attitude will be lower, but I'm not following how the attitude will change with DA on descent at the same glide angle at the same AOA. Likewise when landing at an airport with an unusually steep glide path (like the 6 degrees at Freeway W00), the attitude will be that much more nose down than normal, but that's independent of DA.
Click to expand...
Maybe the previous poster meant the sight picture as in the sight of the airplane moving across the ground since the TAS will be higher. That said, how much do you really need to look at the airspeed indicator if your speed is stable? If you don't change power, pitch or configuration it shouldn't vary by much.
 
Everskyward said:
Maybe the previous poster meant the sight picture as in the sight of the airplane moving across the ground since the TAS will be higher.
Click to expand...
Well, you get thet "perception of speed" effect to an even greater extent from wind changes than you do by 5000 feet or so of DA change. And the attitude is still pretty much the same.

That said, how much do you really need to look at the airspeed indicator if your speed is stable? If you don't change power, pitch or configuration it shouldn't vary by much.
Click to expand...
Exactly -- once you know the right attitude to fly, you don't really need to look at the airspeed. Frankly, I find that next to the VSI, the airspeed indicator is the one I look at the least in all phases of flight.
 
Guys. Ron taught me to transition from my Cherokee 140 in about one hour, ten years and 700+ hours ago. The other hour or so was ground instruction and maintenance tips. If I can do it anyone can!

They are easy planes to fly but just require speed discipline on final that any pilot should be able to perform.
 
Anthony said:
Guys. Ron taught me to transition from my Cherokee 140 in about one hour, ten years and 700+ hours ago. The other hour or so was ground instruction and maintenance tips. If I can do it anyone can!

They are easy planes to fly but just require speed discipline on final that any pilot should be able to perform.
Click to expand...
"Should" being the operative word. Regrettably, there are quite a few out there who can't.:sad: Anthony was well-trained in the fundamentals before he came to me, and that makes for an easy transition. :)
 
WRT Tigers, man have their prices dropped. You could get a decent mid 70s version for low $50k, and even a 92 version for, IIRC from my latest Trade-A-Plane, $85-90k.

When I was shopping for plane 1, only 5-6 yrs ago, those prices were more like $75k and 125k.

Tigers look like pretty good bargains now, relative to the competition. Just sayin....
 
If it requires transitional training and better airspeed control than most GA trainers isn't that equal to harder to fly?
 
Tom-D said:
If it requires transitional training and better airspeed control than most GA trainers isn't that equal to harder to fly?
Click to expand...
NO, just different. And I don't know of any plane which doesn't require transition training.
 
Ron Levy said:
NO, just different. And I don't know of any plane which doesn't require transition training.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking you are the only one who thinks that.
 
Tom-D said:
If it requires transitional training and better airspeed control than most GA trainers isn't that equal to harder to fly?
Click to expand...

Any aircraft will require some degree of transitional training, unless you're Bob Hoover or someone of that ilk. However, in my mind the essence of "harder to fly" is that you have to have better speed control. If that isn't it, then what is?

Doesn't mean Grumman didn't make fine aircraft, or that Tigers aren't wicked fast and cool on the ramp.
 
I don't understand why its harder to pull the throttle back a little sooner to drop airspeed. Its not harder, its just knowing when to do it. :dunno:

Does knowing where the flap switch is located on a different airplane make it "harder" to fly?
 
Tom-D said:
I'm thinking you are the only one who thinks that.
Click to expand...
Well, I know quite a few pilots who think they can check themselves out in anything, but in general, they're wrong, and the accident statistics (which show that most landing accidents occur in the first 15 hours in type) bear me out, and most insurers seem to feel the same. Sure, you can probably move from a Warrior to an Archer without any real training, but those are essentially identical airplanes, and that's not what I'm talking about.
 
Trapper John said:
Try going to an FBO and renting something you've never flown before. Think they'll just hand you the keys?
Click to expand...

That's a reflection on your ability not the aircraft.
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, I know quite a few pilots who think they can check themselves out in anything, but in general, they're wrong, and the accident statistics (which show that most landing accidents occur in the first 15 hours in type) bear me out, and most insurers seem to feel the same. Sure, you can probably move from a Warrior to an Archer without any real training, but those are essentially identical airplanes, and that's not what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

"Different" was viewed by the instructors of the era as harder that is why most flight schools did not order the AA series in the numbers that would have insured the company's survival.

Plus the higher speeds to get airborne, longer take off runs, were viewed by many as under powered.

Public perception of more difficult to fly, plus the under powered syndrome and the rumors that it had an irrigation pipe for a wing spar that was time limited, and the fuel tank which you sat on. simply didn't meet the public expectations of a safe aircraft.
 
Tom-D said:
That's a reflection on your ability not the aircraft.
Click to expand...

No, I'd say it's a reflection of FBO policy, which is determined by their safety standards and whatever influence their insurance carrier has on their rental operations.

I was responding to your statement that Ron is the only person out there that believes transition training is required for any aircraft. I think you will find that the vast majority of FBOs out there require transition training. Same with a lot of clubs - you have to be checked out before you can just grab the keys and go.
 
Tom-D said:
"Different" was viewed by the instructors of the era as harder that is why most flight schools did not order the AA series in the numbers that would have insured the company's survival.
Click to expand...

I don't know who "most flight schools" were, but if you look back to the 1970s when there was much more activity, Cessna had their Cessna Pilot Centers, Piper had their Piper Flite centers and Beech had their Aero Clubs, all of which were well established. That didn't leave a whole lot of opportunity for Grumman American to capture a bunch of training market share.
 
I have almost 2500 hours in Grummans and over 30 years of ownership experience, and as I've pointed out repeatedly, Tom has some misconceptions about the aircraft, probably due to lack of pilot and instructional experience in them. If you really want to find out about them, ask someone who really knows the plane, like the Grumman Gang, the AYA, Fletchair, or Air Mods NW -- directly.
 
I have checked myself out in a number of single seat aircraft, but not without proper briefing.

.....Prolonged taxi at just below rotation speeds
.....prolonged slow flight at 1 foot AGL.
.....prolonged slow flight at as HIGH as I can get them to safely go.
.....Steep turns, and stalls at altitude
.....faux landings at 8,000 agl.

.....return for safe landing. But why do that, when you have TWO seats, and when someone can show you?
 
Ron Levy said:
I have almost 2500 hours in Grummans and over 30 years of ownership experience, and as I've pointed out repeatedly, Tom has some misconceptions about the aircraft, probably due to lack of pilot and instructional experience in them. If you really want to find out about them, ask someone who really knows the plane, like the Grumman Gang, the AYA, Fletchair, or Air Mods NW -- directly.
Click to expand...


I think Tom is addressing perception and the clear results of that perception by reduced market share.

As a student, I found the Piper Warrior "easier to fly." So I preferred it. Only after I had some time in different types was I able to make an objective comparison.

The same perception vs reality argument is at play in the Aeronca Champ vs Piper Cub debate. Champs were designed as the better Cub -- more headroom, visibility, higher speed, yada, yada, yada.

But vintage Cubs still command high prices, while Champs are less (and Chiefs even less).

Why? Demand, which is all too often based on irrational perception. Welcome to the Free Market.
 
I am still just a bit stuck in this "easy" vs. "hard" to fly thing. One could say that aircraft that are harder to fly are made so by complex systems, which is not an unreasonable argument. However, is a complex aircraft that is more forgiving easier to fly than a simple one that is less so. Put another way, is a Bonanza, which is a complex aircraft indeed, harder to fly than a WWI fighter? The latter is very simple, but exquisitely sensitive to control inputs.
 
dmccormack said:
I think Tom is addressing perception and the clear results of that perception by reduced market share.
Click to expand...
If you meant to say "misperception," I'd agree. Unfortunately, those misperceptions are based pretty much on the transmitted misperceptions of people like Tom who have little or no experience flying Grummans or training people in them.
 
dmccormack said:
I think Tom is addressing perception and the clear results of that perception by reduced market share.

Why? Demand, which is all too often based on irrational perception. Welcome to the Free Market.
Click to expand...

Precisely,,,, public opinion is every thing to sales, all one must do is compare sales numbers to prove that the public didn't approve of the aircraft, and the manufactures struggle to improve the design is also proof that it was not all that great in the first years when public opinion was developed. even with the improvements the aircraft/sales staff couldn't over come the pilot lounge scuttlebutt rumors that it came over the fence too fast for students.

plus the fact that one man's (owner) opinion/experience does not prove/disprove any thing, would you expect the owner groups to sing anything but the same song?

The aircraft may or may not be what Ron thinks they are, ( I could care less) and is irrelevant to the sales numbers of the time, the AA series couldn't even out sell the Tomahawk, just remember I was setting in the pilots lounges during that period and I remember the discussions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top