Tigers on grass

bbchien said:
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?
Click to expand...

gotta remember how much time those 19 year old kids had when they transitioned to the P-51.

I transitioned from a J-3, and A SR10-J to the Nordland with nothing but a brief discussion with the prior owner as to landing speeds and engine operation.
 
Tom-D said:
gotta remember how much time those 19 year old kids had when they transitioned to the P-51.

I transitioned from a J-3, and A SR10-J to the Nordland with nothing but a brief discussion with the prior owner as to landing speeds and engine operation.
Click to expand...

Good point.......

I built an experimental, put in more then twice the recommended horsepower and strapped my a$$ in it for the test flights. I am probably one of the dumber ones on this site and so far over the past 5 years the plane has not killed me.... But the day is still young. :hairraise::D

Ben.
www.haaspowerair.com
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope -- "misperception" is a judgement on the validity of the perception.

Perception is what they have/had. Those perceptions can be challenged, but that's an argument.
 
steingar said:
How many crashed?
Click to expand...

More than would be acceptable in today's society.

Transitional training is more driven by today's insurance companies than any other reason.

If Ron really believes the new owner of a Grumman must have transitional training, to me that just means the aircraft is more difficult to fly.
 
Tom-D said:
More than would be acceptable in today's society.

Transitional training is more driven by today's insurance companies than any other reason.

If Ron really believes the new owner of a Grumman must have transitional training, to me that just means the aircraft is more difficult to fly.
Click to expand...

No, he means that it is unreasonable to toss someone into the cockpit of a strange airplane without even a quick 1hr intro in the absence of wartime expediency.

How many current F15 pilots hopped in without any transition training?

Cripessakes, if I'm going to write an insurance police for an airframe and for the potential liability to some lawyer sunbathing in his yard when sub 1hr new-plane-owner mistakes the flaps for the landing gear panics stalls spins and augurs in on said swimming pool, then I'm going to insist on an hour or two of learning.

Does it really hurt the pilot??? I can't see how it does.
 
Tom-D said:
Transitional training is more driven by today's insurance companies than any other reason.
Click to expand...

And they're the ones who pick up the tab when the metal gets bent. They probably deserve a say.

If Ron really believes the new owner of a Grumman must have transitional training, to me that just means the aircraft is more difficult to fly.
Click to expand...

Does less tolerant of poor technique equal more difficult to fly?
 
Tom-D said:
If Ron really believes the new owner of a Grumman must have transitional training, to me that just means the aircraft is more difficult to fly.
Click to expand...
Do you think a checkout would be required of a pilot who has learned in Grummans and wants to rent a 172?
 
Everskyward said:
Do you think a checkout would be required of a pilot who has learned in Grummans and wants to rent a 172?
Click to expand...

No more so than the pilot who learned in a Darter and starts flying a Skyhawk.
 
Trapper John said:
And they're the ones who pick up the tab when the metal gets bent. They probably deserve a say.



Does less tolerant of poor technique equal more difficult to fly?
Click to expand...

I believe so, if the aircraft is very forgiving of poor pilots, it must be easier to fly.
 
Tom-D said:
I believe so, if the aircraft is very forgiving of poor pilots, it must be easier to fly.
Click to expand...
The "trouble" with the AA5 series is the wing is at the upper limit of loading for the engineering class (making the stall speed limits for part 23).

That means, you get slow, the sink rate is judged by the pilot to be "awfully abnormal something's wrong with the plane". On the lesser powered variants, there just isn't enough power BEHIND the power curve to get out of trouble w/o some altitude.

In reality that CFI was a bonehead and needed transition training himself before checking out the club pilot. Though a CFI, I was not an official "club" CFI as I was not taking referrals through the club, and not at the prescribed rate.

The 180 hp Tiger, when at less than full gross, approaches the power to weight ratios needed to rescue the situation.

I tried dearly to explain this to the club CFIs but they were the "pros" and that was the end of the AA5 program. "That airplane is dangerous". In reality, those two CFIs were dangerous.

When you are at the upper edge of wing loading, the allowable AOA for landing gets narrower (engineering tradeoff). So the broad range of airspeeds that don't result in prangs- on Cessnas, on Pipers, on Beech singles....is not present on Tigers. Airspeed discipline is no trouble for Mooney drivers who are making their second landing. But you cannot be a bonehead.

Not everyone has read "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators". It's just a shame our CFIs were so dumb dumb dumb.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Not everyone has read "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators". It's just a shame our CFIs were so dumb dumb dumb.
Click to expand...

Not really. For every bonehead CFI there's a bonehead pilot. More forgiving airplanes probably reduced your prang rate. Tigers are nice, but they're not a be-all end-all.
 
Tom-D said:
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,...
Click to expand...
Once again, Tom has his facts wrong. The total count of PA38's registered today is 957 compared to 1143 AA-1x's (and that's just the 2-seaters comparable to the Tomahawk). It appears to me that Tom's knowledge of the Grumman world is limited to what he learned...
...setting in the pilots lounges during that period and I remember the discussions.
Click to expand...
...so I suggest anyone who wants facts rather than dimly recollected rumors check with the folks who know, listed above.
 
Tom-D said:
If Ron really believes the new owner of a Grumman must have transitional training, to me that just means the aircraft is more difficult to fly.
Click to expand...
I can't argue with what that means to Tom, but since I believe the new owner of any plane in which s/he has no experience needs transition training, then I guess Tom would think I also believe a Cherokee is more difficult to fly than a Cheetah which is more difficult to fly than a Skyhawk which is more difficult to fly than a Cherokee...and you end up with an MC Escher staircase picture. As they say in the logic business, R.A.A.
 
Tom-D said:
I believe so, if the aircraft is very forgiving of poor pilots, it must be easier to fly.
Click to expand...

But don't airmanship standards count for something? I think the PP practical test standards talk about establishing recommended approach and landing configuration and airspeed.

Does a Grumman or a Musketeer require a higher level of skill than has to be demonstrated via the PP PTS? Doesn't look like it to me.
 
Last edited:
Trapper John said:
But don't airmanship standards count for something? I think the PP practical test standards talk about establishing recommended approach and landing configuration and airspeed.
Click to expand...
The PTS standard for approach/landing speed is +10/-5. Given the book speed of 65-70 knots for a 172, in theory, that would allow anything from 60-80 knots, and if you come down final at 80 knots in a 172 with full flaps, it's gonna be ugly any way you look at it, especially at lighter weights. OTOH, if it's just you and the examiner and half tanks, 55 knots IAS would be perfectly safe and probably give a far better result than 80 knots -- both for the landing and the practical test. Personally, I won't sign anyone off for the PP test if they can't keep the speed in a 5-knot band on final, like +3/-2, on a smooth day -- and I wouldn't care if they're in a J-3C or an AA-5B or a BE36 on that issue.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, it is, and his perception, being inaccurate, is, by any dictionary, a "misperception."
Click to expand...

:sigh:

First, look up "misperception" (it's not a real word -- it's a collage).

Second, consumer perception is not the same as "objective analysis and then comparison of similar products."

If a consumer percieves that X is "higher quality" than B, and the price is the same, the consumer will likely purchase X.

You may have all sorts of data that "proves" that product B has equal "quality," but unless that data changes the consumers perception, he'll keep buying X.

More examples?

  • Bonanza gear is "rugged"
  • Piper Cubs have "Classic lines"
  • Cessna's are "easy to fly"
  • Mooneys are not "stable IFR platforms
 
Tom-D said:
No more so than the pilot who learned in a Darter and starts flying a Skyhawk.
Click to expand...
Show me an FBO that will allow someone to fly off in a 172 without a checkout if they have only flown Grummans. They usually give you a checkout even if you have flown the same type before.
 
Everskyward said:
Show me an FBO that will allow someone to fly off in a 172 without a checkout if they have only flown Grummans. They usually give you a checkout even if you have flown the same type before.
Click to expand...

The FBO in Ann Arbor did for me (Aviation Center). They checked me out in their Arrow so I could use it for the CFI ride, and marked down that I was OK to fly everything else except the 182 (I didn't have my HP yet). They never bothered to ask if I had flown what else they had on the line.
 
EdFred said:
The FBO in Ann Arbor did for me (Aviation Center). They checked me out in their Arrow so I could use it for the CFI ride, and marked down that I was OK to fly everything else except the 182 (I didn't have my HP yet). They never bothered to ask if I had flown what else they had on the line.
Click to expand...

Might have been because you were a CFI.
 
EdFred said:
The FBO in Ann Arbor did for me (Aviation Center). They checked me out in their Arrow so I could use it for the CFI ride, and marked down that I was OK to fly everything else except the 182 (I didn't have my HP yet). They never bothered to ask if I had flown what else they had on the line.
Click to expand...
That's different than just walking into an FBO where they don't know you and asking to rent one of their airplanes without a checkout.
 
steingar said:
Might have been because you were a CFI.
Click to expand...

Its been awhile since I have done an FBO checkout. But it used to be if you got checked out in the most complex airplane the FBO had you were good to go in everything else they had. Generally speaking, that is.
 
steingar said:
Might have been because you were a CFI.
Click to expand...

I wasn't when I got checked out. But I did ask them about it, and like Greg said, because I got checked out in the "most difficult" plane, I was good to go for all the others.
 
Everskyward said:
That's different than just walking into an FBO where they don't know you and asking to rent one of their airplanes without a checkout.
Click to expand...

That wasn't what you originally posited though. At least the way I read it. No, I don't know any FBO that will rent to someone who just walks in w/o a checkout in at least one of their planes.
 
bbchien said:
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?
Click to expand...

I checked my self out in the Stearman, the Luscumbe, Piper Pacer, Citabria and a few others.

Many years ago I repossessed some airplanes for the owner. A few were a type I never flown before (Navajo, Mooney,Comanche) just showed up at the airport, got in and figured out how to start it and off I went. :ihih:
 
Yeah. If you're the repo guy, I can see - preflight-->light fires, go.....seeing as how you could get shot.
 
Oy Vey. Five pages of debate and we scare the OP off.

Let's get back to the original question, and here is my perspective as a 10 year Tiger owner coming from Cessnas and Pipers.

If your mission requires a lot of grass ops, especially from shorter or less maintained fields, and/or back country ops, the Tiger is not the plane for you. Get a C-182 or Taildragger or something else that fits the mission.

The Tiger is an efficient, fixed gear, fixed prop, fun to fly airplane that bridges the gap between other similar horsepower planes in its class and a retract, C/S prop plane. If you want to go 15 - 20 knots faster than C's and P's in this class but spend a few hundred feet more on the takeoff ground roll, the Tiger is a good choice. If not, get something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top