what a pretty plane!

11 thousand 6 hundred and sixity hours!

I'll wager 1,000 quatloos that it has a bent firewall. Edit, just noticed that it is advertised as having a new firewall....hmmm how did that happen with any major damage history...there it was just sitting there one day and the firewall just cracked.

Buy this and put a new engine in it, you'll be way ahead.

1972 GRUMMAN TRAVELER AA5, 2030hrs TTAE, VFR panel, needs annual. Clean, reliable, fun airplane. $24,750. TX/(210) 523-9226.

Len
 
gkainz said:
but... but... but, Len! New PAINT!!! :rofl:
Click to expand...

What does Tom D always say..."pilots buy paint and avionics".

The funny thing is some of the newer avionics are more expensive than engines.

Len
 
woodstock said:
what is the significance of the bent firewall?
Click to expand...
Basically, everything forward of the firewall is attached at the firewall. The firewall is pretty much the wall right in front of your feet, just in front of the rudders.

Nosegear is attached to the engine frame and firewall. If the nosewheel hits first...and hard...it bends the firewall since the engine and mounts are generally stronger.

Firewall replacement usually means someone landed nose first and hard (or a number of times). With those hours plus firewall damage, this is probably an abused trainer. :(
 
ahhhh I see. thought it seemed cheap actually. it looks good inside, and it's a lot newer than the one I'm flying now but he hasn't even met 35K yet.

I really wonder how much my little plane is worth. I'm getting attached to it.
 
woodstock said:
is 11.600 really out of line?
Click to expand...

11,600 is a lot of hours. That says it was used heavily as a trainer & rental plane. (25 years, it's about 465 hours a year). Most pilots fly on the order of 100 hrs a year (I put between 200 and 250 a year on with my travel schedule).

The new firewall (replacing a cracked one) tells me that it saw a fairly hard life. It would make me wonder what else is wrong.

One reason most of us want a plane is that we want something in good condition that we can take care of and fly without a lot of problems.

I'd be suspicious of this one. It MAY be fine, but I'd really want an annual inspection done by a top-notch mechanic before I bought it. I think there are probably some other planes out there that provide better value.

The other question, Beth, is whether this would be the plane you'd want for the long run. Think hard about that 'cause it's easier to buy than it is to sell....

Just my opinion....
 
woodstock said:
what is the significance of the bent firewall?
Click to expand...

It all depends on how well the repair was done. I have a friend who had a 172 that bent a firewall during a training accident and the repair was very good. No problem with the damage and the plane sold for close to V-Ref. This plane has probably been used as a trainer or a pipeline plane and has probably seen a fairly hard life. A good one to stay away from unless you know more detailed history.
 
Len Lanetti said:
What does Tom D always say..."pilots buy paint and avionics".

The funny thing is some of the newer avionics are more expensive than engines.

Len
Click to expand...

Yes they do, BUT this one doesn't even have good radios, Cessna ARC = JUNK. You can't even buy parts for the comm. I haven't even seen an ARC audio panel like that since my hair turned grey.

11,6 is way high. it is a trainer. Think about this, this aircraft has had a 100 hour pulled on it every quarter since 79, that means the access panels have been off every 3 months, I'll wager that every anchor nut holding every screw is worn out. Hinges will all be loose, they get replaced at around 15,k hours usually. all the cable sectors will be ready for replacement.

In my humble opinion, there are way better aircraft out there that don't shine as much.

I would not worry about the replacement of the fire wall, I'd be worrying about the loose/worn bolts in the rudder/elevator/ ailerons and the old crappy radios.
 
thanks y'all. I wasn't serious - just happened to jump on ebay. not going to do a thing about a purchase til I get my ticket, and also until I fly planes other than the 172s. I love 'em, but maybe it's because it is all I know.

but thank you for the insights, because I didn't know what all that stuff meant! for a late 70s plane, what's a better hobbes time - under 3 grand?
 
woodstock said:
thanks y'all. I wasn't serious - just happened to jump on ebay. not going to do a thing about a purchase til I get my ticket, and also until I fly planes other than the 172s. I love 'em, but maybe it's because it is all I know.

but thank you for the insights, because I didn't know what all that stuff meant! for a late 70s plane, what's a better hobbes time - under 3 grand?
Click to expand...

Under 3K would be nice, but you don't want too little time either. Sitting around doing nothing is even worse for a machine than being used. Personally, I wouldn't blink at 6 or 7K, more than that I'd start thinking harder about it.

Skyhawks are nice planes. So far, in my limited experience, they are the ones that do everything I want and let me go to the kinds of airports I want. I like the Piper's too, but the Skyhawk is still our favorite. Well, I like the Skylane better, but that's going up a big step in $$$$. I'll report back after this weekend on whether or not the Tiger will take the place of the Skyhawk in our hearts despite it's greedy runway requirements. :)
 
woodstock said:
but thank you for the insights, because I didn't know what all that stuff meant! for a late 70s plane, what's a better hobbes time - under 3 grand?
Click to expand...

It all depends. The quality of the hours is as important as well as the quantity. Figure that the majority of 172s and 150/152s were used as trainers for some if not most of their lives. Life on the rental line as a primary trainer is hard on an airplane.

Also, too few hours is not good either as when aircraft sit corrosion and other deteration takes place.

My '63 Mooney has about 2,600 hours. That divides out to about 60 hours a year but it probably flew some and then sat, flew some and then sat at various times in its life.

Len
 
Joe Williams said:
I'll report back after this weekend on whether or not the Tiger will take the place of the Skyhawk in our hearts despite it's greedy runway requirements. :)
Click to expand...
I'd like to hear your impressions on that one. The TO/Landing numbers and headroom are the two things that would kill it as an option in my book. It's sure hard to ignore seating for four and ~135kt cruise on a fixed pitch/fixed gear, 180HP plane, though.
 
What Uses 865 Feet for Takeoff Roll?

Brian Austin said:
I'd like to hear your impressions on that one. The TO/Landing numbers...
Click to expand...

My generic Tiger POH is somewhere in my basement but the TaP performance database specifies 865 feet for the takeoff roll, 1,550 feet for takeoff over a fifty foot obstacle and 1,120 feet for landing over a fifty foot obstacle. All those jive with what my brain recalls. Granted a Tiger is not a bush plane but all this talk of Tigers being a runway hog is out of hand considering that the majority of us operate out of runways that are sufficently long for the prevailing local density altitude considerations. Note that those performance numbers are very similar to the numbers for my M20C (also 180HP aircraft with a wing not optimized for slow speed flight).

Len
 
Re: What Uses 865 Feet for Takeoff Roll?

Len Lanetti said:
...but all this talk of Tigers being a runway hog is out of hand considering that the majority of us operate out of runways that are sufficently long for the prevailing local density altitude considerations.
Click to expand...
Ah, but DA issues ARE a consideration for me. Think PHX in August mid-day or Grand Canyon at 85 degrees.

Part of my mission profile also includes shorter, unimproved fields.
 
Re: What Uses 865 Feet for Takeoff Roll?

Len Lanetti said:
My generic Tiger POH is somewhere in my basement but the TaP performance database specifies 865 feet for the takeoff roll, 1,550 feet for takeoff over a fifty foot obstacle and 1,120 feet for landing over a fifty foot obstacle. All those jive with what my brain recalls. Granted a Tiger is not a bush plane but all this talk of Tigers being a runway hog is out of hand considering that the majority of us operate out of runways that are sufficently long for the prevailing local density altitude considerations. Note that those performance numbers are very similar to the numbers for my M20C (also 180HP aircraft with a wing not optimized for slow speed flight).

Len
Click to expand...

Then why are you and everyone else I know telling me to avoid flying into the 2'000 ft paved airport I REALLY want to use this weekend? :) Sure, there are plenty of GA airports around with longer runways, but if we choose to fly a Tiger, facts are we will not be able to go places we would like to that are perfectly comfortable and doable in the much maligned Skyhawks. Getting there fast is good, but I am interested to see how good it really is when "there" isn't really where I want to go, just close by.

It should be an interesting comparison. Cathy and I both like the Skyhawks, and the ability to go where we want in them. We find the cabin comfortable, like the ease of loading the cabin that the high wing gives us, we both like the safety and stable, mellow handling, but it is a tad slow. The Tiger certainly looks sportier, and is faster. But in some cases, like this weekend, we can only get close to where we want to be, the cabin is a little snugger, and I'm interested to find out for myself if the reputedly quicker handling is a help or hindrance on a longer flight. If I have to turn an autopilot on to avoid tiring myself flying a twitchy plane, I won't be real pleased, since I enjoy handflying the Skyhawk and don't feel the need to use the autopilot on a two hour flight.
 
Re: What Uses 865 Feet for Takeoff Roll?

Brian Austin said:
Ah, but DA issues ARE a consideration for me. Think PHX in August mid-day or Grand Canyon at 85 degrees.
Click to expand...

But, typically, the runways are of appropriate length to be useful given average conditions.

Brian Austin said:
Part of my mission profile also includes shorter, unimproved fields.
Click to expand...

If short, unimproved runways are a major part of your mission profile a Tiger is probably not a good aircraft for you consideration. Several other aircraft should be off your short list as well, for example, Mooney aircraft. Probably telling you something you already know but here goes....You have to determine if the ability to fly from short dirt runways is worth the other performance and operating trade offs.

Len
 
Re: What Uses 865 Feet for Takeoff Roll?

Joe Williams said:
perfectly comfortable and doable in the much maligned Skyhawks.
Click to expand...

I have never maligned a 172. Every aircraft has pros and cons. A 172 has a fat wing that provides lift at a slower speed/higher angle of attack. It is not a aircraft normally associated with the word speedie. A lot of 172s were made, there are a lot on the market at any given time and probably every GA A&P in the world has worked on them. All good points but if you want to go 20 or 30 knots faster a Tiger will do that. If you want to go faster still a Mooney will do that.

Len
 
Re: What Uses 865 Feet for Takeoff Roll?

Brian Austin said:
Ah, but DA issues ARE a consideration for me. Think PHX in August mid-day or Grand Canyon at 85 degrees.

Part of my mission profile also includes shorter, unimproved fields.
Click to expand...

And now you know why our company's ERJ-135 jets have the ERJ-145s engines strapped on the back. DA at IWA isn't an issue with a full load with that extra thrust. Too bad that sort of option isn't available for a 172 or 182 :D
 
Joe Williams said:
Skyhawks are nice planes. So far, in my limited experience, they are the ones that do everything I want and let me go to the kinds of airports I want. I like the Piper's too, but the Skyhawk is still our favorite. Well, I like the Skylane better, but that's going up a big step in $$$$.
Click to expand...

I like the Skylane better, too. However, if I were in the market I'd be worried about the same thing - they do command a significantly higher price, both aquisition and maintenance. Not to mention fuel burn. But, they sure are comfortable for cross country cruising.
 
Re: What Uses 865 Feet for Takeoff Roll?

Len Lanetti said:
But, typically, the runways are of appropriate length to be useful given average conditions.
Click to expand...
Runway length isn't what I'm worried about. Climb performance in higher DA environments would be my biggest concern. In the East, get 500-800 feet up and you're usually good to go. All 800 feet gets you here in some areas is the opportunity to hit the canyon wall in a different spot. ;)
 
Re: What Uses 865 Feet for Takeoff Roll?

Ghery said:
Too bad that sort of option isn't available for a 172 or 182 :D
Click to expand...

Factory and STC'd 180hp 172s are available. I think there was another version of a 172 that had even more ponnies available.

Len
 
Re: What Uses 865 Feet for Takeoff Roll?

Len Lanetti said:
Factory and STC'd 180hp 172s are available. I think there was another version of a 172 that had even more ponnies available.

Len
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you're thinking of the 172XP which has 195hp engine and a constant speed prop. There were problems with that engine if memory serves though and I don't know if it's still an issue or not. Can't remember the details.

We have one of the STC'd Skyhawks in my flying club with the O-360. She's pretty zippy. :)

Carolyn
 
Re: What Uses 865 Feet for Takeoff Roll?

I think the XP has two flavors, the IO360K has a TBO of 1500 and the IO360KB has a TBO of 2000. The XP I have access to will give 133kts. at 10gph. :D

FWIW,

Dave
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind a skyhawk/skylane for a second airplane. Not ideal, but still would be fun for unimproved strips, SLOW flight days, sight seeing, etc. Although with almost 11k hours, this was probably a rental.
 
Re: What Uses 865 Feet for Takeoff Roll?

Len Lanetti said:
My generic Tiger POH is somewhere in my basement but the TaP performance database specifies 865 feet for the takeoff roll, 1,550 feet for takeoff over a fifty foot obstacle and 1,120 feet for landing over a fifty foot obstacle. All those jive with what my brain recalls. Granted a Tiger is not a bush plane but all this talk of Tigers being a runway hog is out of hand considering that the majority of us operate out of runways that are sufficently long for the prevailing local density altitude considerations. Note that those performance numbers are very similar to the numbers for my M20C (also 180HP aircraft with a wing not optimized for slow speed flight).

Len
Click to expand...

I've always wondered about that too, I used to fly a Taveller and a Tiger off a 2500' grass strip at 900' MSL, and was always positive rate well before midfield (the hanger) and never remember having to taxi back to the hanger either. Always seemed to be good and handy planes to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top