Gruman Tiger again,, Sorry

[Dave Accetta]

I saw the thread earlier about the Tiger as I was about to type this, but it
didn't answer any of my questions, so here goes.

I keep seeing the Tiger for sale between $65k and $110k. I always thought
these planes were highly desirable. This seems a little cheap compared to
other planes the same age.

Have they fallen out of favor or is this the norm? If I could find one for
$75000 I'd be looking for a partner right now!

I had heard that they are more desirable than the 172, but I think it seems
that may be because of the price?
I also heard they were a little faster than the 172?

What is bad about this plane? The thought of this is getting me all revved
up!

--

--
Dave A

[hnelson]

I can only speak in comparison to a cessna.
Speed - Fuel Efficiency - Forgiving Handling

Choose any two.

Howard
C182

"Dave Accetta" > wrote in message
...
> I saw the thread earlier about the Tiger as I was about to type this, but
it
> didn't answer any of my questions, so here goes.
>
> I keep seeing the Tiger for sale between $65k and $110k. I always thought
> these planes were highly desirable. This seems a little cheap compared to
> other planes the same age.
>
> Have they fallen out of favor or is this the norm? If I could find one
for
> $75000 I'd be looking for a partner right now!
>
> I had heard that they are more desirable than the 172, but I think it
seems
> that may be because of the price?
> I also heard they were a little faster than the 172?
>
> What is bad about this plane? The thought of this is getting me all
revved
> up!
>
> --
>
> --
> Dave A
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/03

[Dave Accetta]

"hnelson" > wrote in message
.. .
> I can only speak in comparison to a cessna.
> Speed - Fuel Efficiency - Forgiving Handling
>
> Choose any two.
>
> Howard
> C182

I didn't follow. I guess the Cessna is better in those three regards? I
was thinking compared to the 172 though.

--

--
Dave A
Yes I have stopped long enough to start and my car is back in that gear.


>
> "Dave Accetta" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I saw the thread earlier about the Tiger as I was about to type this,
but
> it
> > didn't answer any of my questions, so here goes.
> >
> > I keep seeing the Tiger for sale between $65k and $110k. I always
thought
> > these planes were highly desirable. This seems a little cheap compared
to
> > other planes the same age.
> >
> > Have they fallen out of favor or is this the norm? If I could find one
> for
> > $75000 I'd be looking for a partner right now!
> >
> > I had heard that they are more desirable than the 172, but I think it
> seems
> > that may be because of the price?
> > I also heard they were a little faster than the 172?
> >
> > What is bad about this plane? The thought of this is getting me all
> revved
> > up!
> >
> > --
> >
> > --
> > Dave A
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/03
>
>

[hnelson]

"Dave Accetta" > wrote in message
...
> "hnelson" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > I can only speak in comparison to a cessna.
> > Speed - Fuel Efficiency - Forgiving Handling
> >
> > Choose any two.
> >
> > Howard
> > C182
>
> I didn't follow. I guess the Cessna is better in those three regards? I
> was thinking compared to the 172 though.
>
> --
>
> --
> Dave A
> Yes I have stopped long enough to start and my car is back in that gear.

Sorry, what I said wasn't at all clear.

My feeling is

Grumman - Fast and fuel efficient - Less forgiving of pilot technique

C1XX - Slow- moderate fuel- Very stable and forgiving (like landing a
parachute).

Cessna appeals to a wider range of pilots because of familiarity (they
trained in them) and because they display very forgiving characteristics if
mishandled. Thus their popularity and price. Same could be said for Piper.
Grumman and Mooney tend to be "slippery" and are easier to "get behind".

I personally just felt more comfortable in Spam Cans than the few times I
flew a Grumman but I think you do get more "bang for the buck" with a
grumman.

Howard
C182








---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/03

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Dave Accetta > wrote:
>
>Have they fallen out of favor or is this the norm? If I could find one for
>$75000 I'd be looking for a partner right now!

Start looking for a partner now anyway! A good partner is going to be
harder to find than a good plane. I started out thinking exactly along
your lines (except about a Mooney M20F) and 8 months later bought a
Comanche by myself. Now the thought of letting someone else fly MY
PRECIOUS PLANE is enough to get me through the days when I accidentally
look at the bank statements.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Mark T. Mueller]

Grumman Tigers are typically highly desireable, and do not last very long on
the market. Check the relative numbers listed on ASO. Reasons for lower
asking prices may be due to runout motors, or other maintenance issues.
Tigers were built from 75-79, then again in 91, and now back in production
as of 02. 70s models differ from later models mostly interior stuff, like
throttle quadrant, seats, and 24v vs. 12v systems. The fuselage, flight
controls, wings, and motor are all identical.

The Grummans are pretty simple, from a maintenance perspective, but they do
have some idiosynchrosies that most FBOs won't understand. Most of my
problems have come from having maintenance done by someone that is not
"Grumman knowledgeable". Not rocket science by any means, but little stuff
gets missed. This means, as an owner-operator, you need to be more involved
in the maintenance of your bird, and I consider the Grumman Service Manual
mandatory for any owner. I have caught stuff after an annual that should
have never been let go, but slipped simply because the guy doing the annual
was probably in a hurry and didn't know what to look for.

That being said, I am very happy owning a Grumman Tiger. I ALMOST bought an
Archer, but am glad I didn't (no offense to anyone). Other planes I
considered during my selection process were a 177RG (talk about maintenance
issues compared to a Tiger!), and an Arrow. A well maintained Tiger can
usually beat an Arrow, and definitely beat a 177, even though the Tiger has
fixed gear!

The Tiger has one hell of a roll rate compared to C and P brands, and pitch
authority is quite good as well. I hand fly hard IFR, and you do really have
to stay on top of the aircraft. It is much more work in IMC than C or P
brands, but I guarantee if you get your Instrument Rating in a Tiger you
will have some very good hand flying skills. I consider the maneuverability
of the Tiger a strong positive, and really contributes to the image of the
Tiger as a "fun to fly" aircraft. If you "fly by the numbers", you won't
have any problems, and will likely become a better pilot. Nail your
airspeeds, and she flys like a dream. Off by 5 knots, you may have a
challenge. On an ILS, I just set power to 1700 RPM, trim to 90 kts with 1/3
flaps, and ride the glideslope. Once you get the configurations memorized,
it is not a problem. One more thing, due to the higher than average wing
loading, I find the Tiger does not "bounce" nearly as much in turbulence as
C and P brands, but that is subjective.

You will also want to compare the number of ADs for all the models you
consider. For the Tiger, there is really only one significant recurring AD,
Aileron Torque Tube Inspection. Compare the AD lists, and add up the
anticipated costs, and my conclusion was the Tiger really beats the others I
considered on this note...

I have flown coast-to-coast in my Tiger, and routinely fly 500+ nm cross
countries. I have flown to OSH twice, and could easily carry everything I
needed. The rear seats fold flat, so my buddy and I can fit all the camping
gear needed very easily. It has a good useful load, and I typically cruise
around 135 kts (although I flight plan for 130 to be conservative).

One thing I would not be too comfortable with would be landing on grass
strips. The nose strut is rather weak, but I do know of pilots that fly
their Tigers into and out of grass strips...

The final "kicker" for me was the sliding canopy. The "coolness" factor is
just too high taxiing around with the top slid back!!!

Hope that helps,

Mark
Tiger N1533R


"Dave Accetta" > wrote in message
...
> I saw the thread earlier about the Tiger as I was about to type this, but
it
> didn't answer any of my questions, so here goes.
>
> I keep seeing the Tiger for sale between $65k and $110k. I always thought
> these planes were highly desirable. This seems a little cheap compared to
> other planes the same age.
>
> Have they fallen out of favor or is this the norm? If I could find one
for
> $75000 I'd be looking for a partner right now!
>
> I had heard that they are more desirable than the 172, but I think it
seems
> that may be because of the price?
> I also heard they were a little faster than the 172?
>
> What is bad about this plane? The thought of this is getting me all
revved
> up!
>
> --
>
> --
> Dave A
>
>

[Roger Tracy]

I've had my Tiger for 3+ years and couldn't be happier with it. Great plane.
I previously
had a 152, a Warrior, and a Sundowner. I've flown most of the single
engine P's and C's. Also considered an Arrow .. but settled on the Tiger
because the numbers are about the same without the C/S prop and gear to
maintain.

Fun airplane to fly. If you don't keep the fuel balanced it can tend to want
to roll off one direction. Landings work out best if you keep the over the
fence
speed at the right one for the weight. Other than that I can't think of any
bad habits it has.

RT


"Dave Accetta" > wrote in message
...
> I saw the thread earlier about the Tiger as I was about to type this, but
it
> didn't answer any of my questions, so here goes.
>
> I keep seeing the Tiger for sale between $65k and $110k. I always thought
> these planes were highly desirable. This seems a little cheap compared to
> other planes the same age.
>
> Have they fallen out of favor or is this the norm? If I could find one
for
> $75000 I'd be looking for a partner right now!
>
> I had heard that they are more desirable than the 172, but I think it
seems
> that may be because of the price?
> I also heard they were a little faster than the 172?
>
> What is bad about this plane? The thought of this is getting me all
revved
> up!
>
> --
>
> --
> Dave A
>
>

[mikem]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:45:49 -0500, "Roger Tracy"
> wrote:

>I've had my Tiger for 3+ years and couldn't be happier with it. Great plane.
> I can't think of any
>bad habits it has.

How about delaminations between the wing/stab skins and the under
lying structure? The skin on these things is epoxied onto the ribs and
spars. What happens if you have to fix it? Gimmie rivets, anytime.

MikeM

[Kyle Boatright]

"mikem" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:45:49 -0500, "Roger Tracy"
> > wrote:
>
> >I've had my Tiger for 3+ years and couldn't be happier with it. Great
plane.
> > I can't think of any
> >bad habits it has.
>
> How about delaminations between the wing/stab skins and the under
> lying structure? The skin on these things is epoxied onto the ribs and
> spars. What happens if you have to fix it? Gimmie rivets, anytime.
>
> MikeM
>

How frequent are glue bond failures? I know several Grumman owners and none
has ever had a problem.

Why are rivets such an advantage? They fail too, and replacing them in an
inaccessable area isn't any easier than replacing a bonded structure.

KB

[Bluejay]

>> How about delaminations between the wing/stab skins and the under
>> lying structure? The skin on these things is epoxied onto the ribs and
>> spars. What happens if you have to fix it? Gimmie rivets, anytime.
>>
> How frequent are glue bond failures? I know several Grumman owners and none
> has ever had a problem.
>
> Why are rivets such an advantage? They fail too, and replacing them in an
> inaccessable area isn't any easier than replacing a bonded structure.

Both bonded and riveted structures can have their problems.

However, while most mechanics are well-versed in repair of riveted
structures, many shy away when you start talking about "bonded
structures". Truth of the matter is, at least on the Grummans, repair
of delamination IS by riveting, a repair that any competent sheet metal
man who takes the time to read and follow the published instructions
should be able to carry out.

Heck, even *I* was able to do it...

[G.R. Patterson III]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> How frequent are glue bond failures?

Pretty frequent on Cheetahs of certain periods. Dunno 'bout Tigers.

> I know several Grumman owners and none has ever had a problem.

I know three. Two have had to have the wings re-glued. IIRC, the mechanic doing
the repair told me that there were only certain years that had problems.

> Why are rivets such an advantage?

Since I own/owned a Maule and a C-150, I am aware of the various maintenance
alerts, service bulletins, and ADs pertinent to those two aircraft, both of
which have riveted structures. I never heard of a Cessna or Maule that required
reskinning of the wings due to rivet failure in normal usage.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

[Snowbird]

"Dave Accetta" > wrote in message >...

> I keep seeing the Tiger for sale between $65k and $110k. I always thought
> these planes were highly desirable. This seems a little cheap compared to
> other planes the same age.

That's true. The Grummans have always been cheaper than Cessnas
and Pipers of comparable age and equipment.

I think there are two reasons for this. One, many pilots learn
in brand C or P and just stick with the familiar. Two, prospective
plane owners are nervy about buying a plane which is out of production
and small in numbers.

But Grummans have always been blessed with a tight community of
maintainers. Parts availability is generally very good. However,
if you ding, say, an aileron, it's harder to find a good used
aileron than it is for a Cessna. They're out there, and the Grumman
community knows where to call, but the owner either needs to be
dealing w/ a knowledgeable maintainer or to become knowledgeable
himself. No hardship: the type club (AYA) and the very active
email list are both excellent resources.

> I had heard that they are more desirable than the 172, but I think it seems
> that may be because of the price?

No, it's not price at all. They're a very very nice plane.
A Grumman Tiger has the max gross weight of a C172 and the
useful load of a Piper Archer. It is faster than the comparable
Piper (PA28-180 or Archer) or Cessna (180 hp Cardinal or 180
hp 172). Heck it will fly away from a normally aspirated Arrow.

It has beautiful, responsive handling -- brand C or
P is like driving a truck in comparison. Then there's the
canopy, a real boon in hot midwest weather. And for all that,
it is still a forgiving plane, easy to land.

> What is bad about this plane? The thought of this is getting
> me all revved up!

Downside: it is not as good a short or obstructed field plane
as brand P or especially brand C. That's not to say you can't
safely fly out of fields many Cessna or Piper pilots have trouble
with, 2000 ft strips or well-maintained grass. But handled with
comparable skill, brand C and even brand P have better short-field
performance. It pains me to say it but it's true.

Some people don't like beautiful light responsive handling in a
plane. They prefer trucks. De gustibus and all that, but while
a properly-flown Tiger is a fine IFR platform you do need to have
a better scan and spend less time with your head down. I kinda
chuckle when someone says something about GA planes being stable
and able to fly hands-off for a while in the soup.

Because it's a somewhat slicker plane, it requires better
speed control on landing. If you're in the habit of adding
5 kts for the wind, 5 for grandma, 5 for the dog, you'll develop
a new understanding of the term "float". The AYA offers a
"pilot familiarization program" checkout with grumman proficient
CFIs. Pilots who complete it get Cessna-like insurance rates.
I recommend it.

Parts are slightly more of an issue. Instead of being able to
lift a finger and trip of the part, there are 3 or 4 sources
across the country. As long as you find a maintainer who understands
Grummans it's really not much issue. Most of the parts on an airplane
which wear are standard -- engine, brakes, tires, etc.

Hope this helps,
Sydney
Grumman AA5B "Tigger"

[Snowbird]

mikem > wrote in message >...

> How about delaminations between the wing/stab skins and the under
> lying structure?

How about it? As the millenium tshirt said "Grumman: 25
years of rivetless flight"

> The skin on these things is epoxied onto the ribs and
> spars. What happens if you have to fix it?

It's fighter technology. Very stout. There was one known serial
number range which had problems due to a bad lot of glue ("purple
passion"). I think all those planes have been repaired.

Delaminations are very rare and easy to look for. To my knowledge
it's only been a problem in planes which were improperly prepared
for chemical stripping and painting or which have suffered corrosion.
And corrosion is rarer in Grummans than brand C or P because the
interior surfaces were all coated.

Repairs are straightforward. Flat head rivets, just like an
RV.

> Gimmie rivets, anytime.

Whatever you like! I'll keep my "rivetless flight".

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...

> Pretty frequent on Cheetahs of certain periods. Dunno 'bout Tigers.

That's very vague, George and somewhat misleading IMO.

There is one serial number range which had delamination problems
due to a particular lot of glue used at the factory. It's actually
primarily Tigers, because the Cheetah was put into production after
the Tiger and at the end of that period. It's a known problem,
and it would be very rare to run into a Grumman where it wasn't
taken care of long ago (though there might be one which has been
sitting in someone's hangar for 25 years, who knows).

> I know three. Two have had to have the wings re-glued.

This is rather amazing to me, and leads me to wonder about
the mechanic or your memory. The bonding process for the Grummans
was not a field procedure. It required curing in an oven.
I have no idea how one would 1) get the skins off to re-skin
2) produce a bond of acceptable strength in the field

The specified repair AFAIK is to rivet with flat-head rivets,
just like an RV.

> I never heard of a Cessna or Maule that required
> reskinning of the wings due to rivet failure in normal usage.

Well, I've never heard of a Grumman which required reskinning
the wings due to bond delamination in normal useage, nor one
from the specific serial number range affected by the faulty
glue which required same. It's all riveted repairs AFAIK.

You've heard what you've heard, but it seems very strange to
me, and I know a lot of Grumman maintainers and owners. I'll
have to ask Dave Fletcher and Ken Blackman about it next time
I see them.

BTW the delamination was not an AD.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Ray Andraka]

I almost bought a 1/4 share in a very early tiger about 10 years ago. IIRC, it was the second one
built. It was in the serial number range, but hadn't had any delamination problems. Only reason I
didn't was due to a job change that resulted in a move out of town.

Snowbird wrote:

> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
>
> > Pretty frequent on Cheetahs of certain periods. Dunno 'bout Tigers.
>
> That's very vague, George and somewhat misleading IMO.
>
> There is one serial number range which had delamination problems
> due to a particular lot of glue used at the factory. It's actually
> primarily Tigers, because the Cheetah was put into production after
> the Tiger and at the end of that period. It's a known problem,
> and it would be very rare to run into a Grumman where it wasn't
> taken care of long ago (though there might be one which has been
> sitting in someone's hangar for 25 years, who knows).
>
> > I know three. Two have had to have the wings re-glued.
>
> This is rather amazing to me, and leads me to wonder about
> the mechanic or your memory. The bonding process for the Grummans
> was not a field procedure. It required curing in an oven.
> I have no idea how one would 1) get the skins off to re-skin
> 2) produce a bond of acceptable strength in the field
>
> The specified repair AFAIK is to rivet with flat-head rivets,
> just like an RV.
>
> > I never heard of a Cessna or Maule that required
> > reskinning of the wings due to rivet failure in normal usage.
>
> Well, I've never heard of a Grumman which required reskinning
> the wings due to bond delamination in normal useage, nor one
> from the specific serial number range affected by the faulty
> glue which required same. It's all riveted repairs AFAIK.
>
> You've heard what you've heard, but it seems very strange to
> me, and I know a lot of Grumman maintainers and owners. I'll
> have to ask Dave Fletcher and Ken Blackman about it next time
> I see them.
>
> BTW the delamination was not an AD.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Roger Tracy]

I haven't know anyone personally this has happened to. Was a fairly small
group of the early ones related to the glue being used at that time.

If you prefer rivets .. then you should of course own a plane with rivets.
I've
owned both and haven't had any problem with either. Well .. wait .. I guess
I did have a small problem with my Tiger. I had the end of the piece on the
top of the wing that goes over the joint come loose. A rivet came loose.

The poster asked about Tigers .. and I guess Tiger owners would be a
good source of info. And since I've had a Cessna, and a Piper and a
Beech, I guess I can form an educated opinion. And my opinion is
they're all good. The Tiger is just the most fun.

However, not everyone is going to like the Tigers with their crisp
responsive
handling, speed and canopy. So they should buy C's and P's.



"mikem" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:45:49 -0500, "Roger Tracy"
> > wrote:
>
> >I've had my Tiger for 3+ years and couldn't be happier with it. Great
plane.
> > I can't think of any
> >bad habits it has.
>
> How about delaminations between the wing/stab skins and the under
> lying structure? The skin on these things is epoxied onto the ribs and
> spars. What happens if you have to fix it? Gimmie rivets, anytime.
>
> MikeM
>

[Roger Tracy]

I will have to admit that if my mission had the requirements of an airborne
SUV
my choice would be a Cessna 182. They're on top for all around utility in my
opinion. However since I'm still in "sports car" mode .. I have a Tiger.


"hnelson" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Dave Accetta" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "hnelson" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > I can only speak in comparison to a cessna.
> > > Speed - Fuel Efficiency - Forgiving Handling
> > >
> > > Choose any two.
> > >
> > > Howard
> > > C182
> >
> > I didn't follow. I guess the Cessna is better in those three regards?
I
> > was thinking compared to the 172 though.
> >
> > --
> >
> > --
> > Dave A
> > Yes I have stopped long enough to start and my car is back in that gear.
>
> Sorry, what I said wasn't at all clear.
>
> My feeling is
>
> Grumman - Fast and fuel efficient - Less forgiving of pilot technique
>
> C1XX - Slow- moderate fuel- Very stable and forgiving (like landing a
> parachute).
>
> Cessna appeals to a wider range of pilots because of familiarity (they
> trained in them) and because they display very forgiving characteristics
if
> mishandled. Thus their popularity and price. Same could be said for Piper.
> Grumman and Mooney tend to be "slippery" and are easier to "get behind".
>
> I personally just felt more comfortable in Spam Cans than the few times I
> flew a Grumman but I think you do get more "bang for the buck" with a
> grumman.
>
> Howard
> C182
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/03
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Snowbird wrote:
>
> This is rather amazing to me, and leads me to wonder about
> the mechanic or your memory.

Well, the mechanic is now running a towtruck operation, and it's been 8 years
since we spoke about it. The Cheetah under discussion occupied the tiedown
next to mine for several years.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

[Snowbird]

Ray Andraka > wrote in message >...
> I almost bought a 1/4 share in a very early tiger about 10 years ago. IIRC, it was the second one
> built. It was in the serial number range, but hadn't had any delamination problems.

Many of them don't. Tigger's previous owner's previous Tiger (where's
NewPS to tell me this doesn't make sense?) was also in that range, and
had no delamination problems until they had it chemically stripped and
painted. So I think there's usually some secondary issue involving
chemical exposure (either intentional or environmental). BTW the repair,
as is typical, involved adding flat rivets after the routine check
during annual inspection revealed the problem.

I still cant fathom what would lead to a need to reskin the entire
wings, and to attempt to do this with glue, *in the field*. AFAIK
that is NOT an approved repair method. Maybe Bluejay knows. Bluejay?

Cheers,
Sydney

[Ray Andraka]

A 182 was too small for me. I bought a Cherokee Six Minivan on wings instead.
1550 lbs useful load, and that includes 5.5 hrs of gas and 7 seats, plus elbow
room for the pilot.

Roger Tracy wrote:

> I will have to admit that if my mission had the requirements of an airborne
> SUV
> my choice would be a Cessna 182. They're on top for all around utility in my
> opinion. However since I'm still in "sports car" mode .. I have a Tiger.
>
> "hnelson" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "Dave Accetta" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "hnelson" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > > > I can only speak in comparison to a cessna.
> > > > Speed - Fuel Efficiency - Forgiving Handling
> > > >
> > > > Choose any two.
> > > >
> > > > Howard
> > > > C182
> > >
> > > I didn't follow. I guess the Cessna is better in those three regards?
> I
> > > was thinking compared to the 172 though.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dave A
> > > Yes I have stopped long enough to start and my car is back in that gear.
> >
> > Sorry, what I said wasn't at all clear.
> >
> > My feeling is
> >
> > Grumman - Fast and fuel efficient - Less forgiving of pilot technique
> >
> > C1XX - Slow- moderate fuel- Very stable and forgiving (like landing a
> > parachute).
> >
> > Cessna appeals to a wider range of pilots because of familiarity (they
> > trained in them) and because they display very forgiving characteristics
> if
> > mishandled. Thus their popularity and price. Same could be said for Piper.
> > Grumman and Mooney tend to be "slippery" and are easier to "get behind".
> >
> > I personally just felt more comfortable in Spam Cans than the few times I
> > flew a Grumman but I think you do get more "bang for the buck" with a
> > grumman.
> >
> > Howard
> > C182
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/03
> >
> >

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Bluejay]

> I still cant fathom what would lead to a need to reskin the entire
> wings, and to attempt to do this with glue, *in the field*. AFAIK
> that is NOT an approved repair method. Maybe Bluejay knows. Bluejay?

The approved repair methods are by riveting. You do apply a sealer to the
joint to inhibit corrosion, but the strength of the repair is from the
rivets.

Ref. service kit SK125A.

[Gerry Caron]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
m...
> Many of them don't. Tigger's previous owner's previous Tiger (where's
> NewPS to tell me this doesn't make sense?) was also in that range, and
> had no delamination problems until they had it chemically stripped and
> painted. So I think there's usually some secondary issue involving
> chemical exposure (either intentional or environmental).

That'll do it. There's a nice big placard on the firewall that tells you to
consult the manual prior to performing any paint stripping. The manual
shows large areas where chemical stripping is verboten because it can cause
debonding.

One downside to Grummans. A paint job that includes stripping is expensive
because it's very labor intensive.

Gerry

[Snowbird]

"Bluejay" > wrote in message .net>...
> > I still cant fathom what would lead to a need to reskin the entire
> > wings, and to attempt to do this with glue, *in the field*. AFAIK
> > that is NOT an approved repair method. Maybe Bluejay knows. Bluejay?

> The approved repair methods are by riveting. You do apply a sealer to the
> joint to inhibit corrosion, but the strength of the repair is from the
> rivets.

> Ref. service kit SK125A.

Thanks, Bluejay. That's what I thought.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Snowbird wrote:
> > This is rather amazing to me, and leads me to wonder about
> > the mechanic or your memory.

> Well, the mechanic is now running a towtruck operation, and it's been 8 years
> since we spoke about it. The Cheetah under discussion occupied the tiedown
> next to mine for several years.

Rereading my post, it sounds rather snarky, for which I apologize.

But seriously, there's something strange about this story. First
that regluing in the field is not an authorized field repair method.
It was a factory repair, and I *think* I heard Fletchair might be
authorized to do it in a limited way for the purpose of fuel tank
repair. Unless the mechanic in question worked at the factory???

Second, checking the bondlines for delamination is a regular part
of the annual inspection on a Grumman. It is simple and easy
(though tedious). It's hard for me to fathom how delamination could
progress to the point where reskinning the wing was necessary,
if proper annuals by a Grumman-savvy mechanic were being done.

In fact, I can usually see the bondlines in the wing while in
flight, and you can bet any missing lines would get my attention
in a big hurry.

I *did* hear that a couple of the affected planes suffered sufficiently
extensive delamination that they went back to the factory for repair,
but this was numerically a small number, and a problem which was
basically resolved before the Grumman American went belly-up in '79.
So it still seems strange to me that one mechanic would encounter
3 severely delaminated Grummans, all Cheetahs where there were fewer
affected planes in the first place, and presumably relatively recently
(?? ie not back in the late '70s when the problem was identified
and mostly resolved).

So this does seem strange to me. Not that things which seem
strange to me haven't happened...

Sydney

[Dave Accetta]

Thank you thank you thank you to all that replied. This was a great wealth
of information and I am going to l ook into everything that was said,
starting with looking for a partner now.

This Tiger sounds like exactly what I want, based on all the honest replies.
thanks again
--
Dave A
Yes I have stopped long enough to start and my car is back in that gear.

"Dave Accetta" > wrote in message
...
> I saw the thread earlier about the Tiger as I was about to type this, but
it
> didn't answer any of my questions, so here goes.
>
> I keep seeing the Tiger for sale between $65k and $110k. I always thought
> these planes were highly desirable. This seems a little cheap compared to
> other planes the same age.
>
> Have they fallen out of favor or is this the norm? If I could find one
for
> $75000 I'd be looking for a partner right now!
>
> I had heard that they are more desirable than the 172, but I think it
seems
> that may be because of the price?
> I also heard they were a little faster than the 172?
>
> What is bad about this plane? The thought of this is getting me all
revved
> up!
>
> --
>
> --
> Dave A
>
>

[Javier Henderson]

(Snowbird) writes:

> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> > Snowbird wrote:
> > > This is rather amazing to me, and leads me to wonder about
> > > the mechanic or your memory.
>
> > Well, the mechanic is now running a towtruck operation, and it's been 8 years
> > since we spoke about it. The Cheetah under discussion occupied the tiedown
> > next to mine for several years.
>
> Rereading my post, it sounds rather snarky, for which I apologize.
>
> But seriously, there's something strange about this story. First
> that regluing in the field is not an authorized field repair method.
> It was a factory repair, and I *think* I heard Fletchair might be
> authorized to do it in a limited way for the purpose of fuel tank
> repair. Unless the mechanic in question worked at the factory???

My understanding is that the field regluing is perfectly doable IF you
have the proper jig. Catch: no one has the proper jig, except for
(apparently) Fletchair (and presumably The New Tiger, of course). The
few Tigers I know which had field repairs done used flush rivets. One
in particular had a superb paint job and you couldn't tell it from a
non-riveted Tiger.

-jav, former Tiger owner

[Jay Honeck]

> In fact, I can usually see the bondlines in the wing while in
> flight, and you can bet any missing lines would get my attention
> in a big hurry.

Just curious -- why are the bond-lines visible in flight?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bluejay]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:47:52 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> In fact, I can usually see the bondlines in the wing while in
>> flight, and you can bet any missing lines would get my attention
>> in a big hurry.
>
> Just curious -- why are the bond-lines visible in flight?

They're even more visible on the ground.

A lot of the bondline is along the edges of structures; for example, the
trailing edge of the wing.

Bondlines internal to structures (for example, the wing ribs) can usually
be discerned by a slight irregularity of the skin.

[John Galban]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<Y5hbb.533879$YN5.355122@sccrnsc01>...
> > In fact, I can usually see the bondlines in the wing while in
> > flight, and you can bet any missing lines would get my attention
> > in a big hurry.
>
> Just curious -- why are the bond-lines visible in flight?

When you're in flight, the lower pressure above the wing tends to
cause the skin to bulge up a bit, except where it's bonded to the
wing. My Cherokee 180 exhibits this behavior. In flight, you can
see the wing skin lifted slightly above the rivet line.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Jay Honeck]

> When you're in flight, the lower pressure above the wing tends to
> cause the skin to bulge up a bit, except where it's bonded to the
> wing. My Cherokee 180 exhibits this behavior. In flight, you can
> see the wing skin lifted slightly above the rivet line.

Hmm. I'm gonna have to check that out next flight.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Natalie]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:ruEbb.552072$uu5.90807@sccrnsc04...
> > When you're in flight, the lower pressure above the wing tends to
> > cause the skin to bulge up a bit, except where it's bonded to the
> > wing. My Cherokee 180 exhibits this behavior. In flight, you can
> > see the wing skin lifted slightly above the rivet line.
>
> Hmm. I'm gonna have to check that out next flight.

Of course, this is why you have to ribstitch fabric wings.

[Bill]

Demand is the key to price.
Grummans are like race cars. Quick handling and fast.
And as mentioned before not too forgiving. I throuht about buying one too
and
found that the Beech Sundowner was a better buy for a big guy (6'3, 220)
like me.
Like the Grumman you can get in from both the right and left sides.
Bill N9230S 76 Sundowner

"Dave Accetta" > wrote in message
...
> I saw the thread earlier about the Tiger as I was about to type this, but
it
> didn't answer any of my questions, so here goes.
>
> I keep seeing the Tiger for sale between $65k and $110k. I always thought
> these planes were highly desirable. This seems a little cheap compared to
> other planes the same age.
>
> Have they fallen out of favor or is this the norm? If I could find one
for
> $75000 I'd be looking for a partner right now!
>
> I had heard that they are more desirable than the 172, but I think it
seems
> that may be because of the price?
> I also heard they were a little faster than the 172?
>
> What is bad about this plane? The thought of this is getting me all
revved
> up!
>
> --
>
> --
> Dave A
>
>

[Flynn]

FWIW, I'm about to become a former Tiger owner but I can offer the
perspective of someone who trained in C172s, transitioned to a Tiger, has
some limited (but 5+ hours of very exciting time) in Extra 300L and now
transitioned to an SR22.

I'm not sure what demand for your average C172 might be but the interest
level in my Tiger was quite high I thought given the overall economy, state
of GA, etc etc. I have been receiving a call/email/inquiry a day for the
past 3 weeks.

As to flying a Tiger, I'd agree with the other posters and Sydney hit it
spot on- IMO the Tiger is a pilot's airplane. That is- it is very fun to
fly, fast enough to get you most places in reasonable time, visibility
that's exceptional (between the canopy, the low panel and cowl and seating
position near the leading edge of the wing), and fairly stingy on the fuel.
You definitely want to have your network of other Grumman owners working for
you but between the American Yankee Assoc (www.aya.org) and the Grumman Gang
there's enthusiastic and knowledgeable support available.

My recommendation is to arrange a ride or two in one before you decide. If
I was to buy a "smaller" single, it would absolutely be a Tiger.

Best of luck with the decision.

--
Patrick Flynn
Sammamish, WA
SR22 N6099Z KRNT


"Dave Accetta" > wrote in message
...
> I saw the thread earlier about the Tiger as I was about to type this, but
it
> didn't answer any of my questions, so here goes.
>
> I keep seeing the Tiger for sale between $65k and $110k. I always thought
> these planes were highly desirable. This seems a little cheap compared to
> other planes the same age.
>
> Have they fallen out of favor or is this the norm? If I could find one
for
> $75000 I'd be looking for a partner right now!
>
> I had heard that they are more desirable than the 172, but I think it
seems
> that may be because of the price?
> I also heard they were a little faster than the 172?
>
> What is bad about this plane? The thought of this is getting me all
revved
> up!
>
> --
>
> --
> Dave A
>
>