"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"