Gruman Tiger again,, Sorry

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

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

"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

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...

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

"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

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

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

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

"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