Gruman Tiger again,, Sorry

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

"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"

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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