If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Gruman Tiger again,, Sorry
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New WWII movies coming! | The Enlightenment | Military Aviation | 28 | September 12th 04 02:11 AM |
The Superior King Tiger | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 168 | June 8th 04 12:25 AM |
Airman tells of grandfather's Flying Tiger days | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 11th 03 04:55 AM |
1979 Tiger for Sale | Flynn | Aviation Marketplace | 65 | September 11th 03 08:06 PM |
1979 Tiger for Sale | Flynn | Owning | 67 | September 11th 03 08:06 PM |