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