Not Beech but does anyone have any experience or knowledge about Grumman Tigers they could share. I'm looking at a 1979 model as a candidate for my daughter. It has a field overhauled engine and a Century IIB AP. The radios and comm panel are shot and will need to be replaced. It also has light hail damage.

Rick,

A friend of mine owned a 79 Tiger and I gave him instruction in it for his Instrument ticket. As I recall the maintenance was straight forward, although it does help to have someone that has some experience with them, there are a few quirky items, but nothing major as I recall.

This airplane was always 138 Knots at ~ 10 GPH. Rate of climb was around 700fpm. The biggest difference on the ground was differential braking, since it has a free castoring nose wheel.

The Tiger is a very efficient airplane and a good choice. The Cheetah/Traveler not so much...

YMMV

Rick,

I have flown one or two, very stable, easy to fly airplane with good speed. Ground handling is different with the castering nose wheele but not a big deal. They handle real well smooth harmony in the controls, and the sliding canopy is a plus for entry and exit. Overall I think it is a good first plane for a low time pilot.

Maint. is from what my hanger mate tells me is not a big deal, engine is pretty much bullet proof.

Rick

We have one on the field that is owned by a retired FAA guy. He uses it to give instruction and check rides for all types of ratings including ATP. It looks really nice. If you want to pick his brain PM me and I will forward his number.

Russ

Rick:
I have about 30 hours in a Tiger. Nice two/three place airplane. Efficient, good engine, great visibility, tends to have "issues" with the flap switch (it gets dripped on every time you open the canopy in the rain) and hardly what I'd call stable. Makes you work in turbulence or in the clag without some kind of basic autopilot. But lots of fun to fly.
Robin White

Rick,

I got checked out for renting a Tiger and I liked it's performance. Unfortunately, I only flew it a couple of times before someone who wasn't watching fuel management ran out of gas on approach and got it stuck in the trees. I was told to carry a small hammer in my flight bag in case of an emergency landing (sometimes the canopy can get stuck and you have to break the canopy to get out).

Kent

Rick, I have some hours in the Tiger. Besides what have already been said, this is what comes to mind

- Very good in crosswinds (among the best I have flown)
- On some that I flew (with a lot of hours on them), the canopy was not tight and made a really disturbing rattling sound that drove my wife crazy.
-never experienced (or heard of) problems with the flaps

Hope the purchase turns out well.

Are you sure he wasn't just running a tank dry, you know, to get to know the airplane better?



I have a good friend with a '75 Tiger, he's owned it forever, great plane. I wouldn't mind owning one at all, not at all. I've got some time in his, and it's a great plane. He's very knowledgeable on them too. If you'd like to talk to him, pm me.

Are you sure he wasn't just running a tank dry, you know, to get to know the airplane better?

Nah, no need to read it.
According to the three wise men,
"There is no risk in running a tank dry".

Are you sure he wasn't just running a tank dry, you know, to get to know the airplane better?

Guys,

thanks much for the replies, I'm not at all sure that the Owner has come to grips with the current market and I had a lengthy conversation with Bob Ferguson at AP Central about the cost to upgrade the panel but we'll see.

I did fly the plane for about an hour and it was very light and stable on the controls. Its a slippery little rascal, as I thought I'd never get is slowed down on approach.

[quote="Steve

The Tiger is a very efficient airplane and a good choice. The Cheetah/Traveler not so much...

YMMV[/quote]

Steve,

I'm curious to hear more about your comment re the Cheetah and Traveler with respect to being a training plane. I know the Cheetah doesn't usually have the power of a Tiger but is there any other downside? Obviouslynthe Traveler is only 2 seats and hasl anemic performance with a little bitty engine. But if the ac had been upgraded with more powerful engine and was principally for training what would other objections be?

I'm doing the same thing as Rick (except it's my sons) and have thought about these although still leaning to a Sundowner or Musketeer.

Thanks.

Had an AA1 Yankee in collage, and have time in the Tiger as well. They are great little planes, lot of bang for the buck. All above comments are on the money. I would second the notion that they are not the most stable IFR platform, it just makes you work a tad more. The tiger was 10 fold better then the Yankee. The hail damage is a big fix. The wing skins are "bonded" to a honeycomb, and there are no rivets, just glue. So repairing that would be a major ordeal. The fuel system in the tigers is a wet wing, so tank sealing needs to be done every so often. There are a few AD's on the ailerons, IIRC. For the money, and relatively simple maintenance, they are a great little plane. As mentioned there are no forks, fiberglass mains and a castering torque tube on the nose, which can crack at the firewall, usually if they where pranged hard on landing.

There is one on the field here in FSD for sale. I tried to buy it last year, but they where not ready to sell. It's a 77, with full IFR and Stec 60 AP. Nice paint and int and older digital king stack. PM me if you want the details. I did a prebuy on it so I have all the intel.

- Mark

Hi Tony,

The only downside of the 150 hp Traveler and 150-60 HP Cheetah is the lack of performance compared to the Tiger. I believe you give up quite a bit.

Regarding the carb ice incident, if I recall, the POH does not call for use of carb heat unless icing conditions are present... This is because of the design of the Lycoming air intake. So I can see how low time pilot may find themselves with a problem in conditions perfect for carb ice. Although I think it's not frequent...