Grumman Tiger vs. Cherokee Archer
Greg McAdoo
I'm considering switching flying clubs. The reasons for this change
are a significantly cheaper hourly cost for rentals and a shorter trip
to the field from my home. One of the factors I must also consider is
a change in aircraft type. The availablility of fixed gear single
engine aircraft at this club is limited to Grumman Tigers and
Cheetahs. Most of my time, on the other hand, has been spent in
various Cherokee's (Archers, Warriors). Because I do a fair amount of
flying at night and have just begun instrument training, I'm
paticularly concerned about a change in type at this point. I am
curious about the differences (reliablility, flight characteristics,
ergonomics) between the Tiger and the Archer. I'm also interested in
opinions on how stable the Tiger is as both a cross country vehicle
and an IFR platform. Any information about, or opinions on the Tiger
would be greatly appreciated.
Robert M. Grove
>
> I'm considering switching flying clubs. The reasons for this change
>are a significantly cheaper hourly cost for rentals and a shorter trip
>to the field from my home. One of the factors I must also consider is
>a change in aircraft type. The availablility of fixed gear single
>engine aircraft at this club is limited to Grumman Tigers and
>Cheetahs. Most of my time, on the other hand, has been spent in
>...Any information about, or opinions on the Tiger
>would be greatly appreciated.
TIGER-TIGER-TIGER. Ok, I may not be entirely objective about this :-)
The Tiger is faster, more economical (same fuel burn-but faster) Is still
a legitimate 4-place aircraft, has lighter, more responsive controls, and
is perfectly OK as an IFR platform. I trained and got my IFR rating in
my Tiger and I use it for real IFR.
The Tiger is also (opinion mode on) a lot more fun to fly.
The Archer is more pitch stable and takes less trimming than the Tiger.
There may be some other advantage as well but, I can't seem to thing of
any :-)
--
Robert Grove Arnav Systems, Portland, OR
tektronix.tek.com!reed!arnav!rgrove
Margaret Puckette
>
>engine aircraft at this club is limited to Grumman Tigers and
>Cheetahs. Most of my time, on the other hand, has been spent in
>I am
>curious about the differences (reliablility, flight characteristics,
>ergonomics) between the Tiger and the Archer. I'm also interested in
>opinions on how stable the Tiger is as both a cross country vehicle
>and an IFR platform. Any information about, or opinions on the Tiger
>would be greatly appreciated.
I've begun instrument training in a Tiger while waiting
for my Archer to be repaired, and I find it to be very
similar in terms of Vspeeds and landing/approach
characteristics. But the handling is quite different,
and for *training*, I prefer the lighter touch of the
Tiger as it inculcates a better sense of feel for
managing the many small control movements necessary
for flight by instruments.
Don't be put off by some previous discussion in this forum
about Tigers. Visibility is superb, greased landings
are a PIECE OF CAKE, and pitch stability is far, far
superior to what I trained in, the AA1B, though not quite
as stable as the Archer. I suspect some of the Tiger's
bad press came from association with it's squirrely
little brother, the AA1, where smooth landings are an
art form :-).
I think you will have an easy time transitioning to the
Grummans once you get a feel for the lighter handling
(you will also tend to prefer it!). I would recommend
the Tiger for training in, but I would also recommend the
Archer for passenger/pilot comfort and ease of workload
in long cross-country trips in IMC.
********************************************************************
Margaret "I want a Tiger, too" Puckette
AOPA Archer N1939G
Hummin' lil Grumman N9646L (an AA1B :-)
Bluejay Adametz
own a Tiger.
In summary:
-----------
The Tiger is faster, more responsive (more on this below), has better
visibility, easier to keep up.
The Archer has a little more useful load (~50 lbs, maybe), has a bigger
baggage door, and is currently in production (for now - new Tigers
should be comming off the line later this year).
Both have almost identical engines (Lycomming O-360-Axx), and will have
about the same fuel burn.
Things you'll notice when transitioning Archer -> Tiger:
--------------------------------------------------------
First let me say that proper transition training is essential.
Statistics show that most accidents in Grummans happen to people with
very little time in type; it ain't no Cessna. Expect to spend a few
hours of dual. Now than...
a. Getting in is different. The Archer has a door, the Tiger has a
sliding canopy; entry is from either side, and getting in the front
seats is accomplished by flipping up the seat cushion which gives you a
place to step. This generally works quite well, except in rain that you
probably wouldn't want to fly in anyway.
b. Ergonomics. The Tiger has better visibility than most anything
(except maybe a Tomahawk). The panel is layed out pretty good, with only
the engine instruments on the right side. The tach sits right in the
middle where you don't have to stoop to see it. Night lighting is OK,
being provided by lights mounted under the glareshield.
c. Ground handling. The Tiger is steered by using differential braking.
A light tap on one brake of the other will give you a turn in the proper
direction, tapping the opposite brake will stop the turn. With a little
practice, you can maneuver in some really tight spaces: nosewheel travel
is 90 degrees either side.
d. Flight handling. I've heard people say Tigers are unstable, but I
really think that those who believe this are themselves, unstable. I've
seen my Tiger fly 15 mins at a time hands off, so stability isn't an
issue. What a Tiger is, though, is extreemly responsive, and will
quickly respond to any control inputs, however inadvertant they may be.
Once you get used to using a light tough on the controls, you'll find
the responsivness make the airplane very easy to maneuver.
For an instrument platform, once you get used to leaving the airplane
alone, you'll do fine. Again, a light touch is the key.
Tigers are also very clean aerodynamically. It takes a bit more
thought and planning to make sure you don't end up trying to turn base
indicating 140 kts. Speed control is very important on final: come in 5
or 10 kts too fast and you'll eat up a lot of runway. Tigers just don't
slow down like other airplanes. If you end up too fast/high on final,
the best thing is a go-around unless you have LOTS of runway.
e. Performance. You won't beat a Tiger in any production fixed-gear
airplane, maybe even not in a lot of 200-hp retracts. I plan my Tiger
for 135-140kts TAS on cross countries. You can also expect to climb
better than 500 fpm thru at least 9000'.
-----------
I could go on (more than you'd like, I'm sure), but them's the high
points. I'll be happy to elaborate on anything upon request.
- Bluejay Adametz
AA-5B/A N45210
Dr. Daniel R. Masys
>
>d. Flight handling. I've heard people say Tigers are unstable, but I
>really think that those who believe this are themselves, unstable. I've
>seen my Tiger fly 15 mins at a time hands off, so stability isn't an
>issue. What a Tiger is, though, is extreemly responsive, and will
>quickly respond to any control inputs, however inadvertant they may be.
>Once you get used to using a light tough on the controls, you'll find
>the responsivness make the airplane very easy to maneuver.
>
> For an instrument platform, once you get used to leaving the airplane
>alone, you'll do fine. Again, a light touch is the key.
>
turbulence when there are no outside points of reference for keeping the
shiny side up? Cessnas may be clunky old dowagers when it comes to
responsive roll and pitch, but they bore straight lines through cumulo-
nimbus without much operator assistance, an endearing quality indeed
when the windows turn dark gray.
Dan Masys
ma...@mcs.nlm.nih.gov
Bluejay Adametz
Masys) writes:
> How about when it's IMC and wet and bumpy? How is it punching through
> turbulence when there are no outside points of reference for keeping the
> shiny side up?
Again, the trick is to pretty much leave the airplane alone. One should
get used to this fairly quickly; may even be easier than a Cessna
because if the airplane does get tossed shiny side down, it doesn't take
much control to bring it back.
What causes more problems for people are the inadvertant control inputs
they make without even realizing it while fishing for charts,
microphone, etc.. Other airplanes will ignore control inputs that will
give you an interesting ride in a Tiger.
BTW - both sides of my Tiger are shiny, so I have to use other means to
figure out which side should be up.
Robert M. Grove
>own a Tiger.
.
.
>b. Ergonomics. The Tiger has better visibility than most anything
>(except maybe a Tomahawk).
Actually, the AA1 series (the 2-place Grummans) such as 9646L: Margarets
hummin' little Grumman, have far better visibility than even the Tiger.
The reason is that the AA1s sliding canopy is ALL plastic where the
overhead part of the Tiger's is metal. The AA1s also only have 24ft. total
wingspan so there isn't much to obstruct anything. The AA1's are also a
lot more responsive than a Tiger but, that is a whole different topic.
P.S. Sorry to all of you to whom I can't seem to get E-mail. Jer: Yes, I
would like a tape.
Claude Goldsmith
> Boy, I could write a book. I've got several hundred hours in each, but I
> own a Tiger.
>
> In summary:
> -----------
:
> e. Performance. You won't beat a Tiger in any production fixed-gear
> airplane, maybe even not in a lot of 200-hp retracts. I plan my Tiger
> for 135-140kts TAS on cross countries. You can also expect to climb
> better than 500 fpm thru at least 9000'.
I flew in a Tiger last when they were still available new.
At that time, as I recall, the major complaint people
had was the takeoff and climb performance as compared to the
Archer. When loaded to gross it's performance was noticibly
poorer than the Archer. On the other hand, it would run away
from the Archer in cruise. I was told that one reason for
that difference was the propellor. Supposedly the Tigers
propellor was more of a "cruise" prop.
Have people replaced their propellors over the years with
props that have a finer pitch? Although you didn't specify
at gross weight (or "standard" conditions) in the above paragraph,
it would appear that your experience is much different then
that reported to me in the late 70's.
It sure looks like your Tiger can run circles (almost) around
my old (180HP) Mooney. I usually figure block-to-block
speeds of 120kts. Takeoff at gross (2575lbs) and climb from
sea level to 9500ft. At that weight (less fuel burned to
climb) and 65% power I'll true at 130 kts. Given the
difference in maintenance costs, the Tiger looks like a real
good choice. By the way, performance and handling of my
Mooney changes significantly with weight. At light weights
(2200 lbs, i.e. 1 or 2 people + a few bags) she's a delight to fly
with lots of performance. At gross, she's a dog; especially if the
density altitude is high (as in a summer afternoon departure
from Truckee @ 5900')! In the owners manual for my plane,
Mooney recognized that difference by providing performance
figures at two different gross weights 2200lbs and 2575lbs.
The numbers that they advertised of course were at
2200lbs gross. This was in 1962, they have cleaned up their
act a bit since.
> -----------
> I could go on (more than you'd like, I'm sure), but them's the high
> points. I'll be happy to elaborate on anything upon request.
>
>
> - Bluejay Adametz
> AA-5B/A N45210
--
Claude Goldsmith <cla...@leadsv.UUCP> | Opinions expressed are not
by twisted-pair (408) 742-7514 | necessarily those of my
via the ether - WB6UOO | employer.
through the air - Mooney N6416U |
Bluejay Adametz
> At that time, as I recall, the major complaint people
> had was the takeoff and climb performance as compared to the
> Archer. When loaded to gross it's performance was noticibly
> poorer than the Archer. On the other hand, it would run away
> from the Archer in cruise. I was told that one reason for
> that difference was the propellor. Supposedly the Tigers
> propellor was more of a "cruise" prop.
>
> Have people replaced their propellors over the years with
> props that have a finer pitch? Although you didn't specify
> at gross weight (or "standard" conditions) in the above paragraph,
> it would appear that your experience is much different then
> that reported to me in the late 70's.
>
means. I've personally never failed to achieve 700 fpm climb leaving
home base (1048' MSL), on even the hottest summer days, right up to 2400
lbs max gross. I don't have the manuals in front of me, but I suspect
that comparing standard-day numbers between the Tiger and Archer would
yield no major revelations (though consider that the Grummans have a
good reputation for living up to the book numbers, more so than some
other airplanes).
The standard prop on Tigers is, as you noted, optomized for cruise.
The original factory (McCauley) prop has two problems, though: it
creates a critical vibration RPM range, requiring a restriction on the
use of 1850 - 2250 RPM during descent. A perhaps related problem is the
tendency to get cracks in the hub area, which is the subject of a AD
requiring dye checks of the hub area every 200 hours.
The solution to the above problems comes in the form of an STC for what
is essentially the same Sensenich prop used on the Archer. This prop is
available in a variety of pitches, including one that give pretty much
the same performance blend (compromize?) as the original prop.
Geoff Peck
Tiger over the Archer. Let me offer a few negative points re the Tiger,
although I do agree that it is a fine airplane. I won't repeat the positive
things which others have said, as on the whole, I agree with them.
I find the interior noise level in a Tiger to be significantly higher than it
is in an Archer.
As I recall, the "environmental systems" (i.e., ventilation and heating) in
the Archer are substantially better than they are in a Tiger.
Seating comfort is better in the Archer, especially later airplanes with the
"executive interior". A custom interior in the Tiger (or maybe the interior
which the 1990 Tigers will have) might solve this problem.
Tigers have a very different feel in turbulence, much like a Mooney. You
really feel each and every bump, since you're basically sitting on the spar,
and the wings are very stiff. Archers feel fairly cushy.
Tigers do respond to small control inputs quite rapidly. During turbulent
IFR operations, this is generally a handicap rather than a benefit -- it
significantly increases pilot workload. I, for one, would probably not be
particularly happy about embarking on a turbulent-air IFR flight of, say,
more than an hour in a Tiger without a *two-axis* autopilot. On the other
hand, this may be a *benefit* in IFR training... Archers are very stable,
but remain quite responsive when compared with, say, a C-172 or C-182.
Maintenance of Tigers, due to their unusual bonded construction, requires a
mechanic who knows about Tigers (either that, or you are going to pay for
their learning!). Anyone can fix an Archer -- probably even your local Ford
dealer, in a pinch... :-)
Engine cooling in the Tiger is less ample than it is in the Archer. One
needs to observe the engine oil temperature during extended climbs in hot
weather, and one may need to level off to let the engine cool.
Entering and leaving a Tiger when it's precipitating is not fun. The
interior definitely will get wet!
Statistically, the Tiger is significantly less safe than the Archer. Some of
the problems come from not learning how to land the airplane properly, and
others seem to stem from its sprightly handling characteristics and its
ability to get away from the pilot rapidly. The docile Archer seems to not
have these problems. Yes, this can be solved by better training. But the
statistics still stand.
Note, too, when comparing Tigers with Archers, realize that the Cherokee line
has been around for a while, and that there are signficant differences
between the Cherokee 180's of old and the Archer II of today (which, as I
recall, is largely unchanged from the 1976 model). Most noteworthy is the
re-designed "taper-wing" wing planform. Taper-wing Cherokees, which include
the Warrior II, Archer II, Arrow III/IV/V, and Dakota, have significantly
different handling characteristics from the old "Hershey-bar" wing planes.
Fly 'em both and try to notice the differences.
Now, don't get me wrong. I do enjoy flying the Tiger, and given the choice
between a Tiger and an Archer, I'd probably choose the Tiger given my
personal flying habits. In real life, I own an Arrow III, which combines the
many of the benefits of both -- it's faster than a Tiger, as comfortable and
as stable as an Archer. Of course, the Arrow has the big disadvantage of
wheels which come up and that third engine control, both of which add big
bucks in terms of maintenance and insurance.
Geoff
--
Geoff Peck, Apple Computer, Inc., MS60-E, Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 974-3184
ge...@apple.com {sun,nsc}!apple!geoff AppleLink: PECK.G #include <disclaimer.h>