I owned a Cheetah for a couple years. I flew it 60-70 hours a year. It always treated me well during annual and it was a blast to fly. I still kick myself for selling it. If you're thinking about a Grumman for your first bird, I wouldn't hesitate. Brad
These are GREAT airplanes. I have a lot of time in a Cheetah from back in the day - essentially the same airplane but with a smaller engine, and I not only loved it myself, but I have also never heard anyone who has a bad word to say about them. I love how simple and reliable they are. I worked for a freight company at RDU airport that had a bunch of these for express package delivery all over the Carolinas in places like the outer banks, Charlotte and Myrtle Beach, and they just never gave us any problems at all. You can fly with the canopy open too on warm days, which is great.
One negative aspect of sliding canopy to consider is- If you land in a soft field, such as forced landing due to engine failure, the nose wheel might sink into the soft ground, causing the aircraft to flip over its nose. Come to a stop upside down. Then it’s difficult to slide open the canopy. When flying airplanes with sliding canopy you should carry a tool capable of quickly cutting open the canopy or side of the airplane, hence some means to quickly escape whenever the canopy cannot be slid open.
Great review. I am 6’4” and I was always comfortable flying the Tiger. I have hundreds of hours in the AA-5B and it’s a joy to fly, it’s like flying a sports car in the sky. It easy flys at 135 kts and if you pull back the power it’s fairly economical to fly (Or it lease it was before Brandon)
Brings back some memories! Flew a Tiger as an IFR instructor 25-ish years ago. It would happily fly 130-ish down the ILS and, upon cutting power, sink and settle nicely onto the runway, which allowed me to take students into major SF Bay Area airports without disrupting ATC--an invaluable lesson for them. After landing once, Tower instructed us to switch to ground and call the tower--those dreaded words no one wants to hear. Naturally, I was prepared to fall on my saber, but I couldn't figure out what deviation we might have made. Controller asked what sort of aircraft it was; I said it was a Grumman Tiger. He was impressed it could maintain that approach speed and still get on the ground. And yes, in response to the query below, the canopy can be open several inches in flight, though I don't recall the speed restrictions (if there are any) and it would be a bit loud, even with David Clarks.
Nice review of a great aircraft ! I own a 1978 Grumman Tiger and I love it ! Just finished doing a restoration on it last year and she looks like a new airplane ! 😃
Rodney Jackson - that’s her in my avatar. Click on it and it will be a bit larger. RU-vid won’t let you attach pictures to comments section. I have pictures on my FB page but I would rather not divulge my FB page info in the comments. I may add a few videos of her to my RU-vid account at some point.
I loved my Tiger N28786. Many hours and long trips, including setting the transcontinental speed record (East to West in 2004) for piston powered aircraft weighing under 2,240 pounds. Fred Coon and I set that record in my Tiger and the West to East record in his souped up Cheetah the year before. It was fast for its class, good range - easily made a non-stop trip from Kansas City to Cleveland, could get to 17,500 feet (with the assistance of a power flow exhaust-one of my sponsors). I also flew it for the Coast Guard Auxiliary and was often treated to incredible views of Manhattan while flying up and down the Hudson River at 900 feet. As you pointed out, the view out of this cockpit cannot be beat. Great job in bringing back some happy memories for me, Mike!
Loved this video, and in fact bought a 1979 Grumman Tiger mostly based on the recommendations you gave in this video - great fun to fly, fantastic visibility and cost efficient.
Mike, good review. I owned a TR2 two seater as my first plane. Very different than the four placers. When landing you can actually use the wings as air brakes without concern of porposing and prop strike. Moved to a tiger and loved it. You will notice they did not use rivets very many places on these planes. They are glued together. A very unique process at the time.
Earned my private ticket in the mid seventies and flew for many years with the usual C150, V-172, PA-140, and PA-180's. However the Grumman Tiger was indeed my favorite... Among many destinations, we used to quickly fly over to Catalina for a buffalo burger!. It was faster, great visibility, more responsive, and as I recall, it had kind of a "Slippery" feel to it, especially in the roll axes. Jeez, I miss that plane !.
I have fond memories of the Grumman Tiger. The aircraft I first went solo in. Oddly enough, shortly after I went solo the aero club sold all the Tigers and bought Cessna 182's as trainers because they said the Tiger was 'too easy to fly'.
FYI - This is not a Grumman Design. This design was, in 1960 by Jim Bede, the BD-1. It was to be a Kit Plane, but no kits were sold. it was not until Bede had been removed from the company(Bede Aviation Corporation) and the design was reworked - including the removal of the folding wing feature - that it entered production as the American Aviation AA-1. This was later purchased by Grumman, thus the Grumman-American name.
The Tiger is one of the best GA planes out there. If you find one for sale, grab it! I learned how to fly in the Tiger and belonged to a flying club with Tigers and Cheetahs, lots of good memories flying them. Watch out when flying with the canopy open! I had my sectional chart ripped from my hand and sucked out the opening. This was before GPS and I was flying in the busy NYC area. I had to drop below 1000 to stay clear of New York class B airspace to play it safe. Good times!
I'm sure you've been educated a bunch on history. I think the Yankee (NOT a Grumman) but American Aviation, was a 150 HP engine and had 4 seats. Grumman purchased American Aviation founded by Jim Bede. Originally after Grumman purchased American Aviation, the 150H AA5A was the Traveler There was also a 2 seat trainer. After Grumman got into the management. The Trainer became the Lynx, The Traveler became the Cheetah . Grumman assigned Roy LoPresti to clean up the design. He made a bunch of design changes and also took the Cheetah and added a 180HP engine and hence the TIGER AA5B. Mr. LoPresti was the engineer that had a great deal to do with the F-14. I flew a Tiger for 250 hour and a fair amount of that was IFR. Love the AIrplaine.
Real joy to work on these things and pull them apart if you need to rescue one from a field. The most rewarding aspect of AA5 maintenance is taking both tips off , and shouting at people who walk past the opposing wing through the spar.
The biggest problem is the monoque construction. It was one of the. first small planes to use it. If not hangered, sunlight is death on it. I also belive the original 200+ planes currently are having spar corrision/cracking problems. But there are interchangeable parts within both the wings and control surfaces
Mike - great video, I received my SEL certification in a Grumman Tiger AA5B. I can't recommend this plane enough. The plane is easy to fly... and FUN. The only thing that the owner changed in the Grumman I flew... was to loose the wheel pants. (they were a real drag... :)
My older brother had 3-4 of these at a school he started in NH in the 70s, I believe it was called the TR2a. One of the features was that the skin was bonded on rather than riveted, making it slicker and therefore faster. A little vocabulary challenged, a pull knob is not a "lever" a canopy is not a "door," a torso is not a "wasteline" etc. it's all good nice review, down to Earth.
Mojo! Glad you finally got a chance to check out the Tiger. I've got a '92 Tiger and absolutely think it's the best all-around plane in it's category. You didn't mention another huge asset of the plane...that the back seats fold down flat, providing TONS of storage room. I'm 5'9" and can easily lay down in the back when the seats are folded. Also, the canopy can be opened about 12" during flight, which is very nice. One nit picky thing, you refer to the body as being made of metal, more specifically it is made if aluminum (as are most airplanes of this vintage). I've got multiple flying videos (and more coming) of the Tiger on my youtube channel if you wanna check 'em out.
I have owned and flown for about 1800 hrs a Grumman AA1A (Yankee) which is the two seat version but I installed a Lycoming 0+320 engine of 150 hp - an increase of about 40% in power. It was a brilliant low-maintenance, tough aircraft and kept up with the 180hp Tiger no problem but handled better, faster roll rate, more sensitive controls. Have flown Tigers as well and a great travelling aircraft. Flew from Sacramento Cameron Air Park to Cable, Wi then on to Oshkosh, Wi with three other Tigers - great trip!
I trained in the late 70’s in the Grumman’s. First the AA-1B two place trainer then the AA-5A Cheetah four place which was a dream to fly with counter balanced controls and a very clean airframe. The Cheetah was fast and you had to throttle back more than a Cessna 172 in the pattern since it didn’t have extra drag from wing struts or the rivet heads exposed like the Cessna’s. For a small plane it was a sports car. The full castering nose wheel was nice for parking when it was tight. You could turn on a dime. I had a great time flying around Arizona and Utah as a teenage pilot in the Cheetah. I wish I had tried the Tiger.
Yo Mike, between my dad, his business partner and myself, we owned a TR-2. Traveler, Cheetah AND Tiger. The TR-2 (same as the Yankee) was FAST but, not enough wing. The Traveler didn't have enough elevator. BUT, the Cheetah and the Tiger were FANTASTIC. Good rate of climb, good balance, excellent speed for the fuel burn, and room to move around for a single engine. Really loved flying with the canopy cracked open. Wish I still had the Cheetah today. Sold it to transition to a Aztec.
Most light aircraft of this era have abs fairings, what makes the aa5 unique from a construction point is the metal is mostly bonded which also makes buying one a big gamble unless you know where to look. Wear from poorly aligned concentric torsion tubes operating the flaps and ailerons and delamination of the grp mains are also areas to look at very closely.
That's not an IO-360..... it's a carburated O-360. (like all Tigers). The I in IO-360 stands for "Injected", as in fuel injected... Tigers are not fuel injected. They really are fantastic, and sporty handling airplanes, a bit noisy, but quite efficient (speed vs. fuel burn). If you look at any 1978 models, be sure to check the status of the bonding AD and have a mechanic validate this... The sliding canopy is great unless you happen to want to get in or out when it's raining. Maintenance is higher than a 172, but cheaper than any retractable gear bird. It's hardly an entry level airplane... I would hesitate to recommend it to a low time pilot, because it is a clean airframe and builds speed quickly. (energy management is important, especially in the pattern). A good Cheetah with an o-320 is also a fantastic airplane. (carries a little less weight, but better fuel economy in MPG's.) And they can be had for a lot less money.
Ah yes, the Tiger. Or model number AA-5B. I learned in the Grumman trainer or TR2 back in 1975. I flew Grumman’s for the first 250 hours of my flying experience. I would own one today if I could. I loved the sliding canopy of the Grumman American planes. The 4 places (Tiger & Cheetah) you could fly up to 130mph with the canopy slide back part way. Take off was with the canopy closed. The Cheetah was the AA5A and 150hp. It wasn’t a true four place. If you had 4 passengers you couldn’t have full tanks or you were over gross weight. All in all, I had a blast flying these all over the Midwest and Texas and Oklahoma back in the day. I miss flying them.
The airplane has the Lo Preseti (spelling) cowl mod. The mod makes the airplane a bit faster and greatly improves the cooling. Oil temps drop by about 20 degrees. That's a big deal with the Tiger.
I always thought of flying the Tiger as flying my kitchen table. The Tiger was the only airplane that afforded me a good forward view as well as the visibility all the way around the airplane. Most people stuck to the PA-28's and Cessnas but I always opted for the Tiger if I could get it. I think most people never liked the differential braking for steering but it had such a nice engine sound and wasn't loud like the Archers.
Love your enthusiasm for the plane. I appreciate the height comments regarding seat position and comfort. As a taller man (6'2" with short legs) it's a huge consideration. First plane I've seen with a cup holder. Interested in how you think it fly's.
I got my private license in a TR-2 before they were Grumman*. The examiner was a Cessna guy and kept prompting me to use carb heat. I told him the manual said not to unless icing was actually suspected. He pulled the carb heat on while on downwind and the engine sputtered like it was going to quit. That old guy moved so fast, pushing that carb heat back in. He didn't talk to me the rest of the flight except to say "one more touch & go" and then "take us home." I thought he was going to flunk me. He passed me but never even handed my log book back - he gave it to my instructor and left. (* It was not a Grumman Yankee. The plane started as a kit, then was bought by American Aviation, who later sold it to Grumman. Grumman improved the line with the Cheetah and Tiger and some quality increases)
Beautiful airplane sliding canopy and also the wings are I believe glued on... has a 10,000 hours wing inspection.... from my understanding all Grumman cheetahs and tigers
Torso is the word you're searching for, "longer or shorter torso".... Great content and really like your channel. I hope your Sling build is going well, and of course hope your wife and child are well.
These things have phenomenal visibility. You can usually see the departure end of the runway on climb out. You can see where you are going in climbs, level flight, and in a turn. In a Piper or Cessna, even a DA-40, they sink you behind the panel and hide the world. In a Piper or Cessna the engine is raised and there are a couple of feet of wasted space underneath the engine. In order to minimize frontal area, they sink the pilot behind the engine and you can’t see anything. Personally, I don’t fly to stare at a panel. I’ve never understood why they do this. Look at the cowling on a 172 or 182. It’s huge. You could fit a WWII radial in there. The amount of vertical space an engine requires can be shown by looking at any nacelle on any twin. Look at an early C310 for example. It’s very thin. You don’t need to waste 2 feet of space underneath the engine and sink the pilot down behind the engine. You just don’t. The people that worship Cherokees and 172s would join a monastery if they flew a Grumman. The Grumman lowers the engine and achieves the same frontal area by raising the pilot above the engine. Why other designs do not copy this feature I’ll never know. The visibility (and flexible main gear ) make it very easy to land. The Grumman is 10 knots faster than 180 hp Cessnas and Pipers. It can keep up with a 200 hp Arrow or Cardinal retract. It could use a bit more wing for high altitude performance, and the tight cowling tends to run cylinders hot, but those are its only shortcomings. Living in the mountains is the only reason I don’t own one. But Mike, please, you are a pilot. It’s a “panel”, not a “dash”. It’s a “canopy”, not a “door”. You missed the folding back seat (you can sleep in the back), the free castering nose wheel, the light, well balanced controls, the phenomenal roll rate, the responsiveness that puts Pipers and Cessnas to shame, the strong as an Ox smooth honeycomb structure (just like the big stuff...did you see many rivets?) and the fact that you can not only taxi but FLY with the CANOPY (not door) cracked open for cooling. The fuel system could not be simpler (selected tank gauge is right over the selector pointer). In a Piper the tank selector is down by your left leg, somewhere, the gauges are off to the right, somewhere, and if you’re not careful you can mistake which gauge reads the tank being used and you can accidentally shut the fuel completely off because the selector is so unintuitive. It’s beyond stupid. Hard to mismanage fuel in a Tiger. And all the fuel is usable in a Tiger. All of it. Other than that - you nailed it!
As Conn653 said, it's a glorified Bede Home built! I lived right around the corner when Jim Bede was hawking his home built, that you could tow home and put in your garage. It's a nice looking plane, but still a home built design, which means it comes in faster than a normal airplane. Everything about it is so so! I wouldn't waste my money on that airplane. The Company was Bede Aircrasft, then American Aviation, then Grumman! The still couldn't make a good airplane out of a pigs ear!
Thanks for making this, couple of pointers though for you though MojoGrip; its a Canopy, not a 'door'. Its not a 'dash' its a panel,and the wings tip is at the end of the wing, not the trailing edge where you step up aboard. In Aviation there is lots of terminology to get right and every day should be a school day, so please dont take offence. Cheers, Paul, UK.
@@macho844 McIntyre Aviation, we had a t-hanger right in front. After the Traveler, there was a 310 II, a 340, a 421C and then a Queen AIr and a King Air t200
I’ve always been enamored with the tiger. You don’t see many...and they look so sporty. The LoPresti speed mods make them zippy. The only downside I recall is 600-900 FPM climb rate which is not great when you have short runways with obstacles. But not many certified (< 200 hp) planes beat it when in cruise. Downside is the canopy on a rainy day. Water in the interior can’t be good.
Based on the Carb Heat knob I think it is an 0-360, not an IO-360. IO-360 is fuel injected, produces 200hp, and would not have carb heat. The 0-360 is carbureted. Just an FYI. Enjoy your videos.
Chris Eaves most io360s are 180. There are a few airframes that use the 200 hp “mod”. Fact check me. The carb heat knob is hilarious. This guy burned all his credibility..
@@dpsschafer I didn't know there were any 180hp IO-360s, but looks like all the IO-360-B(x) versions are 180. All the -A and -C versions are 200hp. The first IO-360s were 200hp so I'm not sure I'd call it a "mod" though. I was actually talking to a guy last week about replacing the 180hp 0-360 in my plane with a 200hp IO-360 that came in later versions. He said when they originally certified the 0-360 it usually produced 185-186, and they called it a 180. The IO version usually produced 196-197 and they called it 200. So he said get the same power with a port & polish for much less money.
In my view, the Grumman is for traveling. Cessna 172.. is more utility, grass strip. Piper between. The downsides of the Grumman is poor climb on hot days, ineffective flaps, and less useful load. Visibility is great. Handling more zippy than C or P, but not twitchy. Grumman’s do scoot and if coming from a C or P, biggest piloting change is staying ahead of them Design is compromise. BeDe emphasized simplicity. This resulted in additional weight, but on the other hand resulted in a robust design that’s cheap to own. The cabin is same width as competitors..40”. Don’t know height, but I’m 6’ and no complaints. BeDe’s other mistake was yokes instead of sticks. The Cheetah O-320 can be upgraded from 150 to 160 hp with high compression cylinders. If you want to go fast for cheap, Grumman’s are the ticket. Cheers
Mike, thanks for the inspiration! I passed my written exam and started my Flight Training in the C172. QUESTION: Which headset would you recommend for a student pilot? I don't want to spend a ton of money on my first headset but I do want something that's comfortable and works well. Which headset would you recommend? This questions up for anyone to answer. Thank you🛩
Heey congrats! I actual just reviewed an entry level headset this past week the video should be up on Sunday. The headset is called spider wireless. Check them out
I would suggest prior to worrying about a headset, you tell your cfi and fbo to stop screwing you. Use a 152 for primary training and save more than enough in just a few hours to buy a decent headset.
Appreciate you giving a tour of these less popular yet still viable GA planes. Like the detail you went into and the video format. Wish you had mentioned a little more about the unique flying characteristics of the Grummans (spins are a no no i hear) and construction.
Used to love flying the Tiger about 20 years ago out of MYF (San Diego). Once got locked in, not able to open the canopy, and after 10 minutes of trying, I climbed out the baggage door. Told the club president about it and he said it was not possible. Recently googled the problem and found this: airfactsjournal.com/2016/10/get-me-out-of-here/ Vindicated albeit 20 years later. We flew it on few more trips, but learned to never lock the canopy again.
I wish you sit on the back seat and show the leg room and the height. I'm always curious on the back seat space since you and I are about the same height. Can you video that part, Mike? Thanks..
I think he meant on landing not in the air. I can’t imagine anyone thought it too fast in the air. Yankee stall speed 57kts 150 stall speed 42kts Piper cub stall speed: flying backwards
Glenn Llewellyn i was flying with my uncle who is a pilot. We were doing some sight seeing at 1000ft by the cliffs on marthas vineyard (an island in Massachusetts). Then, we started flying back, but I forgot to get some altitude going over the water, so we were only at around 1500ft. Exactly halfway between marthas vinyard and Land, the engine ran really rough and quit. My uncle grabbed the controls, trimmed for glide speed and did a sharp turn back to marthas vineyard to try and make it for the beach. He then switched fuel tanks and got it started again. The camshaft broke. It was also the first flight after an annual
