Piper Archer vs Grumman Tiger

[Heliplane]

I am trying to compare the Piper Archer and Grumman Tiger as possible aircraft to purchase and would be very grateful for any insight or experiences that other forum members could give on these types.

I would probably go for a late 70s Archer or Tiger with relatively low time and no damage history. I'd also probably maintain it on the N register (this has more to do with my licenses than a different maintenance regime).

I am particularly interested in the following:

1) Realistic performance figures (I am used to a TAS of between 120-125kts in an Archer and have read that a Tiger will reach a TAS of 135-140kts - but does this happen in reality). I am also used to being able to fill the Archer with 4 reasonably sized adults and full fuel - can the same be said for the Grumman?

2) Maintenance - whilst both aircraft are relatively simple (same engine, fixed prop and gear), are there any particular maintenance concerns that have been encountered with each type (especially recurring problems, availability of parts, etc).

3) Opearting costs.

4) General observations, preferences.

5) Bearing in mind that this would be my first privately owned aircraft, that I would like 4 seats, reasonable cruise speed and simple-to-maintain systems (ie would prefer not to have a retractable gear, turbo or cs prop at this stage), has anyone had any wonderful experiences with other aircraft?

Many thanks,

Heliplane.

[High Wing Drifter]

The Tiger and the Cheetah are very similar, except that the Tiger has 30 more wild stallions and the commensurate increase in performance.

Our Cheetah cost about £5000/year (plus fuel) to run (150 hours/year). Loved every bit of it. In my mind, there is no comparison. The Piper will have the edge on runway length requirements and possibly in load carrying to a small degree (not sure about Tiger in this respect), but in every other respect it is whooped IMO.

The following is a link to a link of previous discussion:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hlight=CHeetah

[Rod1]

Up until recently I owned a 1978 Tiger. You can expect about 130kn cruse (10 k better then an archer, in similar conditions. It will handle a lot better and you have much better visibility, plus you can open the hood if it is hot (doors are for cars).

It will not lift as much as an Archer, but in my opinion neither is a true 4 seat, I would go for a Robin DR400 180 if I had your specification and hargerage. You would get 135kn plus full 4 seat and full baggage with 4 hours plus reserve

All the above aircraft are no problem for maintenance as all are in current production. The late 70’s Tigers have the good glue and the mk3 nose leg so no problem there. The Tiger construction makes it a very good bet if it is parked outside, as it does not have 100’s of rivets to aid corrosion.

Operating costs for all of them will be similar at about £5000 ish as mentioned above.

Rod1

[bpilatus]

I think the Archer looks more appealing but the AA5 is a practical machine. As mentioned the vis is good but that large canopy can make things hot in the summer. It is possible to fly with the canopy slightly open but the noise puts a damper on the enjoyment. The AA5 is faster and some would say has a week front u/c.

See here: http://ayase.home.mindspring.com/aa5.htm

[Tarq57]

I've never attained the heady realms of ownership, but have a few hours on both types, and the variants. The AA5B (Tiger) does have the edge on speed by about 5-15 kt TAS depending on the aircraft. The book says it should do 139. 130 maybe 135 is more realistic. Most Archers (the 2 series) I've flown true out at 115-122 tas when up and running, depending, once again, on condition, age etc. On most a/c you can squeeze a bit more out of them for any given weight by placing the cg nearer the back limit, if you can. (It reduces downforce on the elevator) Particularly true of the Cherokee range. IMO the grumman handles better (except at low speed),has a better view and is more fun to fly.It can be noisier, the canopy seal is prone to leaking "hiss" with age. The archer will carry a little more, won't run out of rear cg so readily, and can climb at a better angle, for those confined spaces. AA5 ground manoueverability is brilliant, but you do need a towbar to move it. The archer feels a hint roomier in the back.

[flyboyike]

I would also consider that there are MUCH more PA-28s out there than Tigers, which helps as far as parts availability, costs etc.

[Send Clowns]

What are you calling a reasonably-sized adult? I have some hours on the Archer, and I would not put 4 and full fuel in, at least not without weighing each person and calculating the weight because I don't think it would be legal with 4 adults unless they were of modest weight, averaging less than 12 stone if no baggage is carried.

[A and C]

On maintenance costs the PA-28 will win the contest, I like the AA-5 as a pilot but as a licenced engineer I would not want to own one.

[flyboyike]

Originally Posted by Send Clowns

What are you calling a reasonably-sized adult? I have some hours on the Archer, and I would not put 4 and full fuel in, at least not without weighing each person and calculating the weight because I don't think it would be legal with 4 adults unless they were of modest weight, averaging less than 12 stone if no baggage is carried.

I would concur that a PA-28 (any of them) is not a 4-pass aircraft with full tanks. If you want to carry 4 with max fuel, perhaps you might consider a Cherokee 6 or a C206.

[Final 3 Greens]

Originally Posted by flyboyike

I would concur that a PA-28 (any of them) is not a 4-pass aircraft with full tanks. If you want to carry 4 with max fuel, perhaps you might consider a Cherokee 6 or a C206.

Don't you consider a PA28-236 a four place plane?

[Heliplane]

Thanks everyone for your insightful feedback. It's all very helpful.

A and C, I wondered what specific maintenance issues you have encountered with the Grumman that would make ownership unattractive compared to the PA28.

I've been speaking to as many people (pilots and engineers alike) about their experiences with Tigers and Archers and the consensus seems to be that they cost about the same to operate but that the Tiger is more enjoyable to fly (with the added bonus of a bit of extra speed).

Thanks again.

[RatherBeFlying]

I loved flying the Tiger and Cheetah, but they have their quirks.

I showed up for a checkout on a Cheetah with long range tanks and the instructor asked if his husky buddy could come along. On landing we stalled at a higher than expected airspeed -- yep, we were well overgross

Then you take the Cheetah for a nice long trip to take advantage of those long-range tanks and find out that it really likes to float at light weights which gets your attention on a short runway -- lots of overrun accidents as noted in:http://www.grumman.net/cgrcc/aa5.html

Not much climb when hot and high; so leaning to best power needed for takeoff and go-arounds if you don't want to scare the gophers at the end of the runway back into their holes

Then there's porpoising -- as noted in the cited URL. My favorite Cheetah was written off that way

[Newforest]

Originally Posted by RatherBeFlying

I loved flying the Tiger and Cheetah, but they have their quirks.
Then there's porpoising -- as noted in the cited URL. My favorite Cheetah was written off that way

Hey, I porpoised, but it was in my own Cheetah Great plane, still is!

[flyboyike]

Originally Posted by Final 3 Greens

Don't you consider a PA28-236 a four place plane?

I do, but they are uncommon.

[172driver]

Hmmmm.... 4 adults, full fuel plus bags. I have a feeling you may have to look somewhere else....

[flyboyike]

Originally Posted by 172driver

Hmmmm.... 4 adults, full fuel plus bags. I have a feeling you may have to look somewhere else....

This is what I'd recommend.

[172driver]

Flyboy, I'm with you

PS: in spite of my title I actually learned to fly on Archers and Warriors.