A

aeabe

Member
I have been reading posts for a couple of years, but never posted. I have a 78 Grumman Tiger, which needs some upgrades, but still flys very well. I do not need 4 places. The 9A is very appealing to me, and I have worn out a set of preliminary plans looking at the "build". What are the comparisons between a Tiger and a 9A? I feel I would like to build, as it is on my bucket list. Just finished building a house, all steel framework, not the same as aluminum, except for tiling the front porch which needs to wait for cooler weather.
Thanks
 
aeabe said:
I have been reading posts for a couple of years, but never posted. I have a 78 Grumman Tiger, which needs some upgrades, but still flys very well. I do not need 4 places. The 9A is very appealing to me, and I have worn out a set of preliminary plans looking at the "build". What are the comparisons between a Tiger and a 9A? I feel I would like to build, as it is on my bucket list. Just finished building a house, all steel framework, not the same as aluminum, except for tiling the front porch which needs to wait for cooler weather.
Thanks
Click to expand...

Build the -9...you will LOVE it. We just finished one recently and almost universally we all really like it. Personally, I think it's one of the most under-rated planes that Vans sells and is an absolute delight to fly. I think Vans should sell it a bit harder, because in my opinion it's about the best kit for most people. We've built most types of RV's, owned most of them and have hundreds of hours in most of them and we think all RV's are pretty great too, but the -9 is really a great plane and at the top of most of our "fun list" for RV's.

Just my 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein
 
I agree with Stein. I finished my 9A in May and it is a wonderful plane. I went with low compression 150 HP and I'm getting 150-155 MPH without any fairing at all and no wheel pants yet. Everyone says I will gain 15-20 MPH when all the fairings are on. I'm a happy camper.
 
I agree. I built a 9A, flew 335 hours and then converted to a 9 (and now have 65 hours on it in that configuration). I typically cruise at 165-175 mph, top out at 200 mph, and just got back from a day trip to Oregon with an average fuel burn of about 27 mpg. If you have any inclination to do a taildragger (and no aerobatics), the 9 is a great way to go. If not a taildragger, then the 9A is also a great way to go.

greg
 
I beg to differ.......

Hey aeabe,

I have never flown a Tiger, but I have pretty much hated every one of the 830 hrs on my 9A. Why?

- It was really hard and painful to build
- It is no fun to fly
- It has a horrible, scary stall
- It makes terrible landings
- It sucks tons of gas
- It looks stupid
- It is expensive to maintain
- It has never been a big part of any great trips and memories

and most importantly....

- It has never provided me with the opportunity to meet some great people in person and here on the web.

Don't waste a couple of years building only to hate the plane as much as I do.... that said - I'm off to the hangar to go flying;):p:D

Giddy Up!
 
I've got about as much time in the AA-5/AG-5B as I do in RV's, which is about 100 hours or so.

If you don't need to carry four people, I can't think of a single category that the RV won't beat the Tiger except maybe useful load, however you can pack a LOT of stuff into an RV. It's faster, cheaper, more comfortable, better flying, etc etc etc.

Plus if you build yourself, no more annuals. If you buy one, same applies you just have to have an A&P sign off your annuals (you do the work). You can do everything. Want new avionics, interior, prop, whater? Do it yourself. No more shops and rediculous labor costs. The non-certified avionics market is gets more facinating by the day. WAAS enabled EFIS with synthetic vision for pennies on the dollar to a certified setup.

You won't regret the desicion one bit.
 
Sarcasm.

I detects it.

petehowell said:
Hey aeabe,

I have never flown a Tiger, but I have pretty much hated every one of the 830 hrs on my 9A. Why?

- It was really hard and painful to build
- It is no fun to fly
- It has a horrible, scary stall
- It makes terrible landings
- It sucks tons of gas
- It looks stupid
- It is expensive to maintain
- It has never been a big part of any great trips and memories

and most importantly....

- It has never provided me with the opportunity to meet some great people in person and here on the web.

Don't waste a couple of years building only to hate the plane as much as I do.... that said - I'm off to the hangar to go flying;):p:D

Giddy Up!
Click to expand...
 
Yep..

Sig600 said:
.........You won't regret the desicion one bit.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better...you're wide open to tailor the airplane to suit yourself and your mission....glass...IFR...backups/no backups...whatever you like.

Experimental is definitely where it's at!

Best,
 
Americans

Hi

I think you Americans call this a 'No brainer' Well for those who have flown a 9 it is anyway.

I concur with all the comments on the 9 a really superb easy to fly fast aeroplane.

Grumman Tiger........ good but very thirsty in comparison.
 
aeabe:

I'm not sure all these glowing reports on the '9' are helping you very much. I'm in a somewhat similar circumstance, altho' I eventually placed my AA-5 in a partnership and later left it to go sailing. So now our challenge (Patricia also flies) is to decide whether we return to a GA a/c like the Grumman (which we liked very much) or move over to an Experimental of some stripe, most likely an RV. I recently begged a flight in a 9A (thanks, Bob!) and recently did my Flight Review in our 1975 AA-5, in part to help me sift thru the kinds of issues I bet you are wrestling with. Here are a few of my thoughts:

-- I found the 9A and AA-5 (both with O-320's) to fly more alike than different, despite being told the 9A was far more maneuverable and responsive. I suspect one big difference is flying with a stick. The beautiful, almost new 9A I flew showed 140 kts @ 9 gph on the EFIS, which is also exactly what the builder/owner flight plans. Not so different than your Tiger. In sum (heresy alert..!), I think the two are more alike than different, and of course the AA-5B has more cargo space with only two crew and the Tiger's full-fuel useful load is considerably higher.
-- Each time I've recently flown our old AA-5, it's struck me how tired many of its pieces are, and I wonder about the life span of the honeycomb structure. There was always a parts supply chain of some kind available...but parts were expensive and one had to work hard to find them. Vans is, as I understand it, now an employee-owned corp that is riding the crest of a new wave (experimental registrations far exceeding Part 23 a/c registrations these days) which suggests to me this issue won't exist for an RV during my (and perhaps your) remaining flying career.
-- You hint at 'upgrades' being needed by your Tiger. I suspect that cost, whatever it is, will not primarily be an 'investment' but rather just an expense. By contrast, if you build the cost will mostly be an investment in the sense that a much higher percentage of it will returned when you sell.

IMO the previous comments somewhat lightly skip over two key issues for guys like us: owner upgrades, maintenance & repairs, and flying time vs. building time. There's no doubt that the appeal of maintaining my own plane is a key motivator for me considering an RV. And it's not just the cost savings but also the level of confidence - as an owner and a pilot - that comes with a deep familiarity in one's aircraft. BUT this doesn't just 'happen' if one purchases a completed RV. Rather, for most of us it's a hill one climbs...or a large time sink if one builds. So those benefits come, but only over time. And one variable that exists in each of our equations is just how much flying time we have left.

Similarly, build time for a 9A occupies a significant period of one's life, and it looks more significant the older you are. The 9A owner I met ordered every Quickbuild option he could, and he hired expertise for the firewall forward part of his build. For him, those decisions made good sense as he was already in his 60's, he wanted a short non-flying hiatus, and the additional cash was at hand. His build took 3 years. Some here have built their 6/7/8/9 a/c in less time, but my take from the many posts & logs I've read is that many more builders take longer than 3 years rather than less. This doesn't seem like quite so much an issue once one is on the other side of the building period. Not so much on the front end.

Many builders just 'glow' re: the sense of satisfaction and accomplishment they get from building. If you build, I hope that happens to you as well...because all that labor seems mostly to have little monetary value once the build is complete. Intrinsic rewards are the best kind...but in many cases (including some For Sale threads running right now) it appears there's no extrinsic financial benefit for the hours spent building.

After some typical on-line Part 23 plane shopping and also using the program AOPA runs on its website to find a share in a local plane, I find I'm leaning to one of two options: Buying a pre-built RV or building an RV-12 (among other reasons, due to the short build time). If I were in your shoes, I'd probably first explore forming a partnership (my previous experience was simply outstanding), which in turn would make the upgrades & freshening of the a/c far more affordable. (If it's like most other a/c, your Tiger is w-a-y underutilized). Only if that option was unacceptable, would I then sharpen my pencil, look back at my annual flight hours and typical flight missions, and then weigh whether dedicating 4 years +/- to build an RV seemed the right choice for me.

No matter how you proceed, good luck to you. And enjoy that Tiger, in this hot summer weather with the canopy slid back a bit!

Jack
 
AA-5B vs RV-9

I have hundreds of hours in a Tiger that I went thru the usual upgrades, LoPresti nose bowl, Powerflow exhaust. presure recovery wheel pants... all very expensive compared to exp. work. When I transitioned to a RV-7A it was a non event, biggest change sink rate especially with a C/S prop. I have since flown a couple of 9's and they are very comperable to the Tiger with the exception of being much cheaper to opperate, and way higher "fun factor". Get into a 9 and you won't want to stop flying it. My flying hours almost doubled since going from the Tiger to the RV, and I loved flying the Tiger.
P.S. I installed a Trio Pro Pilot in the RV for less than $4000. to get the same features in a certified plane such as the Tiger would have cost about $16,000..
 
Thanks to all of you for the responses to my question about the AA5B vs the 9A. It pretty much reinforces the questions I had. Keep the information coming. I think the idea of Build would be a real lot of fun, as my wife and I recently completed doing our own house, except for things like plumbing, slab, electrical, roofing and block. But since it was a steel frame, we had to do all the walls, sheet rock, finish work, flooring, etc. It was a lot more fund and means a lot more than buying someing someone else has built. The same thing applies with planes, I feel that I could do as good or better job than many others and the annual, I know what needs to be fixed and could do most of it.
Thanks again.
 
I don't have much time in anything but my RV9 so I don't know how some other planes compare, but I do know that after 600 hours I'm still in love with my -9. In fact, we just participated in a missing man formation today. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.