OK, so no Tiger time but a handful or two of hours in a 150hp Cheetah, and an hour or three bombing around in a friend's 160hp 9A... My comments below apply to the Cheetah, but in almost all matters the Cheetah and Tiger are pretty much the same, save for the Tiger's better speed and better climb rate, thanks to its 180hp engine.
Some impressions of both:
- Grumman is far easier to get into and out of, hands down - the sliding seats and larger canopy opening are chiefly responsible for this difference
- Grumman has far more cargo space and more useful load to carry it
- Grumman gives you 4 seats for those times when you want to take along more than one friend
- Grumman allows you to feel like the cockpit is wider by having your right-seater slide the seat all the way aft, giving you both some extra shoulder room
- Grumman has a more robust nose gear setup
- Grumman is constrained in equipment you can install, and the price of that equipment
- Grumman is slower on equal power and quite a bit slower in the climb
- Grumman has lots of elevator authority which has resulted in PIO landing incidents, often negating the effect of the more robust nose gear
- 9A has a stick, Grumman has a yoke - personal preference rules here
- 9A has similar feel in roll axis but feels lighter in pitch once you get very far out of trim; you wont get a sore arm flaring the 9A
- 9A gives you a greater choice of installed equipment, ranging from avionics to powerplants to props
- 9A is stable enough to be an IFR platform, as is the Grumman
- for IFR work, the fuel range of the 9A may leave you wishing for more if flying in an area where alternates are a fair distance away
- unless you have the "tip up slider" mod, accessing the baggage area (equivalent of Grumman rear seat area) of the 9A is considerably more difficult than the Grumman, particularly for larger objects
- Grumman runs bigger tires - a double-edged sword; more flotation on soft ground, more drag in the air
- Grumman offers a much wider wing-walk surface for those of us with big, clumsy feet
- 9A doesn't have any rudder return springs to break
- diving under the instrument panel appears to be an equally painful experience in both aircraft
- 9A offers better visibility in all directions
- conversely, the Grumman doesn't require a sunshade in the canopy to keep from toasting ones noggin
- 9A's seem to command a fair price premium over Tigers... one would expect this, given most AA5B's are 35 or more years of age and one can hardly stand up after seeing the price point on the AG5B's
- 9A is physically smaller and easier to ground-handle
- paint stripping on the 9A doesn't require the brand-specific knowledge required of Grumman painters
- the Grumman has, through many years of service, proven itself to be a very robust aircraft; unfortunately those many years of service mean there are some very tired ones out in the market
- the Grumman engine cowl is an absolute dream for routine maintenance, allowing access to all spark plugs etc
- for non-routine maintenance like changing an alternator, having to remove the prop and nosebowl is a real pain in the keester
- the Grumman offers a lot more room behind the engine to access accessories and change oil filters
- the 9A doesn't have a silly "mail slot" aft baggage door, but then again, it also doesn't have an aft baggage compartment or a fold-flat rear seat
- 9A takeoff performance is, by comparison... (well, there really is no comparison)
If I were looking at buying into the airplane market right now, I'd be looking hard at experimentals, if only for the freedom of choice of installed equipment and reduced maintenance/ownership costs they offer. These freedoms must be balanced by a willingness to take on more responsibility for maintenance and systems engineering.
OK, that's about all I can think of for the moment.