@arj1, post-1975 Grummans have very few ADs, and no “killer” ones. The wing spar is a life-limited part, but the limit is 12500 hours. By the way, that spar is a round tube, so it has no inherent stress concentrators.
In particular I’m looking for AG Tigers made in the 90’s, so there shouldn’t be any delamination/glue/troublesome AD’s issues.
I was mainly worried about possible difficult airframe repairs sometime down the line given the peculiar honeycomb sandwich construction and the availability of spares generally, but if those aren’t terribly relevant, I guess it wouldn’t become a sitting plane waiting for the difficult to source parts.
Of course if the plane is in terrible shape, that will require sometime later costly repairs. Trying to avoid that of course….
I would assume there would be no significant maintenance cost between TB 9’s and 10’s but I would think a TB10 would be a bit more expensive (as an yearly average) than a Tiger.
Thank you for the input everyone!
A TB10 significantly outperforms a TB9. And a TB20 greatly outclasses a TB10.
But my comment on past neglect driving the unscheduled maint cost is by far the biggest thing.
Peter wrote:
A TB10 significantly outperforms a TB9. And a TB20 greatly outclasses a TB10.
I’m surprised that the TB10, having a constant-speed prop, only has a max cruise speed 1 kt more that a PA-28-181, having the same engine but a fixed-pitch prop.
(No doubt the TB10 is the nicer aircraft. I’ve never flown one, but I have flown the TB20 and it is the nicest SEP I know.)
doillq wrote:
In particular I’m looking for AG Tigers made in the 90’s, so there shouldn’t be any delamination/glue/troublesome AD’s issues.I was mainly worried about possible difficult airframe repairs sometime down the line given the peculiar honeycomb sandwich construction and the availability of spares generally, but if those aren’t terribly relevant, I guess it wouldn’t become a sitting plane waiting for the difficult to source parts.
No, the availability of parts is reasonable. Furthermore, the kind of repairs you are talking about is usually a result of a fairly serious accident, I hope you never have to face that. For all kinds of smaller damage, Grumman (like airliners but unlike most other light aircraft of its era) has an extensive Standard Repair Manual. When it comes to preventing airframe damage, I would give just one big warning: never land it on the nose wheel, the repair can get very expensive.
Of course if the plane is in terrible shape, that will require sometime later costly repairs. Trying to avoid that of course
This is what a pre-purchase inspection is for, and I can help you with that.
Very much depends on cockpit volume; the TB10 is probably bigger.
Very much depends on cockpit volume; the TB10 is probably bigger.
Yep, all a CS prop does in cruise is allow you to open the throttle further without over-revving, which in turn allows you to burn more fuel to overcome more drag, if you have it. This speaks highly for being a compact person, something which I am not, sitting in a compact cabin 
Re Grummans compared with Socata competitors, the Grummans are relatively inexpensive and easy to maintain because increased simplicity was a conscious driver in their design. Their enduring popularity shows that this serves a lot of people’s needs. I wish my own plane (which is of neither type) had some of the features of the Grummans like a castering (lower drag) nose wheel and the generally nice aerodynamic detail design of the LoPresti updated versions.
Silvaire wrote:
I wish my own plane (which is of neither type) had some of the features of the Grummans like a castering (lower drag) nose wheel and the generally nice aerodynamic detail design of the LoPresti updated versions.
The nose wheel in Grummans is indeed a blessing for taxi, but easy to damage when an inexperienced person helps you push the aircraft back (don’t ask me how I know). Fortunately, the affected part is an inexpensive cold-stamped metal bracket.
Lo Presti cowling on Tigers has been superseded by the new Jaguar cowling, even better aerodynamically, and sexy looking, too. No price has been announced, but it will probably follow the common trend among speed mods, ~1 AMU per knot of airspeed gained. Grummans have one very cheap speed mod, though: amputating the boarding steps allegedly produces a gain of 1.5 knots.
The Grummans are probably one of the most underrated series of airplanes. The Cheetah and the Tiger got the nickname “poor man’s Cirrus” for their fixed gear and comparatively high cruise speed. The Tiger usually is a 135 to 140 kt airplane which is remarkable: With fixed gear and fixed prop it will almost match a C Model Mooney and outdo a PA28 between 15 and 20 kts.
The AG variants are quite pretty too. There is one which has been very lovingly redone with lots of avionics and very low hours in Germany.
