gallois wrote:
When comparing figures on aircraft I first take a Robin 300 with the 160hp engine from the 1960’s which I flew for many years before the club sold it.
This aircraft could take full fuel and 4 normal size adults (average per person 80kg) from LFFK to Perpignan LFMP in around 3 hours averaging 33litres per hour. It was equipped with ADF and VOR for VFR Night flying. (A later owner fitted a panel mounted GPS) It would take off at MTOW on an average grass runway in less than 300metres and cruise at an IAS of 120knots.(please note IAS not TAS).
That is very impressive performance. Getting off in under 300m when four-up and being hauled by 160hp sounds out of this world. I guess it is the low empty weight that does it?
Low wing loading is what does it.
The price is a worse ride in turbulence. TBs are good for turbulence, especially the 20/21.
The diesel ones can be difficult.
And non FAA TCd Robins are a nightmare for avionics, as many found out, especially this chap.
Most Robins are nice aircrafts for 4pob and short runways and can take one efficiently as far as the sun, the performance figures are usually way higher on same hose power but I gather sourcing parts is difficult?
The rumour they are not good for IFR/IMC (e.g. low wing load, wood & fabric, lack of certified avionics) but this claim usually this comes from aeroclub people who have zero experience of flying in moisture (in any aircraft really), so it has to be taken with pinch of salt but I have not come across pilots flying them in light IMC yet…
Flying VFR only I would take an intense look at the Robins. We have a DR400 in our club which I’ve flown frequently which does 140kts indicated airspeed in cruise on 180hp. I’ve flown regularly on MTOW, which is a lot regarding its big useful load. But I always refuelled the fuel for return flight and therefore had no issues with invoices or refuelling off-base. It has close to 7 hours of endurance with an extra tank in the (still big enough) luggage compartment. Grass no problem. Takeoff roll never above 400 meters. The view is spectacular, but the space inside is quite tight. For kids O.K. And we have it with leather seating. It was very reasonably priced, don’t know if this is still the same today. Only “problem” is that you need a hangar, but anyway I wouldn’t let any aircraft outside for long…
GA_Pete wrote:
I have seen the Grumman Tiger listed as a 140kt aircraft many times. Is that a real figure, or firewalled?
I like the aircraft (haven’t flown one) but am really curious.
I personally have not flown the Tiger but I’ve talked to people who do and yes, 140 kts is achievable. I’ve actually seen pics which “certify” it. Top speed with WOT at 5000 ft would be somewhere around 141 KTAS with 10.9 GPH consumption according to POH data available on the internet.
I’d call the Tiger a 135 kt plane @ 75% and around 10 GPH fuel flow in optimum levels around 8000 ft. With 65% you get around 130 kts with 9.2 gph. Clearly its optimum altitude is 8000 ft, where it reaches 139 kts as well as its maximum range.
Book range is about 575 NM at 65% with 45’ reserve and 51 USG usable, you can stretch it to 590 NM at 55% but the 40 miles more with less speed is not really worth doing a real long range cruise. At Max speed, range is given as 550 NM @ 8000 ft and 139 kts.
What is interesting is that the different power regimes, though massively different in fuel flow, have very few difference in range. So the Tiger really is one airplane which you can fly WOT at all times and achieve probably the best bang for buck in speed without much penalty in terms of fuel used over the trip. That is unusual but explains why most people do fly their Grummans like that.
For a fixed gear/fixed prop airplane with 180 hp these cruise values are remarkable in my opinion.
Graham wrote:
I don’t believe an Archer would be 10 knots faster than the TB10 for the same power setting. The wider cabin is at least partially offset by the smaller wing.
With lots of time in Archers and now 35 or so in my new-to-me TB-10, I’ve noticed no difference in real world cruise between the two. Having said that, the TB is an entirely different machine. An Archer feels like a 50-yr-old design, where the TB is like an 80s era Renault—much more comfortable for any distance. They are hard to find IFR, and my solution was to upgrade a VFR-only bird. It’s weird, though, because the TB is a stellar IFR platform.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I’d call the Tiger a 135 kt plane @ 75% and around 10 GPH fuel flow in optimum levels around 8000 ft. With 65% you get around 130 kts with 9.2 gph. Clearly its optimum altitude is 8000 ft, where it reaches 139 kts as well as its maximum range.
I have many hours in a Tiger, and concur. It’s a pilot’s airplane with sprightly handling—more like the Robin example. I also had a friend who owned one largely trouble-free for many years. Until I had three kids the Tiger would be my pick. But an autopilot is a must for IFR, because it’s too unstable otherwise. Also requires really good energy management in the circuit or it just. won’t. land.
I think GFC500 AP is now STCed for Grumman Cheetah & Tiger now, someone upgraded his last year
Ibra wrote:
I think GFC500 AP is now STCed for Grumman Cheetah & Tiger now,
Yes, they´re on Garmin’s list of approved aircraft.
Thanks for the great input 
I will try to summarize and answer :
If I excluded IFR (like if I lived in southern france), I would focus on DR300s, early 172s and orphaned/experimentals.
I start to think I need an intra-ear headset to save headroom.
