first aircraft.

Great buggy; if I were aiming at an AA1, though, I'd try for a C model, with the 320.
 
For the prospective buyer who doesn't need long range and who doesn't intend to venture into the high country or into short, unimproved strips, this might be an excellent choice.
 
Tom-D said:
Opinions on this aircraft as first aircraft for student and first time owner

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1971...029619?pt=Motors_Aircraft&hash=item4cf54dc6f3
Click to expand...

What does he want to do with the airplane? Bore holes in the sky solo?

This is a great airplane for that.

On the other hand, if he wants to carry a passenger and a few bags, he should check the useful load on the airplane. The little Grummans are typically more useful load challenged than the other "modern" two seaters.
 
Where's the prospective owner live? I love the look of these little Grummans so I researched buying one many moons ago. I learned that their takeoff and climb performance at my typical Density Altitudes (above 6000') was very poor and that's one of the reasons we don't see too many of them up here, and never fully loaded.
 
Wouldn't be my first choice, but it would depend on his intentions for the aircraft. It's a basic VFR aircraft, so it'll probably cost him a few bucks if he wants to use it for his IR trainer as well. Probably make a decent plane for local/regional solo runs or with a kid, plus they are kinda sporty and economical. Weight limitations are probably the main mission constraint, plus they aren't really long rangers.
 
Generally agree -- as long as the trainee and his/her instructor don't weigh more than about 360 lb, and they're not operating above 5000 DA or on short unpaved strips, this should be fine. The AA-1x's are excellent trainers, as their responses are more characteristic of larger/faster aircraft and they are more demanding of good skill for best results than the "typical" trainers we usually see. The single KX-155 is all one needs for PP training, and supplemented by a handheld GPS, should be great for VFR flying. The LORAN, of course, is nothing but dead weight.

This being an A-model, it has the "cuffed" wing which substantially changes its flying characteristics compared to the original 1969-70 AA-1's "slick" wing, which required a lot more speed on final and had much sharper stall characteristics (but repaid the pilot with about 10 knots more speed on the same power). The wing was unchanged from the A's through the B- and C-models.

BTW, the AA-1C came from the factory with a 115 HP O-235-L2C engine, similar to the 108HP O-235-C2C in the previous AA-1x models, not an O-320. However, there are a lot of AA-1x's of all submodels which have been converted to 150-160 HP O-320's under STC's available from a number of Grumman sources. If this one hadn't just been overhauled, and the buyer were contemplating high DA or short field operations, that conversion would be a good choice at overhaul time (which is probably a long time off on this plane). If the buyer needs that capability now, s/he can probably find AA-1x's with that conversion already done for not much more cost than the asking price on this one.

Suggest you have the buyer take a look at http://www.aya.org and http://www.grumman.net for more info on Grummans.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Generally agree -- as long as the trainee and his/her instructor don't weigh more than about 360 lb, and they're not operating above 5000 DA or on short unpaved strips, this should be fine. The AA-1x's are excellent trainers, as their responses are more characteristic of larger/faster aircraft and they are more demanding of good skill for best results than the "typical" trainers we usually see. The single KX-155 is all one needs for PP training, and supplemented by a handheld GPS, should be great for VFR flying. The LORAN, of course, is nothing but dead weight.

This being an A-model, it has the "cuffed" wing which substantially changes its flying characteristics compared to the original 1969-70 AA-1's "slick" wing, which required a lot more speed on final and had much sharper stall characteristics (but repaid the pilot with about 10 knots more speed on the same power). The wing was unchanged from the A's through the B- and C-models.

BTW, the AA-1C came from the factory with a 115 HP O-235-L2C engine, similar to the 108HP O-235-C2C in the previous AA-1x models, not an O-320. However, there are a lot of AA-1x's of all submodels which have been converted to 150-160 HP O-320's under STC's available from a number of Grumman sources. If this one hadn't just been overhauled, and the buyer were contemplating high DA or short field operations, that conversion would be a good choice at overhaul time (which is probably a long time off on this plane). If the buyer needs that capability now, s/he can probably find AA-1x's with that conversion already done for not much more cost than the asking price on this one.

Suggest you have the buyer take a look at http://www.aya.org and http://www.grumman.net for more info on Grummans.
Click to expand...

thanks but .......

That alone eliminates this aircraft, plus it will be based at OKH.
 
Ron Levy said:
While weight may be a show-stopper, 3265 feet of paved runway at SL is not.
Click to expand...

We do not have that much usable runway any more, it's breaking up pretty bad. it has not had any maintenance in a long time.

but our DA is usually in the minus numbers, specially this time of year.

We have 2 other AA-1s that operate from here, both have the conventional gear mods, but both owners say they would not train in a AA-1 here. due to prop damage, and the narrow runway.

But I thought I'd ask here anyway.
 
Tom-D said:
We do not have that much usable runway any more, it's breaking up pretty bad. it has not had any maintenance in a long time.
Click to expand...
2500 feet would be plenty, but if they weigh as much as you say, it's a nonstarter.
We have 2 other AA-1s that operate from here, both have the conventional gear mods, but both owners say they would not train in a AA-1 here. due to prop damage, and the narrow runway.
Click to expand...
I can imagine not wanting to fly a taildragger AA-1x on a narrow runway -- they are seriously squirrely due to the very short coupling, but 25 feet of widthe is as sufficient for an AA-1x as it is for any other tricycle-gear light trainer. As for the prop damage, that would apply to anything you flew there short of a glider or balloon.
 
Ron Levy said:
2500 feet would be plenty, but if they weigh as much as you say, it's a nonstarter.
I can imagine not wanting to fly a taildragger AA-1x on a narrow runway -- they are seriously squirrely due to the very short coupling, but 25 feet of width is as sufficient for an AA-1x as it is for any other tricycle-gear light trainer. As for the prop damage, that would apply to anything you flew there short of a glider or balloon.
Click to expand...

No not really, we have had 3 props changed or repaired from runway debris damage this year, all on nose gear aircraft, none on any tailwheel.

The 2 Grumman owners that I referred to say they wouldn't even fly the nose wheel Grummans in here. specially with students.
 
Ron Levy said:
Are they instructors?
Click to expand...

1 is, but both know how easy the props can get dinged. and both flew their Grummans before the conversions.

the time to solo would be greatly increased here, due to the narrow and short runway, plus the fact the chances of a mishap will be much greater here. That may be true for many aircraft, but more so in the Grumman.
 
Tom-D said:
the time to solo would be greatly increased here, due to the narrow and short runway, plus the fact the chances of a mishap will be much greater here. That may be true for many aircraft, but more so in the Grumman.
Click to expand...
While I understand why one wouldn't want to operate ANY plane on a runway where there's that much loose junk to ding the prop, I see no reason why time to solo should be greater in an AA-1x than any other typical light GA trainer on a 3300x25 runway.
 
Ron Levy said:
While I understand why one wouldn't want to operate ANY plane on a runway where there's that much loose junk to ding the prop, I see no reason why time to solo should be greater in an AA-1x than any other typical light GA trainer on a 3300x25 runway.
Click to expand...

Moot point in this case, they need a C-182 capable aircraft. when they finish their training,

The useful load of the AA1 is its biggest limiting factor, so if it won't do the job why bother.
 
Tom-D said:
1 is, but both know how easy the props can get dinged. and both flew their Grummans before the conversions.

the time to solo would be greatly increased here, due to the narrow and short runway, plus the fact the chances of a mishap will be much greater here. That may be true for many aircraft, but more so in the Grumman.
Click to expand...

when i taught off 2400 x 24 pavement (in good condition) the students still took ~10 hrs to solo
 
tonycondon said:
when i taught off 2400 x 24 pavement (in good condition) the students still took ~10 hrs to solo
Click to expand...

The problem I find most people have is not being able to land on a small strip, it's having the discipline to land on a small portion of strip when being offered a large strip.
 
Ron Levy said:
While I understand why one wouldn't want to operate ANY plane on a runway where there's that much loose junk to ding the prop, I see no reason why time to solo should be greater in an AA-1x than any other typical light GA trainer on a 3300x25 runway.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, how much damage would occur from debris kicked up from the nose wheel, hitting the belly of the AA1s. I know that area is a honeycomb structure, and a bunch of dents there could be the end of the aircraft.
 
Last edited:
tonycondon said:
when i taught off 2400 x 24 pavement (in good condition) the students still took ~10 hrs to solo
Click to expand...
Would they have done it in 10 hours with differential brake steering and a higher stall speed?
 
Tom-D said:
Just out of curiosity, how much damage would occur from debris kicked up from the nose wheel, hitting the belly of the AA1s.
Click to expand...
Never seen anything but chipped paint.

I know that area is a honeycomb structure, and a bunch of dents there could be the end of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
No more so, and probably less, than a regular aluminum skin.
 
Tom-D said:
Would they have done it in 10 hours with differential brake steering
Click to expand...
Based on a lot of checkouts of C/P pilots in Grummans, and having trained folks in Grummans, differential brake steering is not a significant factor.
and a higher stall speed?
Click to expand...
An extra five knots on final shouldn't make a significant difference in time to solo.
 
Ron Levy said:
Never seen anything but chipped paint.

No more so, and probably less, than a regular aluminum skin.
Click to expand...

I can remove and replace any skin on the belly of the C-170/180 series in 2 days, where would you even find a belly skin for a AA1? or the authorization to replace it.

Remember our conversation about repairing the Grumman? There are no glue up repairs authorized with out field approval. so if you do damage it on unapproved / rough runways, you are stuck with an ugly scab patch with blind rivets.

As per the conversation with the boys last night, we are on the hunt for a 182. within their budget.
 
Tom-D said:
I can remove and replace any skin on the belly of the C-170/180 series in 2 days, where would you even find a belly skin for a AA1?
Click to expand...
Fletchair, AirMods NW, Excel, and TrueFlight all come to mind.
or the authorization to replace it.
Click to expand...
Many shops seem able to do that with no big deal.
As per the conversation with the boys last night, we are on the hunt for a 182. within their budget.
Click to expand...
Now a 182 will add some time to solo -- more time learning the theory and operation of the c/s prop, and demonstrating proper use. In addition, the insurer may want some specific minimum dual time in the 15-25 hour range before solo. Check that out when obtaining quotes.
 
Ron Levy said:
Now a 182 will add some time to solo -- more time learning the theory and operation of the c/s prop, and demonstrating proper use. In addition, the insurer may want some specific minimum dual time in the 15-25 hour range before solo. Check that out when obtaining quotes.
Click to expand...

How much time does teaching a C/S prop take? 45 minutes on the ground and that would include explaining ICPs and the relationship of how RPM vs MP pressure effects them; In the air add 10 minutes? It's no big deal to operate a 182 as a fixed pitch for the beginning of the learning process and add it in a couple hours down the road, but really, it's not that big of a deal. I know a few people who bought and learned in complex-HP planes, 182s & Bonanzas and had no issues with solo time requirements, and 15hrs isn't that far out from what it takes in a simple plane when you are at a controlled field.
 
Henning said:
How much time does teaching a C/S prop take? 45 minutes on the ground and that would include explaining ICPs and the relationship of how RPM vs MP pressure effects them; In the air add 10 minutes?
Click to expand...
There's a lot involved in pre-solo training, and each additional control complicates the matter further -- and the 182 has two -- c/s prop and cowl flaps. When you're dealing with primary trainees, it's not just 10 minutes of training to get them to use the control properly every single time in every circumstance. Heck, that's not even time enough to take them once through a full flight cycle including takeoff, climbout, cruise climb, cruise, descent, pattern entry, go-around, pattern re-entry, and landing.

As any CFI knows, it's just not that simple for a pre-solo student, and you need quite a few repetitions to be confident that they'll get it right (see "amateurs train until they get it right, but pros train until they can't get it wrong"). My guess based on a few decades as a CFI is that a trainee who starts in a 182 will take 2-5 hours more for the instructor to be comfortable signing them off for solo than the same trainee would going from scratch to solo in a C-152.
 
Okay, so I'm not a CFI or anything here, but in a 182... if you have the student jockey the throttle to get back to 80 knots or so in the pattern, they probably could "get away with" never touching the prop lever at all. At least at first.

No it's not good technique for later, and not as nice to the airport neighbors for noise, but on the older 182s with 2600 RPM a full power climb-out to pattern altitude and then pulling the power back with the throttle and leaving the prop pitch alone, would be fine... In the pattern.

In a rental (owners would cry...) just leaving the cowl flaps wide open (especially in summer) would also be "fine". Again not proper technique, but it'd be an easy way to lower the student's workload for a while and then introduce the proper use of those two extra levers a little later on. Bad for their "muscle memory" and checklist use, though... so you Instructors would have to decide if you could handle explanations that you're making things simpler for them, or you could take the approach that they call out the checklist items, and you'll handle the prop and cowl flaps for them until later...

Seems to me, anyway, that the 182 is a bit simpler in this regard than some complex aircraft. It'd handle the "abuse" of not paying attention to the prop or cowl flaps in the pattern just fine -- if you're trying to lower the workload on a new person to the aircraft. My experience here is 182-specific. There would probably be limitations on the 182RG and T182T but again, I can't imagine the student couldn't just slow down with power in those aircraft too. Prop full forward around the pattern doesn't seem problematic in the 182 variants to me. No need to do it at full-throttle though.

The more worrisome part would be teaching a primary student not to ever land on the nosegear in a 182 unless they have a very big wallet. Firewall damage is pretty common. That and if you're in an older one with 40 degrees of flaps, they'll have to get used to how quickly you go from level flight to a high sink rate if you flare too high... which is not a good idea in a 182 with the power all the way off and flaps at 40. Flare it high and you're going to arrive pretty hard. Henning's been talkin' about this in the thread about all landings being "short field"... if you learn where this point is and can "feel" it in your aircraft at all weights... as your butt starts to fall out from under you, you can add a touch of power if you must... but a student is going to be figuring out that "feel" and that could be really hard on the gear and tires on an older 182, and if they don't keep the yoke back, the nosegear and firewall. I'd be more worried about that with a primary student.

I know I bounced a rental Skyhawk or two off their nosegear while doing go-arounds in my solo days... and no, I wasn't happy about it. The power was already up and I was rejecting the takeoffs both times, but hadn't pitched up properly, and didn't hit the nosegear hard, but I was pretty hamfisted back then. (My instructor was always weirded out that I loved 40 flap landings in the Skyhawks, and had that sight picture nailed and made good landings that way all the time, but go to no-flap landings and I was all over the place back then.)

Fast, flat, landings have never been my forte'. I'll freely admit it. Dropping like a rock with flaps and slips from pattern altitude turns to final, I do that really well. No, I don't know why. Back then fiddling with pitch over the runway while bleeding off speed (wasn't nailing my approach speed) was the most likely problem. I absolutely LOVED the speed brakes in glider flying... modulating them to hit a specific point on the runway... that's fun.

Anyway... primary and transitioning students in the 182 have to learn how to get the 182s "heavy" yoke back and keep coming until it's all the way back in their gut for "full stall" landings and to "protect" that nosegear. The only time I don't have the yoke in my gut at landing is if I really badly need some additional speed for more rudder in a nasty crosswind or I'm landing really long and flat for one of those "greasers" that you cheated bad to get by chewing up 3000' of runway to get it. :)

I'd be really nervous letting a primary student fly *my* 182 without a CFI I really trusted to stay on that yoke and keep them off the nose-gear in the flare. And then they'd have to solo and... all bets are off if your airplane will come back without firewall damage... yikes. I'd really prefer they beat up a Skyhawk a little first. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Okay, so I'm not a CFI or anything here, but in a 182... if you have the student jockey the throttle to get back to 80 knots or so in the pattern, they probably could "get away with" never touching the prop lever at all. At least at first.:)
Click to expand...
As you say, you're not an instructor, so it's not surprising that you don't know an instructor cannot legally sign a student off for solo without the student knowing how to operate all the engine controls properly, including both normal and emergency procedures. However, you clearly do understand the somewhat higher level of skill needed to fly the plane safely, and that, too, is a factor in why I suggested 2-5 extra hours from zero to solo in a 182 versus a more traditional trainer.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Fletchair, AirMods NW, Excel, and TrueFlight all come to mind.

Your going to buy a whole fuselage to get it, because it is the back bone of the aircraft. Vs the sheet of 2024-T3 off the shelf in a hundred places. Think bucks, it's expensive enough to repair aircraft with out buying special structure like honeycomb sheets.

Many shops seem able to do that with no big deal.

and they do it on a field approval, because the MM doesn't authorize it. wana play with FSDO from any out in the boonies airport?

Now a 182 will add some time to solo
no more so than learning in a c-150- PA-28 and then stepping up to the 182, one must do what they must to fly the aircraft they need.

-- more time learning the theory and operation of the c/s prop, and demonstrating proper use. In addition, the insurer may want some specific minimum dual time in the 15-25 hour range before solo. Check that out when obtaining quotes.
Click to expand...

that takes about the same time as does the differential braking.
 
Tom-D said:
that takes about the same time as does the differential braking.
Click to expand...
Tom is incorrect about almost everything in his post above. First, I know that pieces of honeycomb skin/structure may be purchased. Second, my experience of near 40 years as an instructor including transitioning people into both Grummans and c/s prop airplanes is that it takes a lot more than 3 minutes of taxi practice to lean how to operate and manage a propulsion system with a c/s prop and cowl flaps. If Tom has accomplished that so quickly with his trainees, I'd like to hear how he did it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Tom is incorrect about almost everything in his post above. First, I know that pieces of honeycomb skin/structure may be purchased. Second, my experience of near 40 years as an instructor including transitioning people into both Grummans and c/s prop airplanes is that it takes a lot more than 3 minutes of taxi practice to lean how to operate and manage a propulsion system with a c/s prop and cowl flaps. If Tom has accomplished that so quickly with his trainees, I'd like to hear how he did it.
Click to expand...

All you need to do to prove me wrong is to show me the MM page and para. that allows you to remove and replace glued structure o the Grumman series.

As much as you love the little gummans, the AA1s will not haul the load or take the beating of the students that the good old C-150 will.

To all but the Grumman fans they are a orphaned, little aircraft with a limited parts supply, and even more limited usefulness.
 
Tom-D said:
All you need to do to prove me wrong is to show me the MM page and para. that allows you to remove and replace glued structure o the Grumman .
Click to expand...
All I can say is that many other mechanics have figured out how to do this legally. You seem to be the only one I know who cant.
 
Ron Levy said:
All I can say is that many other mechanics have figured out how to do this legally. You seem to be the only one I know who cant.
Click to expand...

The work is done on a field approval (IAW the Grumman experts you've mentioned) I have as good a record of getting a field approval as any one, but it is still a PITA, the aircraft still an orphan with limited airframe parts availability, and they are expensive because of that.
 
Ron Levy said:
As you say, you're not an instructor, so it's not surprising that you don't know an instructor cannot legally sign a student off for solo without the student knowing how to operate all the engine controls properly, including both normal and emergency procedures. However, you clearly do understand the somewhat higher level of skill needed to fly the plane safely, and that, too, is a factor in why I suggested 2-5 extra hours from zero to solo in a 182 versus a more traditional trainer.
Click to expand...

Fair 'nuff. ;)

I was also never scared of the "extra handles" 'cause their basic use and limitations were on the checklists, and the checklist habit was beat into my brain by my first CFI as an "always do" habit. I was always kinda nervous watching pilots not use one. ;) All I really had to know was prop forward first, follow the checklist.

My cowl flap handle is my "You're being complacent" handle because I know if I find them open, I didn't run my cruise checklist. Not often, but it's a big sign that I'm too fatigued to be flying if it happens.
 
denverpilot said:
Fair 'nuff. ;)

I was also never scared of the "extra handles" 'cause their basic use and limitations were on the checklists, and the checklist habit was beat into my brain by my first CFI as an "always do" habit. I was always kinda nervous watching pilots not use one. ;) All I really had to know was prop forward first, follow the checklist.

My cowl flap handle is my "You're being complacent" handle because I know if I find them open, I didn't run my cruise checklist. Not often, but it's a big sign that I'm too fatigued to be flying if it happens.
Click to expand...

It's just a matter of starting with the aircraft you are going to end up with or two or three others on the way.

Training is training, you are going to get it one way or the other.
 
Ron Levy said:
(see "amateurs train until they get it right, but pros train until they can't get it wrong")
Click to expand...

Yeah, and then the "pros" gear up a plane because they think they can't get it wrong and find out that oh, wait, you can.

Complacency will win every time if it is allowed to fester...

I'd expect a 182 to take more time to solo than a 172. You have to cover the high performance endorsement, and the student needs to be proficient in the operation of the constant speed prop and cowl flaps.

How long that will take depends on the student.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'd expect a 182 to take more time to solo than a 172. You have to cover the high performance endorsement, and the student needs to be proficient in the operation of the constant speed prop and cowl flaps.

How long that will take depends on the student.
Click to expand...
My guess was and is 2-5 hours extra. Any other instructors have a different estimate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top