Grumman AA-1B

[jdennis1989]

Does anyone have experience in Grumman AA-1B or similar models? I am looking at a 1972 Grumman that has about 400 hrs SMOH and a 1949 Bonanza that has about 250 hours SMOH.

The Grumman is selling for $15,000-$16,000 and the Bonanaza wants $27,000. I am leaning towards the Grumman now because its cheaper, fits my needs, and is here locally. Just want to know what to watch out or look for before I start the prebuy stuff.

 

[James331]

I got some hours in a AA1A, great little planes, fly like a sports car, great cheap fun and a OK cruise speed for what it is.

They are dirt simple and cheap to maintain, very simple systems (you'll love the fuel quaintly readout), free castor nose wheel allows near tailwheel ground maneuverability.

 

[AdamZ]

Wow totally different planes. Grumman is a neat little trainer. Not a ton of useful load.

 

[James331]

I'd say for most hobby flyers a small Grumman is a FAR better choice, if it's just you and the miss for a local flight for a burger, or shooting T&Gs you'll get WAAAY more bang for your buck fuel, mx, hangar and acquisition wise with a AA1.

From someone who lives at airports most of the time, most owners talk the game about flying for work, or flying across the country with their whole family, I'd wager 90% are solo or +1 for local flights 90% of the time.


Buy small, fly more, AA1 is a no brainier
Second only to a 7ECA or 7AC

 

[jdennis1989]

The only problem with the Grumman is the owner says it has a fuel leak in the wing. He is taking it to a mechanic to get it fix. Is this common with them.

 

[poadeleted20]

Does anyone have experience in Grumman AA-1B or similar models?

A few hundred hours. Used to own a 1973 AA-1B and I've trained several people in all submodels of that model from AA-1 to AA-1C.

I am looking at a 1972 Grumman that has about 400 hrs SMOH and a 1949 Bonanza that has about 250 hours SMOH.

Not exactly comparable airplanes -- one is a very simple 108HP 2-seater and the other is a complex 185HP 4-seater. My thought is that either the Bonanza is a lot more plane than you need, or the AA-1x isn't enough.

The Grumman is selling for $15,000-$16,000 and the Bonanaza wants $27,000. I am leaning towards the Grumman now because its cheaper, fits my needs, and is here locally. Just want to know what to watch out or look for before I start the prebuy stuff.

Your best bet would be to join the AYA (the international Grumman owner's group) and get a copy of their Operations/Maintenance Compendium off the Members section of the web site. It would be $50 well spent, and would get you access to a lot of expert advice. You can also get a lot of support from the Grumman Gang email list.

BTW, a 1972 model 2-seater would be an AA-1A (built in the 1971 and 1972 model years), not an AA-1B, which was introduced with the 1973 model year (I had AA-1B serial number 2). The AA-1A has a lower max gross weight, which somewhat limits payload. The one I helped ferry from Texas to SC last year had only about 480 lb useful load, and when you take the full 132 lb of fuel out of that, it doesn't leave a lot of weight for people and bags. The AA-1B has strengthened main gear which allowed an extra 60 lb max gross weight with little extra empty weight, and that makes a huge difference.

 

[poadeleted20]

The only problem with the Grumman is the owner says it has a fuel leak in the wing. He is taking it to a mechanic to get it fix. Is this common with them.

You're better off with an AA-1x than an AA-5x in this situation, since the AA-1x doesn't have a "wet wing" fuel tank. The fuel is stored inside the tubular main spar. However, the location of that leak would be significant. If it's leaking from the spar, you might need a whole new wing, because a hole in that spar is really serious. OTOH, if it's leaking from a fitting, that could be easy to fix. You would do well to have a Grumman-savvy mechanic look at this before you buy it. And to answer your question, no, wing fuel leaks are not common on the AA-1x's.

 

[jdennis1989]

The identification plate underneath the horizontal stabilizer says its an American AA-1B with a serial number AA1B-0042. The N-lookup says it was manufactured in 1972.

I went and looked at it in person today. I will be meeting him in person to officially look at it over the weekend hopefully.

Here are a couple pics I snapped.

 

[Pilawt]

The two-seat Grummans are a joy to fly, and very comfortable for their class. +1 on Ron's recommendation to join AYA. It's a great group.

The identification plate underneath the horizontal stabilizer says its an American AA-1B with a serial number AA1B-0042. The N-lookup says it was manufactured in 1972.

Just like auto manufacturers, American Aviation (soon to become Grumman-American) and many other lightplane builders rolled out each new model year in the fall of the previous calendar year. FAA registration records only refer to calendar year of manufacture, not the "model year." So it would make sense for this to be a '73 AA-1B, built in late 1972.

 

[Tom-D]

You're better off with an AA-1x than an AA-5x in this situation, since the AA-1x doesn't have a "wet wing" fuel tank. The fuel is stored inside the tubular main spar. However, the location of that leak would be significant. If it's leaking from the spar, you might need a whole new wing, because a hole in that spar is really serious. OTOH, if it's leaking from a fitting, that could be easy to fix. You would do well to have a Grumman-savvy mechanic look at this before you buy it. And to answer your question, no, wing fuel leaks are not common on the AA-1x's.

I got 50 bucks that says it is leaking from one of the 4 "O" rings that seal the spar fuel tanks.. and it is a wing pull to replace them.
Just last week helped a friend change his, What a Pita, for a "O" ring.

 

[Henning]

The only problem with the Grumman is the owner says it has a fuel leak in the wing. He is taking it to a mechanic to get it fix. Is this common with them.

Yeah, pretty common. You want to make sure it's fixed before you buy it, and make sure you know why, because the spar doubles as the fuel tank. Orings, no worry, change and done. Rusted through spar leaking, replacement wing. Take care knowing what happens, be there for the inspection and tear down.

As for Bonanza and AA-1, one you have a minimum range trainer, one you have a medium range traveling machine. The AA-1 is a much simpler plane over all with low operating costs, nice flying characteristics, and little practical use outside training and $100 hamburgers. The Bonanza is a sweet flying 147-160kt (depending on which engine, 185, 205, 225, or 260hp engine is on it, at that price most likely 185 or 225) Local and regional flier that can be pretty comfortably be pressed into long range service. It is a complex plane with complex systems, and depending on the engine, may have a prop or crankshaft that may cause some delays in parts locating for repairs.

The Bonanza serves as a trainer much better than a AA-1 serves as a traveling machine, so between the two, you really have to decide what kind of flying you want to optimize for. If it's just you, or you and a gal flying up to the lake and hour away on weekends and such, then the AA-1 will likely serve you better. If you're going every other weekend 500-600 miles away, the Bonanza will serve you better.

One thing to remember, you are looking at the rock bottom of the market for each type, so you are looking at the worst long term value planes. If I was just looking for a short term plane, get the Grumman, sink no money you don't have to in it, and fly it until you have to scrap it.

 

[James331]

That's not bottom of the market for the AA1, buddy of mine bought a nice one (similar times) for about the same, though the asking price was a but higher.

He could flip that plane for the same or more then he paid, get some upholstery work done at the local auto shop, and polish it a little and he could make a couple bucks.

Taking a solid AA1 and turning it into a gem requires more elbow grease than money, dirt simple plane, cheap parts, not much to upholster or paint anyway.


The Bo, that's a lot of stuff under the hood, and fancy Beech parts.

 

[Henning]

That's not bottom of the market for the AA1, buddy of mine bought a nice one (similar times) for about the same, though the asking price was a but higher.

He could flip that plane for the same or more then he paid, get some upholstery work done at the local auto shop, and polish it a little and he could make a couple bucks.

Taking a solid AA1 and turning it into a gem requires more elbow grease than money, dirt simple plane, cheap parts, not much to upholster or paint anyway.


The Bo, that's a lot of stuff under the hood, and fancy Beech parts.

Yep, no arguments. If the AA-1 does what he needs, it's a better deal, but not if it's junk, and with a leaking tank, the possibility exists.

 

[poadeleted20]

The identification plate underneath the horizontal stabilizer says its an American AA-1B with a serial number AA1B-0042. The N-lookup says it was manufactured in 1972.

Just like car manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers introduce next year's models in the preceding fall. Serial number 42 would be one of the first AA-1B's built out of several hundred. So, it's a 1973 model AA-1B, but it was built in late 1972 (I'm guessing November).

And I see Doc caught that, too.

 

[poadeleted20]

I got 50 bucks that says it is leaking from one of the 4 "O" rings that seal the spar fuel tanks.. and it is a wing pull to replace them.
Just last week helped a friend change his, What a Pita, for a "O" ring.

Fortunately, it only takes a few hours to remove and replace the wing on a Grumman, and there's no metal work involved -- just nuts and bolts.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yeah, pretty common.

You might want to check with a shop that specializes in Grummans (Fletchair, Air Mods NW, Excel-Air, Hortman Aviation, etc) before you accept Henning's word on that.

You want to make sure it's fixed before you buy it, and make sure you know why, because the spar doubles as the fuel tank. Orings, no worry, change and done. Rusted through spar leaking, replacement wing. Take care knowing what happens, be there for the inspection and tear down.

Concur.

As for Bonanza and AA-1, one you have a minimum range trainer, one you have a medium range traveling machine. The AA-1 is a much simpler plane over all with low operating costs, nice flying characteristics, and little practical use outside training and $100 hamburgers.

Agreed.

The Bonanza is a sweet flying 147-160kt (depending on which engine, 185, 205, 225, or 260hp engine is on it, at that price most likely 185 or 225)

The 1949 models had the 185HP E-185 engine, and I don't think 147 knots TAS is likely other than flat-out on the deck. Even with the E-225 HP engine and the lower drag of the tandem cockpit, the T-34B's I flew didn't go that fast. I'd be thinking 140 knots at high cruise.

[The Bonanza is a] Local and regional flier that can be pretty comfortably be pressed into long range service. It is a complex plane with complex systems, and depending on the engine, may have a prop or crankshaft that may cause some delays in parts locating for repairs.

Exactly.

The Bonanza serves as a trainer much better than a AA-1 serves as a traveling machine, so between the two, you really have to decide what kind of flying you want to optimize for. If it's just you, or you and a gal flying up to the lake and hour away on weekends and such, then the AA-1 will likely serve you better. If you're going every other weekend 500-600 miles away, the Bonanza will serve you better.

Agreed. The AA-1B with its higher gross weight is a much better 2-person airplane than an AA-1/1A, but it still has its limitations as a cross country traveling machine. Take a look at what you and any likely passengers weigh, and then take a look at the actual empty weight of this particular plane so you know what you'll be able to carry -- even ignoring the legal issues, flying over max gross dramatically degrades takeoff/climb performance on the AA-1-series planes which isn't rocket-like to start with (you trade that away to get the significant extra speed over the other 100HP-class 2-seaters like the 150/152).

 

[poadeleted20]

Here are a couple pics I snapped.

That's an aftermarket paint job, but the original N-number (our s/n 2 was 6202L before we changed it to 222FR). That seems to be a good canopy cover, too, which suggests someone cared about the plane. Note a canopy cover is essential for a Grumman stored outside to prevent rain from leaking in at the canopy-windshield junction even if the canopy seal is in good shape.

 

[Tom-D]

Fortunately, it only takes a few hours to remove and replace the wing on a Grumman, and there's no metal work involved -- just nuts and bolts.

You still are not doing it alone. And it is a real PITA to get the wing back on without pinching the new "O" ring.

OBTW, All common GA aircraft the wings can be removed and replaced with out metal work. they are all only nuts and bolts.

 

[jdennis1989]

Thank you all very much for the information. You have all been very helpful. I am leaning towards the Grumman more than the Bonanza. I am a low time new private pilot and my mission is mostly flying around the coast on the weekends and traveling about 100-200 miles away. (Parents live 100 miles away, some friends 200 miles.) I figured that the Grumman would be cheaper to fly. I think it fits my mission a lot better than the Bo, and will help me build some time.

I got a quote of $1,576 annually on insurance for the Grumman, so that seems very doable.

I will wait until the fuel leak is fixed before I make my decision to buy or walk away.

How is the Grumman in terms of landing and flying? The research I have read says that you have to come in pretty fast for a landing because you don't want to get behind the power curve in this plane. Seems to stall out at a higher speed than a c172(which is the plane I am use to flying)

 

[Henning]

Thank you all very much for the information. You have all been very helpful. I am leaning towards the Grumman more than the Bonanza. I am a low time new private pilot and my mission is mostly putting around the coast on the weekends and traveling about 100-200 miles away. (Parents live 100 miles away, some friends 200 miles.) I figured that the Grumman would be cheaper to fly. I think it fits my mission a lot better than the Bo, and will help me build some time.

I got a quote of $1,576 annually on insurance for the Grumman, so that seems very doable.

I will defiantly wait until the fuel leak is fixed before I make my decision to buy or walk away.

How is the Grumman in terms of landing and flying? The research I have read says that you have to come in pretty fast for a landing because you don't want to get behind the power curve in this plane. Seems to stall out at a higher speed than a c172(which is the plane I am use to flying)

If that is the flying you will mostly do, you're on the right track with the Grumman. If this one is junk, there are more out there that aren't. Grumman is a nice light on the controls flier. If you have them in trim, you can guide them into anything with a couple of fingers. They are easy to over control, proper trim technique helps you prevent this.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Thank you all very much for the information. You have all been very helpful. I am leaning towards the Grumman more than the Bonanza. I am a low time new private pilot and my mission is mostly flying around the coast on the weekends and traveling about 100-200 miles away. (Parents live 100 miles away, some friends 200 miles.) I figured that the Grumman would be cheaper to fly. I think it fits my mission a lot better than the Bo, and will help me build some time.

I got a quote of $1,576 annually on insurance for the Grumman, so that seems very doable.

I will wait until the fuel leak is fixed before I make my decision to buy or walk away.

How is the Grumman in terms of landing and flying? The research I have read says that you have to come in pretty fast for a landing because you don't want to get behind the power curve in this plane. Seems to stall out at a higher speed than a c172(which is the plane I am use to flying)

Your insurance quote seems high.

Ask the agent what is driving the costs.


Or, shop around.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Your insurance quote seems high.

Ask the agent what is driving the costs.


Or, shop around.

Good luck on "shopping around" for aircraft insurance, especially if he gave the registration number of the aircraft in the quote.

 

[jdennis1989]

I am 25 and only have about 60 flight hours, I assume that is what's driving it. My dad was wondering if we added him to the coverage, could it get cheaper. He has had his PPL for over 12 years and has about 800+ hours.

 

[wrbix]

How is the Grumman in terms of landing and flying? The research I have read says that you have to come in pretty fast for a landing because you don't want to get behind the power curve in this plane. Seems to stall out at a higher speed than a c172(which is the plane I am use to flying)

I'm sure Ron will be along again shortly, but if the AA1 lands similarly to my AA5, then coming in fast is the LAST thing you want to do - slippery and float at speed. I did all my training in 172s, and altho hearing stories of landing difficulties in Grummans, I find mine is remarkably easier to land - maybe it's that high vs low wing thing, but ground effect in the Grumman gets you to a squeaker easier. Seems to flare almost automatically IMHO. Granted flap effect is considerably less, but most are (compared to 172 barn doors).
Stall speeds are different than 172, but respect the 1.3 times Vso thing and you'll be OK.

 

[Henning]

I am 25 and only have about 60 flight hours, I assume that is what's driving it. My dad was wondering if we added him to the coverage, could it get cheaper. He has had his PPL for over 12 years and has about 800+ hours.

Yes, it would.

 

[mkosmo]

Good luck on "shopping around" for aircraft insurance, especially if he gave the registration number of the aircraft in the quote.

I did exactly that and after finding a few brokers willing to shop around different underwriters, went from a >$1500/yr quote to $880/yr with lower deductibles and the same coverage.

 

[Henning]

I did exactly that and after finding a few brokers willing to shop around different underwriters, went from a >$1500/yr quote to $880/yr with lower deductibles and the same coverage.

It kinda depends on the plane and the underwriters a particular agent has access to. R&W has a point in that the big underwriters track the tail number and will apply the same quote regardless the number of agents, and due to the small market of underwriters, most all agents are calling the same ones.

There are however a small number of small and boutique underwriters out there, but generally they are their own agent or have a small network with limited advertising and market exposure, so as he said, good luck finding them, usually it's local word of mouth, or they deal in specialty markets and don't quote 172s and such.

 

[JoeSelch]

Definitely try to find a better deal on insurance - get a good broker.
I started with my AA1-B at $650 with $25k hull, dropped to $520 (same hull) gradually over a couple/few years.

 

[N5922S]

You can't beat a Grumman for fun-units-per-dollar.

 

[Henning]

One thing people don't understand about insurance premiums. The biggest variable factor that affects premiums is the performance of the investment vehicles that the insurance markets are allowed to use.

 

[James331]

I am 25 and only have about 60 flight hours, I assume that is what's driving it. My dad was wondering if we added him to the coverage, could it get cheaper. He has had his PPL for over 12 years and has about 800+ hours.

Yeah 1500 is high for the Grumman.

Buddy was learning to fly with his, hadent soloed yet, he got it done for about 1k with avemco I think.

 

[poadeleted20]

You still are not doing it alone.

Actually, I know someone who did, with nothing but a couple of borrowed open-end wrenches and two screwdrivers. But he really knows Grumman maintenance very well.

OBTW, All common GA aircraft the wings can be removed and replaced with out metal work. they are all only nuts and bolts.

But not nearly as easily as the Grummans.

 

[poadeleted20]

I got a quote of $1,576 annually on insurance for the Grumman, so that seems very doable.

You should be able to do a lot better than that. Check with broker Norris Hibbler at Aircraft & Marine in Vancouver WA -- he knows the market for Grumman insurance better than anyone else around. Getting an AYA PFP checkout should also get you a big break on your first year's insurance, too, as insurers are very leery of those with less than 15 hours in type.

How is the Grumman in terms of landing and flying? The research I have read says that you have to come in pretty fast for a landing because you don't want to get behind the power curve in this plane.

Your research has not led you to the right places. There are a lot of OWT's around dating from the introduction of the original 1969 AA-1, which flew very differently than the Cessna 150's against which it was competing. The AA-1A and later planes have a different airfoil from the original AA-1, and their approach speeds are comparable to their competitors like the 152, Skipper, and Tomahawk. In fact, trying to fly them faster than they should be flown is one of the leading causes of Grumman landing accidents. Get yourself a good checkout from an experienced Grumman instructor and you will learn how to fly it properly. See the PFP page on the AYA's web site for more on how to find such an instructor.

Seems to stall out at a higher speed than a c172(which is the plane I am use to flying)

A bit higher on an AA-1B than a C-172P (53 KCAS versus 46 KCAS with full flaps, 57 KCAS versus 52 KAS clean), but not dramatically so.

 

[poadeleted20]

I am 25 and only have about 60 flight hours, I assume that is what's driving it. My dad was wondering if we added him to the coverage, could it get cheaper. He has had his PPL for over 12 years and has about 800+ hours.

As I said above, I think the biggest issue is your lack of prior AA-1x time. Typically 15 hours PIC or an AYA PFP checkout in type fixes that. Call Norris for more information on those options.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm sure Ron will be along again shortly, but if the AA1 lands similarly to my AA5, then coming in fast is the LAST thing you want to do - slippery and float at speed.

Actually, that's to the original symmetrical airfoil, an AA-1 (the 1969-70 models) does land a lot faster and rather differently than your AA-5. However, the 1971 and onward AA-1A/B/C's have the same cuffed leading edge airfoil as your Traveler, and fly much more similarly to what you know.

I did all my training in 172s, and altho hearing stories of landing difficulties in Grummans, I find mine is remarkably easier to land - maybe it's that high vs low wing thing, but ground effect in the Grumman gets you to a squeaker easier. Seems to flare almost automatically IMHO. Granted flap effect is considerably less, but most are (compared to 172 barn doors).
Stall speeds are different than 172, but respect the 1.3 times Vso thing and you'll be OK.

Agreed on all the above.

 

[James331]

As I said above, I think the biggest issue is your lack of prior AA-1x time. Typically 15 hours PIC or an AYA PFP checkout in type fixes that. Call Norris for more information on those options.

Sigh

It's not some exotic fire breathin dragon, just find a CFI who isn't wet behind the ears, ideally has some time in something more than a 172s and PA28s.

No need for a Grumman "guru".

For insurance

AVEMCO
https://www.avemco.com/secure/owned-aircraft-insurance.aspx

Air Power
http://www.airpowerinsurance.com

 

[poadeleted20]

Sigh

It's not some exotic fire breathin dragon, just find a CFI who isn't wet behind the ears, ideally has some time in something more than a 172s and PA28s.

No need for a Grumman "guru".

For insurance

AVEMCO
https://www.avemco.com/secure/owned-aircraft-insurance.aspx

Air Power
http://www.airpowerinsurance.com

You've said that before, and I've met plenty of instructors who think they can check someone out in a type they've never flown before. I've also got a good bit of experience re-training Grumman pilots who got their checkout from such folks. And insurers give more deference to AYA PFP checkouts, usually waiving the typical "15 hours in type" requirement. Again, ask a broker like Norris Hibbler who knows the Grumman market for reliable information on what insurers will accept.

BTW, the same is true regarding Bonanza checkouts from BPPP instructors (which I am not). The insurers generally seem to accept that any CFI out there knows the simple Cessna singles and PA28's, but their position changes as you move towards airplanes in which CFI's are less likely to have significant experience. So ask an insurance expert before you make a decision on whom to choose for your type checkout, and remember the insurers are putting the money where their mouth is.

 

[RotorAndWing]

 

[James331]

You've said that before, and I've met plenty of instructors who think they can check someone out in a type they've never flown before. I've also got a good bit of experience re-training Grumman pilots who got their checkout from such folks. And insurers give more deference to AYA PFP checkouts, usually waiving the typical "15 hours in type" requirement. Again, ask a broker like Norris Hibbler who knows the Grumman market for reliable information on what insurers will accept.

BTW, the same is true regarding Bonanza checkouts from BPPP instructors (which I am not). The insurers generally seem to accept that any CFI out there knows the simple Cessna singles and PA28's, but their position changes as you move towards airplanes in which CFI's are less likely to have significant experience. So ask an insurance expert before you make a decision on whom to choose for your type checkout, and remember the insurers are putting the money where their mouth is.

My friend who got that 1k ish a year policy from Avemco didn't have any nonsense about time in type.

It's really a nice plane, but nothing special flying, just use good fundamentals.

It's not as docile as a 152, but I've had guys do a first solo ever in them with the same amount of hours, I've transitioned folks over too, it's not a F104 or teaching tailwheel to a trike guy, it's just a simple fun little trike.

Could you please share some of these special diffrences that only a AYA card carrying member would know?

 

[jdennis1989]

I went to meet the owner in person today. He is very thorough. You can tell that he really cares for the aircraft. After talking for a couple hours, he said that he would part with it for $13,500 if I wanted to buy it now, or for about $14,500 if I wanted to wait until the leak is fixed. He has two mechanics that are supposed to come out soon and look at it. He said he took it to Fletcher Air and they said that it would not cost more than $1,000. He just doesn't believe in paying for all the overhead and would rather pay a local mechanic to do the work.

If the weather improves like it should tomorrow, he said that he would like to take me up in it.