Grumman AA-1B

After all this bla-ba-blabla, about all this training needed to be safe in the AA series, are they really all that squirley?

If they are, why don't we see a higher accident record?

If they aren't why are you so adamant about getting the training?

I simply don't get it.


No, they aren't squirrly, a DA-20 requires much more difference training from 152 than a AA1-B. Ron has already disclosed that he is a long term chief of the club's training program, so the motive is obvious.

What he says isn't particularly inaccurate, just a bit oversold.
 
No, they aren't squirrly, a DA-20 requires much more difference training from 152 than a AA1-B. Ron has already disclosed that he is a long term chief of the club's training program, so the motive is obvious.
No, that's Jim Viola's job, not mine. I'm the Safety Director, and my well-known-to-members triple objective is to make sure:

  1. Nobody gets hurt.
  2. No metal gets bent.
  3. Everyone has a good time.
...and those three objectives are more likely to be achieved if folks new to the type get good transition training. In that regard, I suppose my motivation really is obvious, but not as Henning makes it seem.

As for any thought of financial motivations, my pay as Safety Director doesn't change if someone does the PFP -- I get the same nothing either way. The club gets nothing, too, other than the bill for the insurance which covers such training. Only the individual PFPI giving the training gets paid by the trainee, and neither Jim nor I get kickbacks from them.
 
We do, in the first 15 hours in type with no type training.

That accident rate is typical of all aircraft, not just your Grumman.

So show me where the accident rate is higher for the Grumman thus rationalize the extra training you think necessary.
 
Ron has already disclosed that he is a long term chief of the club's training program

You do not have to tell me who Ron is, I have been conversing with him since 1997 on AOPA.

and some times I try to get him to expound on his opinion.
or rationalize his thinking.

And well, some times I believe him to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
If the speed wing AA1in the stats pretty sure it has a higher accident rate than C150 and other 2 seaters.
 
If the speed wing AA1in the stats pretty sure it has a higher accident rate than C150 and other 2 seaters.

I'd believe that because the squirley little aircraft eats runway like a kid in a candy store eats chocolate.
Has a higher approach speed which must be right on or else.
 
I'd believe that because the squirley little aircraft eats runway like a kid in a candy store eats chocolate.
Has a higher approach speed which must be right on or else.


NOPE

Must be a poorly maintained aircraft, or poor airmanship.

Pound for pound the 150/2 and the AA1X ain't that different for pattern work.

Again, this ain't a F-104 Starfighter, it's a Grumman, and just because it not a Cessna or Piper doesn't mean it's some exotic aircraft needing Rons classified tips, which he has NEVER shared, presuming they exist...and they don't.

Get a AA1, get a mediocre or better CFI, kick the tires and light the fires and have fun!
 
NOPE

Must be a poorly maintained aircraft, or poor airmanship.

Pound for pound the 150/2 and the AA1X ain't that different for pattern work.

Again, this ain't a F-104 Starfighter, it's a Grumman, and just because it not a Cessna or Piper doesn't mean it's some exotic aircraft needing Rons classified tips, which he has NEVER shared, presuming they exist...and they don't.

Get a AA1, get a mediocre or better CFI, kick the tires and light the fires and have fun!

The AA1 does not have the same wing as the AA1X series, IIRC it still had Bede's wing on it.
 
The AA1 does not have the same wing as the AA1X series, IIRC it still had Bede's wing on it.
AA-1 had a little longer span than the BD-1, but the same airfloil. AA-1A and all subsequent iterations have the cuffed leading edge, same as the AA-5 series. Yes, the AA-1 and AA-1A do handle differently from each other.

But then a "mediocre or better CFI" might not know that.
 
Last edited:
AA-1 had a little longer span than the BD-1, but the same airfloil. AA-1A and all subsequent iterations have the cuffed leading edge, same as the AA-5 series. Yes, the AA-1 and AA-1A do handle differently from each other.

Thanks, so they made it longer. Even the AA-1 isn't bad though, but it's probably not the kindest trainer. I almost bought the one we put together off Al when it was done, I thought it was nice, it just didn't have the range without giving up the load I needed at the time.
 
NOPE

Must be a poorly maintained aircraft, or poor airmanship.

Pound for pound the 150/2 and the AA1X ain't that different for pattern work.

Again, this ain't a F-104 Starfighter, it's a Grumman, and just because it not a Cessna or Piper doesn't mean it's some exotic aircraft needing Rons classified tips, which he has NEVER shared, presuming they exist...and they don't.

Get a AA1, get a mediocre or better CFI, kick the tires and light the fires and have fun!

Seeing that the line was designed as a cheap flight school aircraft, and it ever made it in that market, tells you some thing.
 
Thanks, so they made it longer. Even the AA-1 isn't bad though, but it's probably not the kindest trainer.
BD-1 span was 23.5 ft; AA-1 series is 24.5 ft. And Bede designed his version to have removable wings for towing. Insurance companies would have loved that. :no:

In the BD-1, flaps were 70% of the trailing edge and ailerons 30%. In the AA-1 they're 50%-50%.

The school where I instructed had Cherokee 140s and some early AA-1s. One of my students bought serial number 7 from our sales line. Students who started in the AA-1 ab initio did fine; those who transitioned from the Cherokees or C-150s found it took some getting used to. Kinda like learning to fly in a Mooney or a Bonanza.

it just didn't have the range without giving up the load I needed at the time.
Yeah, that's an issue in the earlier ones. AA-1B had a little higher MGW.
 
Seeing that the line was designed as a cheap flight school aircraft, and it ever made it in that market, tells you some thing.

Well, not really. It was designed as a kit plane to do 130kts on 100hp. It didn't turn into a trainer until the company threw Bede out. Then American Aviation decided to sell it as a certified plane since they couldn't sell the kits. They used the same airfoil as Bede's at first which wasn't popular for the training roll, so then they modified the airfoil to the final iteration.
 
The photos put up by the OP show a nice little aircraft that must be fun to fly. It appears to have a good size vertical stabilizer and rudder, and the elevator control surfaces seem large for such a small aircraft.

Without joining the dick measuring contest going on here, I would recommend that the OP look for an instructor with AA-1X experience to help him get a feel for the nuances of flying it. With his limited hours, those big control surfaces, and sorta lightweight looking landing gear it couldn't hurt.
 
Well, not really. It was designed as a kit plane to do 130kts on 100hp. It didn't turn into a trainer until the company threw Bede out. Then American Aviation decided to sell it as a certified plane since they couldn't sell the kits. They used the same airfoil as Bede's at first which wasn't popular for the training roll, so then they modified the airfoil to the final iteration.

The certified aircraft is not a kit plane. where the idea came form irrelevant.
 
Seeing that the line was designed as a cheap flight school aircraft, and it ever made it in that market, tells you some thing.
No, it was not designed as a "cheap flight school aircraft." Jim Bede designed it as a low-cost sport plane for private owners -- sort of the niche that RVs occupy now. He intended to market the BD-1 with a range of engines, from a remanufactured A65 (with a fly-away-from-the-factory price of $2,500 in 1964-era dollars) up to the same new 108-hp Lycoming that powered the production AA-1.

BD-1_brochure2.jpg


He also intended that it be certified for aerobatics and that it have removable wings for towing. He had a good basic design, but Bede needed to get out of the way so that grown-ups (American Aviation Corp.) could make the changes necessary to actually get the airplane certified and into production.

The AA-1, introduced in fall 1968, was not primarily marketed as a trainer, though it did offer a "Trainer" package of options like the C-150 and Cherokee 140. The AA-1A of 1971 had gentler stall characteristics and lower approach speeds, at the cost of a few knots of cruise speed. It had no chance competing as a trainer, though, because in those years Cessna and Piper were at the peak of their power in the market. No way did American Aviation have the resources to develop a dealer/flight school network to compete with the giants. When Grumman bought out the company in 1972, their attention was directed more to the four-seat family touring models.

Still, I can't think of another start-up GA company in that era that did as well with an all-new trainer -- can you?

I enjoyed instructing in the AA-1, and they were in demand with our students and renters. It was roomy, comfortable and economical, with fantastic visibility. It had a modern instrument panel. It was a joy to fly. (I once gave an AA-1 demo ride to a WW2/Korea ace with 18.5 kills in P-47, P-51 and F-86 -- he loved the AA-1.) My only gripe about it was that it was noisy inside, and those were the days before we routinely used headsets.

I thought it was a good trainer for those intending to move right up to higher-performance aircraft.

It was designed as a kit plane to do 130kts on 100hp.
No, it was not designed as a kit plane. See Bede's letter to prospects, below. Here's the spec sheet (in Jim Bede-style accuracy) for the various engine options.

BD-1_brochure4.jpg
 

Attachments

  • BD-1_coverltr1.jpg
    BD-1_coverltr1.jpg
    52.1 KB · Views: 4
  • BD-1_coverltr2.jpg
    BD-1_coverltr2.jpg
    19.9 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
The certified aircraft is not a kit plane. where the idea came form irrelevant.

The Cerified AA-1 used the same airfoil as the kit. The AA-1Xs used a different more common to traing type airfoil. There is a diffentiation in how they fly. The AA-1 flys like a minimum power performance plane, The AA-1Xs fly like a trainer.
 
No, it was not designed as a "cheap flight school aircraft." Jim Bede designed it as a low-cost sport plane for private owners -- sort of the niche that RVs occupy now. He intended to market the BD-1 with a range of engines, from a remanufactured A65 (with a fly-away-from-the-factory price of $2,500 in 1964-era dollars) up to the same new 108-hp Lycoming that powered the production AA-1.

BD-1_brochure2.jpg


He also intended that it be certified for aerobatics and that it have removable wings for towing. He had a good basic design, but Bede needed to get out of the way so that grown-ups (American Aviation Corp.) could make the changes necessary to actually get the airplane certified and into production.

The AA-1, introduced in fall 1968, was not primarily marketed as a trainer, though it did offer a "Trainer" package of options like the C-150 and Cherokee 140. The AA-1A of 1971 had gentler stall characteristics and lower approach speeds, at the cost of a few knots of cruise speed. It had no chance competing as a trainer, though, because in those years Cessna and Piper were at the peak of their power in the market. No way did American Aviation have the resources to develop a dealer/flight school network to compete with the giants. When Grumman bought out the company in 1972, their attention was directed more to the four-seat family touring models.

Still, I can't think of another start-up GA company in that era that did as well with an all-new trainer -- can you?

I enjoyed instructing in the AA-1, and they were in demand with our students and renters. It was roomy, comfortable and economical, with fantastic visibility. It had a modern instrument panel. It was a joy to fly. (I once gave an AA-1 demo ride to a WW2/Korea ace with 18.5 kills in P-47, P-51 and F-86 -- he loved the AA-1.) My only gripe about it was that it was noisy inside, and those were the days before we routinely used headsets.

I thought it was a good trainer for those intending to move right up to higher-performance aircraft.

Offered as a trainer package, yeah right, they tried to break into a market that was all ready sewn up with the C-150. at the price offered, had it been the aircraft that was hoped for, it would have changed the way a lot of pilots learned to fly.
 
Offered as a trainer package, yeah right, they tried to break into a market that was all ready sewn up with the C-150. at the price offered, had it been the aircraft that was hoped for, it would have changed the way a lot of pilots learned to fly.

It was a typical Jim Bede deal. He got a bunch of people to invest a bunch of money, then fell through on his end. After not one kit sold, the investors threw Bede out and tried to salvage their investment. From there was born the AA-1.
 
Flying, May 1963, p. 103:
BEDE BD-1
LOW COST "COMPACT"
An all-metal, two-place sport airplane with a basic price of $2,495 is planned for production by Bede Aircraft, Inc., Springfield, Ohio.
[…]
The wings, which slide onto a tubular extruded spar, are easily removable by the pilot, permitting the aircraft to be towed behind an automobile or to be stored in a garage.
[…]
A prototype is now undergoing test flights at Springfield, Ohio. Full production of the BD-1 is expected to begin in the fall of 1963.


Aircraft of The World
by William Green, 1965:
BEDE BD-1
The BD-1 side-by-side two-seater, which was to be placed in production by the Bede Aviation Corporation during 1965, was flown for the first time in July 1963, and by January 1965 it was claimed that more than 840 orders had been placed for the aircraft. Fully acrobatic, the BD-1 places accent on simplicity of manufacture and comprises only 385 parts.

Flying, May 1965:
“Promises, Promises, Promises” by Arthur H. Sanfelici, p. 79 ff.
Flight testing for certification is expected to begin (here we go again) in April and take 30 days. Therefore, certification is planned for the end of April or May. Thirty days after certification, the first production airplane should roll out of the factory. And if it doesn't see sunlight by July one, Jim Bede owes me a big steakdinner.

Et ceteRA, et ceteRA, et ceteRA

:D
 
Flying, May 1963, p. 103:


Aircraft of The World
by William Green, 1965:


Flying, May 1965:
“Promises, Promises, Promises” by Arthur H. Sanfelici, p. 79 ff.


Et ceteRA, et ceteRA, et ceteRA

:D
:lol: Like I said, a typical Jim Bede deal. Not one BD-1 was delivered IIRC.
 
The BD-1 was never certified. Bede was forced out in August 1965. The company became American Aviation Corp. in 1966; the certification prototype AA-1 flew in February 1967 and it was certified six months later.

Did they honor all the deposits?
 
It's funny reading all the comments from people who have never flown one of these, or haven't in over a decade, much less owned one. Yes they fly very differently than a Cessna or Piper, at least the AA1 does. It's still an airplane and all the flying principles remain. Hit your numbers and get a feeling for the handling up high and you will be fine.

I got my PPL in my AA1 with an instructor that had 0 time in Grumman's. GASP!! How did I survive??? There was never a moment of worry and never a close call. We did our studying before hand, knew the V speeds and had read about the nuances of the type. Now I cruise around at 110 knts on 6.2 gph in a sporty plane and am a much better pilot because of it.
 
It's funny reading all the comments from people who have never flown one of these, or haven't in over a decade, much less owned one. Yes they fly very differently than a Cessna or Piper, at least the AA1 does. It's still an airplane and all the flying principles remain. Hit your numbers and get a feeling for the handling up high and you will be fine.

I got my PPL in my AA1 with an instructor that had 0 time in Grumman's. GASP!! How did I survive??? There was never a moment of worry and never a close call. We did our studying before hand, knew the V speeds and had read about the nuances of the type. Now I cruise around at 110 knts on 6.2 gph in a sporty plane and am a much better pilot because of it.

^^^^This. Just don't get behind the power curve, low, and slow, but that goes for any plane.
 
It's funny reading all the comments from people who have never flown one of these, or haven't in over a decade, much less owned one. Yes they fly very differently than a Cessna or Piper, at least the AA1 does. It's still an airplane and all the flying principles remain. Hit your numbers and get a feeling for the handling up high and you will be fine.

I got my PPL in my AA1 with an instructor that had 0 time in Grumman's. GASP!! How did I survive??? There was never a moment of worry and never a close call. We did our studying before hand, knew the V speeds and had read about the nuances of the type. Now I cruise around at 110 knts on 6.2 gph in a sporty plane and am a much better pilot because of it.

It was hilarious when we took off out of N Las Vegas one summer at gross weight on a 96F afternoon. Yup. I sweated bullets, reading, reading, calculating, planning, testing, more reading. Everything the book said was ok, I was in the box, barely.

One of the scariest moments of my flying career. That was back in the mid-80s. I don't think the laws of physics have altered the flying characteristics of the AA1 since it was produced. I had SN 22 for a while.

There's a reason they have a higher accident rate. I'm not advocating extra training, or extra limitations, or anything other than perfect, perfect technique when you are at the limits. Because this little plane brooks no allowance for error. Pull it off too soon, and you will be in the weeds. Don't hit your V speed right on, and there's a penalty.
 
Yes, when given a choice I always seek out a flight instructor with less, or better yet no time in type. I definitely don't want one who has owned one like this, or participated in safety and maintenance seminars with others, and studied type-specific accident reports. If he's spent years exploring the flight envelope of this type he might do something extreme like demonstrating it to me or asking me to learn it. By golly, I want somebody who can tell me everything I need to know about my newly-purchased airplane just by looking at it. Otherwise, how will he show me how skilled and brilliant he is? What is so unique or dangerous about my new airplane that he'd need to read the POH, even?

Then after nothing goes wrong on our comprehensive twenty-minute checkout flight, I can spend the rest of my flying career reinventing the wheel on my own!

:rolleyes:

I need to look in my old log book, but I think it was 1967 when Wally got a new Grumman AA-1.

Back then, what you say is true......the blind leading the blind!

The little I remember from that checkout was that it was a ROCKETSHIP, and it went like hell, compared to my Cub and the other T-Crafts and Aeroncas Wally had.

Sorry it publish this PIX for the third time:mad2:, but he was a great man! Wally Olson at Evergreen Field, Vancouver, WA.
 
Last edited:
I need to look in my old log book, but I think it was 1967 when Wally got a new Grumman AA-1.
I'm thinking it would have had to have been 1968 or early '69. If you can find it in your logbook, I'd be interested to know what the reg number was. The first two AA-1s to the West Coast (to Torrance, I think) were N5605L and N5606L, s/n 7 and 8.

I didn't move up here until 1995, but I heard that there was a Grumman dealer at Pearson in the old days. Was Norris Hibbler involved in that?

BTW, that Waco is in a hangar at VUO now and looks great.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking it would have had to have been 1968 or early '69. If you can find it in your logbook, I'd be interested to know what the reg number was. The first two AA-1s to the West Coast (to Torrance, I think) were N5605L and N5606L, s/n 7 and 8.

I didn't move up here until 1995, but I heard that there was a Grumman dealer at Pearson in the old days. Was Norris Hibbler involved in that?

BTW, that Waco is in a hangar at VUO now and looks great.

Now I'm in search mode. I have my first and last log books here......and the others are around......just where???? I've moved twice in the past 4 years!!

Norris Hibbler does not strike a bell.

I knew the guys at Melridge Aviation at VUO. Jack Murdock, Jim Hayhoe, Sam something.

I'm glad the Waco is in good hands.
 
It's funny reading all the comments from people who have never flown one of these, or haven't in over a decade, much less owned one. Yes they fly very differently than a Cessna or Piper, at least the AA1 does. It's still an airplane and all the flying principles remain. Hit your numbers and get a feeling for the handling up high and you will be fine.

I got my PPL in my AA1 with an instructor that had 0 time in Grumman's. GASP!! How did I survive??? There was never a moment of worry and never a close call. We did our studying before hand, knew the V speeds and had read about the nuances of the type. Now I cruise around at 110 knts on 6.2 gph in a sporty plane and am a much better pilot because of it.

Bingo.

I'd also not attribute the failure to become the next cessna 172/150 to the aircraft, even if you had the best the since sliced bread it would be hard to compete with the big two in the training market, people already know the planes and they work just fine, getting people to change (even to a better thing) is VERY tuff.

If it was just a matter of the best way to do things, no one would get their PPL in glass paneled 172s, they do it in 7ACs, for less money and become better aviators for it.
 
Norris is a good guy. His T-hangar is two doors down from mine.

He is a good guy. I know him through the AYA, and insuring my Tiger. He goes way back with Grummans.
 
I'd also not attribute the failure to become the next cessna 172/150 to the aircraft, even if you had the best the since sliced bread it would be hard to compete with the big two in the training market, people already know the planes and they work just fine, getting people to change (even to a better thing) is VERY tuff.
Without an established dealer and flight school network, and lots of advertising dollars, no new trainer had a chance in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Cherokee 140 was not an exceptional trainer, but it succeeded because of Piper's resources.

If it was just a matter of the best way to do things, no one would get their PPL in glass paneled 172s, they do it in 7ACs, for less money and become better aviators for it.
On this we agree.
 
That accident rate is typical of all aircraft, not just your Grumman.
I don't think it is typical of all aircraft, and neither do the brokers I've asked about it. If you need to know, ask a broker who knows the numbers. However, when someone new to ownership buys a 172 or PA28, they usually have a bunch of time (or even learned from scratch in it). This is true much more rarely among new Grumman buyers, so perhaps the issue arises because so few new Grumman owners have any experience in type going in.

So show me where the accident rate is higher for the Grumman thus rationalize the extra training you think necessary.
What "extra training" is that? Did I ever suggest that someone would be safe in any plane new to them with no prior experience in type? And I believe I also mentioned the Bonanza and Cirrus as airplanes where insurers want significant time in type or a checkout with an approved instructor familiar with the type (such as an ABS BPPP or COPA CSIP instructor, respectively).

In any event, it's not me you have to convince that such training is unnecessary to obtain lower insurance rates -- it's the insurers who want such checkouts in lieu of charging significantly higher premiums the first year. And the cost of such a checkout is a lot less than the extra amount they'll charge without it.
 
If the speed wing AA1in the stats pretty sure it has a higher accident rate than C150 and other 2 seaters.
It did initially, but when the AYA was formed and the PFP was developed, that changed in a hurry for those who had completed the program. And the insurers picked up on that quickly, waiving the higher first-year premiums for those who completed the program. Ask Grumman insurance expert Norris Hibbler at Aircraft & Marine about that.
 
And I believe I also mentioned the Bonanza and Cirrus as airplanes where insurers want significant time in type or a checkout with an approved instructor familiar with the type (such as an ABS BPPP or COPA CSIP instructor, respectively).

In any event, it's not me you have to convince that such training is unnecessary to obtain lower insurance rates -- it's the insurers who want such checkouts in lieu of charging significantly higher premiums the first year. And the cost of such a checkout is a lot less than the extra amount they'll charge without it.


Dude...

This is BS for Grummans (what the OP is talking about) and also semi-BS for the Bo, I can't comment on the Cirrus because I don't have enough experince with it.

Age co quoted my friend under 1k full hull etc, and he was only a student pilot at the time, that was without some "guru" CFI or club crap.
 
Must be a poorly maintained aircraft, or poor airmanship.

Pound for pound the 150/2 and the AA1X ain't that different for pattern work.
True for the AA-1A/1B/1C with the cuffed leading edge, but not the original AA-1 with the symmetrical airfoil. Fly an AA-1 like a C-150/152 (or even an AA-1A/1B/1C) and you'll get yourself in trouble in a hurry.

Again, this ain't a F-104 Starfighter, it's a Grumman, and just because it not a Cessna or Piper doesn't mean it's some exotic aircraft needing Rons classified tips, which he has NEVER shared, presuming they exist...and they don't.
Total hogwash. And they're not classified -- their available to all AYA members, and there are no restrictions on membership.

Get a AA1, get a mediocre or better CFI, kick the tires and light the fires and have fun!
Right. I've lost count of the times I've re-trained someone in a Grumman after some "mediocre" CFI had them kick the tires, light the fires, and go.

BTW, kicking the nosewheel assembly on a Grumman is a really bad idea.
 
Thanks, so they made it longer. Even the AA-1 isn't bad though, but it's probably not the kindest trainer.
Perhaps not, but if you're looking to fly much higher performance aircraft later on, it would be an excellent trainer. In fact, Van's used to recommend getting training in a slick-wing AA-1 before getting into your newly built single-seat RV (there being regulatory barriers to getting training in a 2-seat RV provided by the training provider, and few people willing to let others use their RV to get type training).
 
Back
Top