Grumman AA-1B

Henning said:
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.
Click to expand...
The decision to sell it as a certified plane was made before Bede went financially belly-up and Russ Meyer and company formed American Aviation to take over the remains of Bede Aviation.

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.
Click to expand...
That modification wasn't made for a couple of years after production began. It came out on the AA-1A starting in the 1971 model year, and was the original design for the AA-5-series starting in the 1972 model year with the AA-5 Traveler. All AA-1's (the 1969 and 1970 model years) had the original symmetrical airfoil, and of the planes produced, only the AA-1's had it (although I'm not sure what was on the AA-2 Patriot, of which only one prototype was built and discarded).
 
Last edited:
I generally agree with the good that type clubs do. I know the 170 Association are a bunch of great folks, as are the fairchild club, and I would suppose the grumman gang are the same. But the Cessna support groupe has way too many so called experts giving conflicting advice. So, I'm still open on how much specific training does in reality. The Fairchild 24 certainly isn't user friendly, but we don't see all this hubbub about flying them or the 170. and they must have a tail wheel endorsement.
 
Henning said:
The Cerified AA-1 used the same airfoil as the kit. The AA-1Xs used a different more common to traing type airfoil.
Click to expand...
Not entirely different. Essentially, they just cuffed the leading edge down to give a flat rather than curved lower surface. The upper surface remained the same.

There is a diffentiation in how they fly. The AA-1 flys like a minimum power performance plane,
Click to expand...
That's a reasonable statement.

The AA-1Xs fly like a trainer.
Click to expand...
If your idea of a trainer is a C-150/152, I would disagree. However, they do not fly unlike a Cherokee or Cirrus.
 
Tom-D said:
I generally agree with the good that type clubs do. I know the 170 Association are a bunch of great folks, as are the fairchild club, and I would suppose the grumman gang are the same.
Click to expand...
The Grumman Gang is not a type club. It is an email list of those interested in the Grumman light singles and twin (Cougar) run very personally by Mark Matthews out in Oregon. The international type club is the American Yankee Association, headquartered in California, with members in more countries than I can remember (including Finland, New Zealand, and South Africa). In addition to the PFP mentioned earlier, the AYA runs an "Ask the Experts" system where members can get answers to technical questions from recognized Grumman experts like David Fletcher, Ken Blackman, Bill Scott, Ian Matterface, and others of that ilk.
 
Ron Levy said:
They used the same airfoil as Bede's at first which wasn't popular for the training roll
Click to expand...
That first impression was the last nail in the coffin for the sales to training schools. Even when they were a lot cheaper than the Cessnas and Pipers no one wanted to train longer prior to solo.
The general perception of the early aircraft as being under powered, short legged, fit for only pattern work, and more difficult to fly, stuck to the whole series.

Thus the low sales, and early demise of the production.
 
Ron Levy said:
The decision to sell it as a certified plane was made before Bede went financially belly-up and Russ Meyer and company formed American Aviation to take over the remains of Bede Aviation.
Click to expand...
Every scrap of information from the 1960s (including the original Bede brochures and promotional material, magazine articles back to 1963, etc., I've posted in this thread) describes the BD-1 as always intended to be a certified, factory-built product, not a kit/homebuilt. The confusion arises because Bede was associated with so many kit types after the BD-1. Even Wikipedia is wrong on this.

Can anybody come up with anything of 1960s-era provenance describing the BD-1 as a kit? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Originally Posted by Ron Levy
They used the same airfoil as Bede's at first which wasn't popular for the training roll
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Those were Henning's words, not mine. Please attribute them appropriately.


That first impression was the last nail in the coffin for the sales to training schools. Even when they were a lot cheaper than the Cessnas and Pipers no one wanted to train longer prior to solo.
The general perception of the early aircraft as being under powered, short legged, fit for only pattern work, and more difficult to fly, stuck to the whole series.

Thus the low sales, and early demise of the production.
Click to expand...
Production ran for 11 years. I think that's longer than the Skipper or Tomahawk, which suffered the same fate for the same reasons discussed above -- lack of a large network of training provider/aircraft dealer operations and the established might of the 800-lb Cessna gorilla.
 
Pilawt said:
Every scrap of information from the 1960s (including the original Bede brochures and promotional material, magazine articles back to 1963, etc., I've posted in this thread) describes the BD-1 as always intended to be a certified, factory-built product, not a kit/homebuilt. The confusion arises because Bede was associated with so many kit types after the BD-1. Even Wikipedia is wrong on this.

Can anybody come up with anything of 1960s-era provenance describing the BD-1 as a kit? :confused:
Click to expand...
I believe you are entirely correct. Jim Bede may have at some point considered selling it as a kit, but it was never a part of the Bede Aviation plan. As I said, Jim Bede made that decision long before American Aviation came into the picture.
 
Ron Levy said:
Those were Henning's words, not mine. Please attribute them appropriately.


Production ran for 11 years. I think that's longer than the Skipper or Tomahawk, which suffered the same fate for the same reasons discussed above -- lack of a large network of training provider/aircraft dealer operations and the established might of the 800-lb Cessna gorilla.
Click to expand...

But it never came close to the 150 production numbers, it would have had much better production numbers had it not had the bad first impression.
 
I like single seat airplanes because the checkout process is much more fun. :) Did a new one this weekend.
 
Tom-D said:
Even when they were a lot cheaper than the Cessnas and Pipers no one wanted to train longer prior to solo.
Click to expand...

Tom-D said:
But it never came close to the 150 production numbers, it would have had much better production numbers had it not had the bad first impression.
Click to expand...
The same could be said for anything with a tailwheel. When the glossy ads in the magazines promised students a painless "drive-it-up-drive-it-down" training experience, there was resistance to anything that seemed in any way challenging. Or, for that matter, anything that didn't say "Cessna" or "Piper" on the side.

Our school was something of an exception. We were a Piper Flite Center, yet we had three or four AA-1s on the line (along with a Lake Amphibian, a J35 Bonanza, a Navion Rangemaster and a McCulloch Gyroplane -- it was an eclectic bunch!), and the students who flew them enjoyed them. It was a kick to take students over to Catalina in the AA-1s.

At the same time, how did Mooney do with its trainer, the M10 Cadet (derived from the Alon Aircoupe, the gentlest, most benign airplane you could imagine)? Or the Helton Lark 95 (derived from the Culver Cadet); or Citabrias, or the periodic reincarnations of Luscombes and T-Carts? Beech needed the "Aero Club" system to prop up production of Musketeer Sports and Skippers.
 
Last edited:
At least the Citabria taught you what the pedals were for.
 
Tom-D said:
But it never came close to the 150 production numbers, it would have had much better production numbers had it not had the bad first impression.
Click to expand...
Since they were, I believe, produced longer and in more numbers than the Skipper and the Tomahawk, I don't think your conclusion is justified.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not entirely different. Essentially, they just cuffed the leading edge down to give a flat rather than curved lower surface. The upper surface remained the same.

That's a reasonable statement.

If your idea of a trainer is a C-150/152, I would disagree. However, they do not fly unlike a Cherokee or Cirrus.
Click to expand...

I don't see much difference between a Cherokee and a 152 really. Both are docile and telegraph imminent stall quite well. I have never been surprised by either.:dunno:
 
Ron Levy said:
Then I think it's time you got thicker glasses. :wink2:
Click to expand...

They're both so ugly I can't really look at them from outside unless I just focus on the bits that I'm preflighting, there I only see superficial differences.;)
 
Ron Levy said:
Since they were, I believe, produced longer and in more numbers than the Skipper and the Tomahawk, I don't think your conclusion is justified.
Click to expand...

Since you placed them in the same bunch, the Piper and th beech both had first bad impressions, of being short legged, under powered and designed for pattern, they died for the same reason.

After flying the C-150/P-140 people simply didn't like flying them.
 
Tom-D said:
Since you placed them in the same bunch, the Piper and th beech both had first bad impressions, of being short legged, under powered and designed for pattern,
Click to expand...
Pretty well describes the Cessna 150, too. So, your point is?

After flying the C-150/P-140 people simply didn't like flying them.
Click to expand...
I think if you'd been in the flight training business in the 1970's you might think otherwise.
 
Ron Levy said:
Pretty well describes the Cessna 150, too. So, your point is?

I think if you'd been in the flight training business in the 1970's you might think otherwise.
Click to expand...

The point was the 150 was liked well enough that it sold over 23,000 units, The grumman sold how many?
 
Ron Levy said:
:sigh: I give up. You're going to believe what you're going to believe, and no facts will change that.
Click to expand...

It's just a fact. that the 150 sold that many. If they were not liked, would the numbers be that many?

As you have said, they fly different, folks simply didn't like that.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
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.

Total hogwash. And they're not classified -- their available to all AYA members, and there are no restrictions on membership.

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.
Click to expand...
And for only $50 a month you too can learn Rons secrets to flying the Grumman, but wait act now and... lol
 
James331 said:
And for only $50 a month you too can learn Rons secrets to flying the Grumman, but wait act now and... lol
Click to expand...

Be kind,, he's right, kicking that spindley nose gear is not a good idea.
 
Tom-D said:
It's just a fact. that the 150 sold that many. If they were not liked, would the numbers be that many?

As you have said, they fly different, folks simply didn't like that.
Click to expand...

Requires facts not in evidence. There are many reasons flight schools would prefer 150/152s over AA-1Bs. First off, the canopy design requires buying and maintaining covers on the the plane. Second is that planes are durable goods that last decades. Cessna is a major company that isn't likely to go away and leave the airframe unsupported and losing income and potential future income. Same can't be said for the the baby AA planes. Third the Grumans are not built using conventional materials and techniques, so it requires specialized service and repairs.

I thing another big factor people didn't trust was a glue together airplane.
 
Henning said:
Third the Grumans are not built using conventional materials and techniques, so it requires specialized service and repairs.
Click to expand...

You should read the structural repair manual prior to making a stupid statement like that..

there is nothing that is required on skin repairs that isn't taught in A&P schools. Simple flush patches are what are called out.
 
Tom-D said:
You should read the structural repair manual prior to making a stupid statement like that..

there is nothing that is required on skin repairs that isn't taught in A&P schools. Simple flush patches are what are called out.
Click to expand...

IIRC,mthe use cored honeycomb panels in places on the fuselages. Let's say a wing panel gets damaged beyond patchability and requires a new skin?:dunno:
 
Henning said:
IIRC,mthe use cored honeycomb panels in places on the fuselages. Let's say a wing panel gets damaged beyond patchability and requires a new skin?:dunno:
Click to expand...

You follow the method in the repair manual.

Or like Ron's plane you buy a used wing.
 
Henning said:
There are many reasons flight schools would prefer 150/152s over AA-1Bs. First off, the canopy design requires buying and maintaining covers on the the plane. Second is that planes are durable goods that last decades. Cessna is a major company that isn't likely to go away and leave the airframe unsupported and losing income and potential future income.
Click to expand...
True. Don't overlook that many flight schools of that era were captives of the manufacturers -- if you were a Cessna Pilot Center, you had to buy C-150s. Plus, Cessna had the economic clout to promote its products with millions of dollars of advertising, and to finance R&D for product improvement and planned obsolescence. It also priced the 150 artificially low. Though in materials and labor a 150 cost almost as much to build as a 172, it sold for only 2/3 as much. It was a loss leader, because it was worth it to Cessna to hook students on the Cessna brand, so they'd be back in a few years to buy a new 182 or 310 at a much greater profit margin. Cessna had its own in-house avionics manufacturer, so options packages were leveraged. Piper had similar clout.

So comparing production numbers of the "Big Two" with anyone else is apples-and-oranges, and a gross oversimplification of the economics of the general aviation industry of that era.

What other startup company in the '60s or '70s sold as many two-seat airframes as American/Grumman-American?
 
Last edited:
First time I flew in a Grumman was solo. I didn't find it a challenging aircraft to any degree. However, like any new type, you're best off from a safety perspective to be trained by someone who understands the type well. Type clubs are a good way to find such a person.
 
Pilawt said:
<buzzer sound>

1. 335 Aero Commander 100s and Darter Commanders were built (plus 213 Lark Commanders); 1,822 AA-1x aircraft were built.
2. Darter Commander was a four-seat aircraft.
3. Aero Commander/Rockwell International was hardly a "start-up" company.

:)
Click to expand...

Same catastrophic business blunder on all accounts.
 
jesse said:
First time I flew in a Grumman was solo. I didn't find it a challenging aircraft to any degree. However, like any new type, you're best off from a safety perspective to be trained by someone who understands the type well. Type clubs are a good way to find such a person.
Click to expand...

As Ron states, the most challenging of the bunch is the slick wing AA1, which requires the most training, and awareness, but certainly can be mastered. The AA1-A, B, and C have a different wing, but still require to be flown by the numbers. The AA5 series is a pussycat, but again requires more speed management on final than others in its class, but not quirky at all to fly.
 
Anthony said:
As Ron states, the most challenging of the bunch is the slick wing AA1, which requires the most training, and awareness, but certainly can be mastered. The AA1-A, B, and C have a different wing, but still require to be flown by the numbers. The AA5 series is a pussycat, but again requires more speed management on final than others in its class, but not quirky at all to fly.
Click to expand...

What plane does NOT require flying by the numbers?

Take a Cessna 152 and bring it in on long final right at stall

Take the same 152 and bring her in as VSO X2.5, float all the way down the runway

Really, the Grumman is like any other GA plane and it's speeds are more or less the same as most other planes it's size, if you can fly a trike trainer and have a IQ above that of a labradoodle you should have no problem flying a AA1 series plane.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
IIRC,mthe use cored honeycomb panels in places on the fuselages. Let's say a wing panel gets damaged beyond patchability and requires a new skin?:dunno:
Click to expand...
The honeycomb is only around the cabin area. The rest of the plane is sheet aluminum bonded to bulkheads/frames/ribs. The biggest problem dealing with reskinning those portions is the bonding, and not many shops have the expertise and capability to do that. One supposes that a flush patch is possible, but it would not be the most desirable solution.
 
Tom-D said:
Or like Ron's plane you buy a used wing.
Click to expand...
While the wings on my plane were used when I bought them, they were the original wings attached to the used fuselage on which they had been since they left the factory together in 1979. However, I do know of people who have had damaged wings and had them replaced with a used wing off another Cheetah/Tiger (the Cheetah and Tiger wings being identical). You just have to make sure it comes with documentation as to its flight time since new, since the wings have a 12,000 hour life limitation.
 
Ron Levy said:
The honeycomb is only around the cabin area. The rest of the plane is sheet aluminum bonded to bulkheads/frames/ribs. The biggest problem dealing with reskinning those portions is the bonding, and not many shops have the expertise and capability to do that. One supposes that a flush patch is possible, but it would not be the most desirable solution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because I remember when working for Al whose business was rebuilding wings, fuselages... Basically totaled planes rivet by rivet, when it came to the Grumman it was all bolting together salvage parts. Al said the bonding process was too finicky to deal with and that it really should be vacuum bagged and it just wasn't worth messing with for him especially on the liability end.
 
Tom-D said:
Aero commander Darter.
Click to expand...
That was a 4-seater, not a 2-seater, and I doubt they built (no less sold) anywhere near the 1800 units that the AA-1-series numbered. That compares to 300 Beech Skippers and 2500 Piper Tomahawks.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, because I remember when working for Al whose business was rebuilding wings, fuselages... Basically totaled planes rivet by rivet, when it came to the Grumman it was all bolting together salvage parts. Al said the bonding process was too finicky to deal with and that it really should be vacuum bagged and it just wasn't worth messing with for him especially on the liability end.
Click to expand...
The places that do these repairs (like True Flight, Fletchair, Excel-Air, Air Mods NW, etc), are pretty good at it, but as you said, for anyone else, it's a lot easier to buy replacement units and bolt them on. Note that you can remove the wings, landing gear, and horizontal stab with only two screwdrivers and three open end wrenches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top