Grumman AA-5B Mechanic

[texashikergal02]

I was going to keep my mouth shut, but the baiting has continued enough for me to speak up.

Tom-D, I'm not sure why you are so against Grumman's, unless you either got caught buying one of Jim Bede's early ideas (i.e, 1960's), or just don't accept that there are other airplanes that are worthy against C's and P's. Pretty much every argument you have thrown out there about the type being useless is pretty much ancient history and invalid.

i.e. Most flight instructors of the day (which day is this, 1970?)
and
no one want to learn in them because it costs too much
The planes are responsive, fun, and much better trainers than many other aircraft, and cost no more to learn in than most any other aircraft.

What I'm hearing is a guy who is, for whatever reason, is really bitter about Grummans.

And none of this dribble helps the OP, who has decided to buy a Grumman (I own two myself), find his way to getting to a pre-buy. If you have an ax to grind, take it to the woodshed.

Rant off.

 

[Pilawt]

“Product wouldn’t sell” ... ?

American Aviation sold its first airplane in 1968, and Gulfstream closed the line in 1979. In those 12 years they sold 4,879 single-engine airplanes. How many other start-up companies since WW2, with a brand-new design, have ever sold as many airplanes in their first 12 years? (It took Cirrus about 14 years.) How many companies, not named Cessna or Piper, sold as many fixed-gear singles from 1968 to 1979?

By comparison, Beech built a total of 3,662 fixed-gear Models 19/23/24 Musketeers, Sundowners, Sports and Supers, over a span of 22 years. Less than 1,500 Commander singles and 2,700 Maules have been built — ever. And during the American/Grumman-American production run, Mooney sold about half as many airplanes as AA/GA.

 

[GlennAB1]

My buddy, Dave, A&P/121 Inspector, PP, used to always talk about Grummans, when he was flying a lot.

 

[danhagan]

How many other planes are held together with purple glue?

Any that did have it, should have already been corrected. There are a few items and SBs that need attention, but a regular mechanic should work out ok. If you take it to one of the "boutique" Tiger facilities, and it has never been to one, expect a big bill. I'd play close attention to the exit cowl ramps, exhaust shroud and whatever the tail SB is for checking the spar.

 

[coloradobluesky]

The reason mechanics that Ive talked to dont like Grummans is they have to take the wings off at annual. (True on at least some of them). Dont have to do that with most other airplanes. Its kind of perplexing. They get to charge more for it, or certainly should. Its more work.

 

[1RTK1]

Never heard of having to take the wings off. There was an AD long ago for wing bolts or something. I have never had the wings taken off during annual at any of the Grumman gurus shops let alone when I do owner assist.

 

[Tom-D]

“Product wouldn’t sell” ... ?

American Aviation sold its first airplane in 1968, and Gulfstream closed the line in 1979. In those 12 years they sold 4,879 single-engine airplanes. How many other start-up companies since WW2, with a brand-new design, have ever sold as many airplanes in their first 12 years? (It took Cirrus about 14 years.) How many companies, not named Cessna or Piper, sold as many fixed-gear singles from 1968 to 1979?

By comparison, Beech built a total of 3,662 fixed-gear Models 19/23/24 Musketeers, Sundowners, Sports and Supers, over a span of 22 years. Less than 1,500 Commander singles and 2,700 Maules have been built — ever. And during the American/Grumman-American production run, Mooney sold about half as many airplanes as AA/GA.

You place enough qualifiers on your statements to rule out Cessna and Piper which were the real world competition. the 150 was the trainer at the time, and the production run was 25,000+ So 25.000 buyers basically said no to the Grumman.

 

[GlennAB1]

23,949 Cessna 150's produced over 19 years. That's 24,000- in case you couldn't figure it out.

 

[Pilawt]

You place enough qualifiers on your statements to rule out Cessna and Piper which were the real world competition. the 150 was the trainer at the time, and the production run was 25,000+ So 25.000 buyers basically said no to the Grumman.

You assume that the raw sales numbers are a reflection of the merits of the airplane, and nothing more. That's not the real world. There are myriad variables that go into those sales numbers.

If the AA-1A had been marketed by an established, highly-capitalized, multi-national corporation with a global dealer network, well-established flight training affiliates, unlimited advertising budget, a full line of step-up models up to and including jets, and decades of customer brand loyalty and name association; and then some mom & pop start-up in Ohio tried to break into the market with a pokey little new design called the "One Fifty", that didn't look like anything else on the market, those numbers would have been reversed.

That's the nature of the business.

You deflected the key question: "How many other start-up companies since WW2, with a brand-new design, have ever sold as many airplanes [as American Aviation/Grumman-American] in their first 12 years?"

23,949 Cessna 150's produced over 19 years. That's 24,000- in case you couldn't figure it out.

Actually, something under 15,000 150/152s were produced during the years that the AA-1 series was built. A large percentage of those went to Cessna dealers and affiliated Cessna Pilot Centers, who were contractually obligated to buy or operate Cessna products.

That's the power of a big, established company.

 

[Tom-D]

You deflected the key question: "How many other start-up companies since WW2, with a brand-new design, have ever sold as many airplanes [as American Aviation/Grumman-American] in their first 12 years?"

The Cessna 150/52 was a new design in 1960. the 172 in 1957.
Had the Grumman been the stellar performer they would have converted a lot more buyers than they did.

 

[Ravioli]

Can we suspend the debate of which aircraft company is better than another? It has little to do with helping the OP find a mechanic for the aircraft he is interested in, and it's a worthless discussion in general because if it isn't an RV it isn't worth owning.

 

[kyleb]

The Cessna 150/52 was a new design in 1960. the 172 in 1957.

Both were warm-overs of immediate post-war designs - the C140 and C170, which were in production in the '40's.

 

[Tom-D]

Both were warm-overs of immediate post-war designs - the C140 and C170, which were in production in the '40's.

Late 40"s, 120 - 1946, 170 - 1948. first of the all metal Cessna's, It wasn't until 1949 that Cessna produced an all metal 170, and simple blew the competition away.
once that market was established, it was a hard nut to crack.
Grumman couldn't do it with the little cheap aircraft that flew different.

 

[1RTK1]

Flew different? As in better

 

[CC268]

LOL...I really do get a kick out of reading these threads.

 

[mr_happyland]

The reason mechanics that Ive talked to dont like Grummans is they have to take the wings off at annual. (True on at least some of them). Dont have to do that with most other airplanes. Its kind of perplexing. They get to charge more for it, or certainly should. Its more work.

I think you are mistaking this for the 500 hr wingbolt inspection.

 

[GlennAB1]

You should do a 727 wing terminal bolt (bottle bolt) inspection.

 

[danhagan]

The reason mechanics that Ive talked to dont like Grummans is they have to take the wings off at annual. (True on at least some of them). Dont have to do that with most other airplanes. Its kind of perplexing. They get to charge more for it, or certainly should. Its more work.

Owned one until a week ago for a decade, never had the wings off, and it was at FletchAir several times. There's a one time check of the wing attach bolts as an SB I believe and this may be what you are confusing for "wings removed".

Never heard of having to take the wings off. There was an AD long ago for wing bolts or something. I have never had the wings taken off during annual at any of the Grumman gurus shops let alone when I do owner assist.

+1

 

[1RTK1]

What plane are you going to now??

 

[danhagan]

What plane are you going to now??

Mission changed. I'm solo 99% of the time, only single pax maybe once a year. RV7 or RV8. Gain speed and altitude (Tiger service ceiling is 13,800).

 

[SkyDog58]

I think that Rick (OP) can probably remove Tom from his list of potential mechanics.

 

[GlennAB1]

I think that Rick (OP) can probably remove Tom from his list of potential mechanics.

+1

 

[Rcmutz]

In the mid 1970s Paulson was obsessed with his "Hustler" project -- a six-seat executive aircraft with a PT-6 (later TPE-331) in the nose and a Williams turbofan in the tail. His American Jet Industries in Van Nuys didn't have the facilities and trained workers to build it. Around the same time Grumman was seeking to unload its civilian airplane program (both light singles and bizjets) to concentrate on military and space work, so Paulson's AJI swallowed up Grumman-American at a bargain price. Paulson renamed it Gulfstream American.

The two-seat AA-1C Lynx was discontinued after the 1978 model year. The four-seat Cheetah and Tiger for 1979 were built with "Gulfstream American" nameplates. Curiously the line for the twin-engine GA-7 Cougar was kept going for another year or so.

The "Hustler" went through a number of design permutations, including a proposed military trainer, and finally a single-engine bizjet. The last version was the single-jet "Peregrine 500", and had a rear fuselage engine installation that resembled the center engine of a Dassault Falcon 7. The Hustler/Peregrine was never certified.

The demise of the Grumman American line of light singles had nothing to do with the merits of the airplanes themselves, and everything to do with an indifferent management and changing economies of the industry.

Oh ... and I enjoyed instructing in the AA-1 Yankees.

I was with Gulstream American in Bethany Ok when we converted the Hustler to the Pereqrine 500, the first VLJ. As a matter of fact, I was the preliminary design aero engineer for the project. Did all the performance calculations. Still have the report for the performance somewhere in my boxes.

 

[Tom-D]

I think that Rick (OP) can probably remove Tom from his list of potential mechanics.

Said Like I'd work on it anyway.
You've already probably figured out It's not my kind of aircraft.
My whole point to start was there is nothing special about them.
Lycoming engine, Cleveland wheels and brakes, standard instruments, and a metal aircraft, even if it is glues together

 

[GlennAB1]

Said Like I'd work on it anyway.
You've already probably figured out It's not my kind of aircraft.
My whole point to start was there is nothing special about them.
Lycoming engine, Cleveland wheels and brakes, standard instruments, and a metal aircraft, even if it is glues together

Even though they are aerodynamically superior, nothing special.

 

[Tom-D]

Even though they are aerodynamically superior, nothing special.

Why does that matter ?

 

[Pilawt]

I was with Gulstream American in Bethany Ok when we converted the Hustler to the Pereqrine 500, the first VLJ. As a matter of fact, I was the preliminary design aero engineer for the project. Did all the performance calculations. Still have the report for the performance somewhere in my boxes.

Wow - some fascinating stories there, I bet. 25 years ahead of its time ...

 

[GlennAB1]

Why does that matter ?

You still haven't answered this question:
How much experience do you have with bonded aluminum honeycomb structure, Tom?

 

[Rcmutz]

Wow - some fascinating stories there, I bet. 25 years ahead of its time ...

Yep! I can tell you some very interesting stories about moving the wing forward, converting inlets, removing turboprops, etc....

That was the problem with Paulson, 25 years ahead. We bid the two seat side by side Peregrine Trainer as part of the AF Next Generation Trainer to be aN FAA certified aircraft. That is, we would certify it to part 23, and sell to the AF. They didn't even open the boxes of the proposal. We didn't follow the instructions to offerer which said it had to be an AF Mil Standard procurement. The NGT, T-46 was canceled and today we now have Air Force trainers that were originally FAA certified. 25 years to soon.... Sigh...

 

[danhagan]

Said Like I'd work on it anyway.
You've already probably figured out It's not my kind of aircraft.
My whole point to start was there is nothing special about them.
Lycoming engine, Cleveland wheels and brakes, standard instruments, and a metal aircraft, even if it is glues together

Positives:
1. I doubt you could find purple passion glue on any of them still flying.
2. Cockpit is better designed for surviving an accident
3. Dual master cylinder brake system for pilot and co-pilot
4. Nose gear more robust than all of the RV trikes out there that haven't had an anti-splat mod
5. 135 knots at 8500 with an 8.5 GPH burn
6. Rudder like a barn door can handle a 35 knot direct cross wind (BTDT)

Negatives:
1. Flies so perfect, there's minimal adverse yaw rudder input requirement (can encourage poor feet skills)
2. Must approach no faster than 70MPH or you'll use a lot of runway

 

[Tom-D]

Positives:
1. I doubt you could find purple passion glue on any of them still flying.
Granted.
2. Cockpit is better designed for surviving an accident
Try getting out of them upside down.
3. Dual master cylinder brake system for pilot and co-pilot.
Piper has them from day one of dual brakes
4. Nose gear more robust than all of the RV trikes out there that haven't had an anti-splat mod
5. 135 knots at 8500 with an 8.5 GPH burn
6. Rudder like a barn door can handle a 35 knot direct cross wind (BTDT)
Little bitty aircraft with short wings helps too

Negatives:
1. Flies so perfect, there's minimal adverse yaw rudder input requirement (can encourage poor feet skills)
2. Must approach no faster than 70MPH or you'll use a lot of runway

3. not great off airport.
4. cockpit gets wet when it is raining and you got to get in/out.
5. very local parts supply. = pricy

 

[Velocity173]

Positives:
1. I doubt you could find purple passion glue on any of them still flying.
2. Cockpit is better designed for surviving an accident
3. Dual master cylinder brake system for pilot and co-pilot
4. Nose gear more robust than all of the RV trikes out there that haven't had an anti-splat mod
5. 135 knots at 8500 with an 8.5 GPH burn
6. Rudder like a barn door can handle a 35 knot direct cross wind (BTDT)

Negatives:
1. Flies so perfect, there's minimal adverse yaw rudder input requirement (can encourage poor feet skills)
2. Must approach no faster than 70MPH or you'll use a lot of runway

You forgot excellent visibility, light controls and you can fly with the canopy open. Of course, I think it looks better than comparable 4 places for its vintage.

 

[Pilawt]

You forgot excellent visibility, light controls and you can fly with the canopy open. Of course, I think it looks better than comparable 4 places for its vintage.

And fold-down back seats, and excellent cowl access, and no oleo struts, and outstanding support through AYA, etc., etc.

Raining? Bring an umbrella. You’re gonna get wet getting out of a Cherokee, Mooney or Bonanza, too, and you’ll have to have that lone door open twice as long to get everybody out.

 

[Velocity173]

And fold-down back seats, and excellent cowl access, and no oleo struts, and outstanding support through AYA, etc., etc.

Raining? Bring an umbrella. You’re gonna get wet getting out of a Cherokee, Mooney or Bonanza, too, and you’ll have to have that lone door open twice as long to get everybody out.

Even have a landing gear that's called "face saver" because of its forgiving attributes...though it never helped my landings.

 

[JAWS]

I always liked working on them and flying in them.

 

[iflyatiger]

3. not great off airport.
4. cockpit gets wet when it is raining and you got to get in/out.
5. very local parts supply. = pricy

Hey Tom.. With all due respect..

I realize there is a good chance you are just playing the troll game with this but either way please stop yapping about an aircraft you have never owned and clearly know nothing about. I don't think there is a plane that offers more pleasure and bang for the buck than the Grumman family. People that own them love them, people that upgraded from them constantly comment on how much they loved theirs and many comment how they wished they hadn't sold it.

Personally I would find it hard to trust any mechanic that constantly expressed in public such strong feelings toward any particular aircraft. I would wonder why and I would wonder if he could perform his duties in an unbiased manner, for any brand of aircraft. Maybe he is harboring a hatred for Mooney or Cessna or other but he is keeping that to himself..?

What a ridicules list..
Who buys a Grumman expecting it to be great at off airport operations? By the way never a problem on grass strips in good condition.
The minute you exit the door of a low wing or clear the wing of a high wing you are going to get wet just the same
Parts are very available and most important surprisingly reasonably priced..

Have a nice day..

 

[Tom-D]

Hey Tom.. With all due respect..

I realize there is a good chance you are just playing the troll game with this but either way please stop yapping about an aircraft you have never owned and clearly know nothing about. I don't think there is a plane that offers more pleasure and bang for the buck than the Grumman family. People that own them love them, people that upgraded from them constantly comment on how much they loved theirs and many comment how they wished they hadn't sold it.

Personally I would find it hard to trust any mechanic that constantly expressed in public such strong feelings toward any particular aircraft. I would wonder why and I would wonder if he could perform his duties in an unbiased manner, for any brand of aircraft. Maybe he is harboring a hatred for Mooney or Cessna or other but he is keeping that to himself..?

What a ridicules list..
Who buys a Grumman expecting it to be great at off airport operations? By the way never a problem on grass strips in good condition.
The minute you exit the door of a low wing or clear the wing of a high wing you are going to get wet just the same
Parts are very available and most important surprisingly reasonably priced..

Have a nice day..

ever consider the Grummans don't fit everyones mission?
What makes you believe I have never owned one or worked on them?

 

[danhagan]

3. not great off airport.
4. cockpit gets wet when it is raining and you got to get in/out.
5. very local parts supply. = pricy

If it's an airframe part, they're available and may be pricey, but I never needed one in 10 years. Everything FWF is normal items. Brake pads were $12 for all of them last time I purchased at aircraft spruce.

 

[slacktide]

ever consider the Grummans don't fit everyones mission?
What makes you believe I have never owned one or worked on them?

I'm gonna go with, the numerous nescient and fatuous comments that you have posted over your many years on various internet forums regarding the make.

 

[Tom-D]

If it's an airframe part, they're available and may be pricey, but I never needed one in 10 years. Everything FWF is normal items. Brake pads were $12 for all of them last time I purchased at aircraft spruce.

My point way back.. It doesn't require anyone special to do a pre-purchase inspection.