Grumman AA1 vs. Zenith CH 601/650

[DMD3.]

This may be an apples/oranges comparison, as it’s between a certified aircraft versus an experimental. But how do these aircraft compare in terms of cost effectiveness and performance? In my case I’d be buying used, not building if I went with the Zenith.

Based on a few ads I’ve seen, purchase price seems to be similar for both ($30k range). Both have close to the same horsepower: The Yankee has 108 hp (AA1C has 115), so fuel burn would be close. Not sure how much more insurance would be for the Zenith, as it’s experimental. I’ve logged 340 tt and have had my PPL for 11 yrs, so perhaps insurance wouldn’t be too horrible? I would not be performing my own maintenance (at least for awhile; in time I could learn) so it could be difficult finding an A&P for the Zenith.

Performance-wise, the edge seems to go to the Grumman at 117 kts (AA1B Trainer is only 109 kts), whereas most people report the Zodiac as being a bit slower. Zenithair claims 139 kts at altitude, but they’re most likely exaggerating (people describe that as being “optimistic”). The Zenith seems to have superior takeoff roll, as the Yankee is said to be a dog at gross weight on a hot day.

I’m not sure how the two compare on useful load or cockpit space, but both seem to have excellent visibility from the canopy. I believe they both also have the sliding canopy.

Has anyone flown both these aircraft? Which would be best for a first-time owner?

Edit: I wasn’t sure if I should post this topic here or in the homebuilt section. :O

 

[GeorgeC]

The Grumman is faster and older, the Zenith is slower and newer. IIRC the Zenith is available as SLSA. Probably higher up front cost for the SLSA but then you get a newer factory-built airplane (=lower cost of mx) and it's LSA (=lower cost of regulatory compliance). It's easy to buy a $30k plane and then spend $30k on mx.

 

[samiamPA]

Zenith may be a little slower in cruise, but has a much lower stall speed (which can help from a safety perspective). Zenith has the option of BRS if that's your thing.

 

[Todd82]

If you're looking at short/soft fields the Grumman is at a pretty big disadvantage here.

 

[DMD3.]

If you're looking at short/soft fields the Grumman is at a pretty big disadvantage here.

Not really. Looking for something affordable, both in purchase price and ownership costs, but would like something that I could travel in. A C150 is a bit too slow.

 

[Grum.Man]

While I've never owned nor flown a 601 I can say pretty confidently it will be better in every way than the Grumman. The Grumman I owned was fun for what it is and the price they used to sell for. If the price was the same I would chose the 601 every day provided it had a Rotax/Lyco/Conti and not a Jabiru/auto conversion. I had an original AA1 with the "hot wing", granted it wasn't a pristine example but it didn't really perform as good as the book suggest. About the best I ever got out of mine was 109-110 kts. No wheel pants or other aero mods. Total dog on climb out at gross when hot.

 

[steingar]

The Grumman is a sharp little airplane, designed by Jim Bede no less. The Zenith looks like a child's drawing writ large. Cost is going to be hard to predict, the Grumman is old, but who knows what the guy did to put together his Zenith. maybe he did everything really well, maybe not.

Personally, I'd not be caught dead in one of those things. Even the Russians made better looking aircraft than that.

 

[MarkH]

I considered those options when I bought my plane.

Insurance is significantly less on the Grumman.

If the AA1 is an a/b/c and running the O-235, the Zenith is faster, if the AA1 is the original fast wing, it’s push, if the AA1 has an O-320, the it’s faster.

The Zenith lands and takes off shorter.

Early Zeniths have less space under the canopy, newer Zeniths are similar to the AA1

The parts are cheaper for the Zenith, and much easier to buy.

The deciding factor for me was the O-320. A stock AA1A/B/C compares pretty evenly to the Zenith. But the AA1 (fast wing) is a different beast, generally I would choose the Zenith over it, but (I am told) no other trainer flies like it does. The O-320 AA1 vs the Zenith isn’t a fair comparison, the extra horsepower really wakes up the AA1. When I was shopping, the O-320 AA1s were priced closer to the Zenith than the O-235 AA1s so I bought the O-320 AA1C.

 

[Lndwarrior]

The Grumman is a sharp little airplane, designed by Jim Bede no less. The Zenith looks like a child's drawing writ large. Cost is going to be hard to predict, the Grumman is old, but who knows what the guy did to put together his Zenith. maybe he did everything really well, maybe not.

Personally, I'd not be caught dead in one of those things. Even the Russians made better looking aircraft than that.

You've hurt my 601's feelings. She's no Panthera, but she's not the ugliest thing on the ramp....

 

[Tools]

I think the (albeit one) 601 I flew was weird. Very pitch sensitive, roll insensitive.

roomy, comfy, jaberiu (spelling...) was strong enough. Fine with short field and rough.

never have flown the Grumman, kinda assume more aero normal.

 

[Dana]

Personally, I'd not be caught dead in one of those things. Even the Russians made better looking aircraft than that.

The 601 isn't bad, it's the high wing Zenith models that are truly ugly.

I had a hangar neighbor a few years back who had a 601 with a Corvair engine. He loved that thing, it was impressively fast and he flew it all over the country.

My take is that once an experimental has accumulated a few hundred hours, the risk of problems due to build quality is no greater than a factory plane.

 

[jbarrass]

I currently fly an AA1A and have flown a zenith 601 (and am currently building a zenith CH750).

Cost wise, yeah they're about the same to buy. Parts and maintenance on the 601 cheap and available, for the Grumman they are harder to find and more expensive. So the zenith are ultimately much cheaper. There are some comments about the engine options, and yes, you'll see a lot. Do your research on the specific engine. There are good/bad for each choice. With EAB, every airplane is unique. Sometimes significantly so.

Flying wise, it's really apples to oranges.

The Grumman has super balanced controls and is very fun to fly. The zenith less so, but it's designed to fly slow so it's happier flying around near minimum airspeed.

The useful load is very low, I rarely fly with anybody in the Grumman, the 601 can fit 2 unless they re fat.

Cruse speed is nearly the same. No real difference.

The main difference (and it's a big difference) is take-off and landing. The 601 is a true STOL plane, you need very little runway (or dirt/grass for that matter). The Grumman is a runway hog. It takes a long time to get off the ground.

And @steingar, no... all airplanes are pretty (well, except maybe the Wilga)

 

[DMD3.]

Thanks everyone for your replies. From what I’ve read (on this board as well as others), the Zenith has a bit of drag, and it can be felt if you give it a lot of throttle, and flies better if you lower the power a little. But how does it do at higher altitudes? The website claims 160 mph at 8k feet (not so at lower altitudes) and that would make sense as the drag decreases in the thinner air, especially if equipped with a larger engine, but most manufacturers tend to exaggerate just a bit, so I take that with a grain of salt.

I’m wondering how it would do with a turbocharged engine, such as the Rotax 914 or a 120 hp Turbo Corvair (for about a quarter of the price as the Rotax).

 

[Daleandee]

I’m wondering how it would do with a turbocharged engine, such as the Rotax 914 or a 120 hp Turbo Corvair (for about a quarter of the price as the Rotax).

For a Corvair conversion there isn't any need for a turbo to get a reasonable 120 HP out of it. Dan Weseman of SPA had a dyno test ran on his 3.3 conversion and it made 125 HP. I'm flying a 3.0 in a Sonex and it has been very reliable.

Here's a quote from an article about the 3.3 Corvair conversion:

At 2800 rpm the engine is rated for 118 hp, and 125 hp at 3300 rpm. Weseman noted that these dyno results are not only independent but are corrected (temperature, pressure etc), and they are real world numbers.

From here: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=1464f783-7cf0-4146-9a6e-997661625b6f

 

[Lndwarrior]

There are 130 Hp 601/650s getting 140 mph indicated. Viking or UL and maybe the higher HP Rotax.

There is 601/650 Facebook forum which you can get some info on.

 

[chemgeek]

The AA1A will cruise for 3 hours at 108 kt before you need to find an airport. Visibility is stupendous with the bubble canopy. Dirt simple maintenance, and a bulletproof engine. Great for two for lunch or one and some luggage for short trips. I usually wanted 2600-3000 feet of grass or asphalt to operate safely. I used mine as a VFR time builder.