Grumman AA1B-5B Prices

[LJS1993]

The AA1x is a great trainer, and around the patch/local flyer. They are really fun to fly also. However, people do use them for trips, and even in hot, high environments although you have to plan accordingly with weight, and not do stupid stuff.

There are certainly better choices for travelling machines, but for cheap flying, as long as everything continues to work, something like this is the ticket.

Right on so the Grumman AA-1 & AA-5's are pretty much best used as short trip sport planes. Very cool nonetheless.

 

[Anthony]

Right on so the Grumman AA-1 & AA-5's are pretty much best used as short trip sport planes. Very cool nonetheless.

The AA1, and AA5 are very different planes. I only indicated the AA1 (two seater) was the trainer. The AA5 is bigger, more HP, and has four seats.

The four seaters, AA5 Traveller (150 HP), the AA5A Cheetah (150 HP), and AA5B Tiger (180 HP) are much better travelling machines, especially the AA5B (see my sig line) as it can carry the most and is the fastest.

 

[Skylane81E]

The AA1, and AA5 are very different planes. I only indicated the AA1 (two seater) was the trainer. The AA5 is bigger, more HP, and has four seats.

The four seaters, AA5 Traveller (150 HP), the AA5A Cheetah (150 HP), and AA5B Tiger (180 HP) are much better travelling machines, especially the AA5B (see my sig line) as it can carry the most and is the fastest.

Yep, they ain't malibus but travel just as well (or better) than any other sub 200hp four seater.

 

[weilke]

For a plane like this, any idea what it would cost to put in a used Nav/COM w GS and possibly a used ADF?

I wouldn't bother with an ADF.

The cheapest way to get Nav (and IR) capability would probably be to put a Narco 122 into the panel. Occupies 1 hole, provides Nav, GS and marker-beacon in one unit. Everything together, probably $2800. Thankfully, the up to no good company has finally gone bankrupt and according to two avionics guys I have talked to, the support situation has improved.

The next option would be to pull the SL40, sell it for $1400 to some experimental builder and replace it with a SL30 ($3800) + a nav head ($600). Some antenna work and cable stringing involved bringing the total to the 4-5k mentioned above.

Under the 'while we are here' paradigm, the next step up would be a used garmin overhauled plain GNS430. Until that is in the panel you are looking at about 6-8k, the only offset would be to sell the SL40.

The best option of course is to find a plane that has what you need.

One thing to keep in mind is that only a fraction of <20k planes shows up on controller or trade-a-plane as all those publications cost money. Some appear on barnstormers as those listings are a bit cheaper and speak to that crowd. Many are sold by word of mouth and with a handshake after a more knowledgeable buddy has given it the once-over.

 

[brcase]

If its an AA-1A with 1900 hrs on the original engine, then I would expect that the engine is shot. I would want a closer inspection of the engine logbooks and the engine. A many many years old engine with so relatively few hours for the years is long overdue. I would expect to find internal rust causing additional damage.

Not necessarily. If the last 500 hours have been flown in the past 5 years then it is probably fine. If it has 5 hours in the last 5 years I would be very suspect.

Does it still have original cylinders, if not how long ago were they overhauled.

Brian

 

[alfadog]

The best option of course is to find a plane that has what you need.

+1 as they say

If you want a low-time engine, find an airplane with a low-time engine. Ditto if you want ILS, GPS, etc.

The reason for that is that you increase the resale value by, at best, 50% of your investment in upgrades. The corollary to that being that you buy these upgrades at 1/2 off if they are in the airplane already. So let someone else take the hit.

 

[dell30rb]

I wouldn't bother with an ADF.

Start browsing approach plates and see how many ILS's say "ADF Required". At least around here, its over half of all ILS or LOC approaches....

The reason I was interested in that, is many cheap to operate 150's, yankees, tomahawks are VFR. Its difficult to find a good IFR one, though I agree that would be the best option.

 

[EdFred]

Start browsing approach plates and see how many ILS's say "ADF Required". At least around here, its over half of all ILS or LOC approaches....

The reason I was interested in that, is many cheap to operate 150's, yankees, tomahawks are VFR. Its difficult to find a good IFR one, though I agree that would be the best option.

But a cert'd GPS can be used in lieu of an ADF. Skip the ADF, and put in a certified GPS.

 

[weilke]

+1 as they say

If you want a low-time engine, find an airplane with a low-time engine. Ditto if you want ILS, GPS, etc.

The reason for that is that you increase the resale value by, at best, 50% of your investment in upgrades. The corollary to that being that you buy these upgrades at 1/2 off if they are in the airplane already. So let someone else take the hit.

The problem is that planes that 'have everything' tend to be in a price range that butts into the next size up. An AA1 with low time engine, up to date radios and nice P&I will cost as much as a Traveller or Cheetah.

So you got to make some compromises. Paint and particularly avionics work has a high potential for frustration, time and cost overruns. Relative to that, dropping in a different engine is a straightforward job that takes a couple of days at most.
So, if I wanted to have a VFR around the patch AA1, the one posted would be a good candidate. Nice paint, good radio, nice interior. All it needs is an engine. As Tom mentioned, you can find a engine in the box for 12k, installed in a simple plane like this it is probably 15k. Sell the existing running core for 5k and you are now in a nice plane for probably less than what you would pay for one with everything already done.

 

[weilke]

Start browsing approach plates and see how many ILS's say "ADF Required". At least around here, its over half of all ILS or LOC approaches....

The reason I was interested in that, is many cheap to operate 150's, yankees, tomahawks are VFR. Its difficult to find a good IFR one, though I agree that would be the best option.

If you want a all-weather fully equipped travel-machine, sure that lonely Nav/GS/MB in a plane with very limited range is not going to give you great capability.

These are cheap trainer aircraft. If all you need 1 precision and 1 non-precision approach capability to poke around under the hood, spending 10k on a piece of avionics for an aircraft that is worth 25k on a good day would be a bit ambitious.

 

[LJS1993]

The AA1, and AA5 are very different planes. I only indicated the AA1 (two seater) was the trainer. The AA5 is bigger, more HP, and has four seats.

The four seaters, AA5 Traveller (150 HP), the AA5A Cheetah (150 HP), and AA5B Tiger (180 HP) are much better travelling machines, especially the AA5B (see my sig line) as it can carry the most and is the fastest.

Right on that is good to hear. When and/if I make it through training the AA5B will be what I'll be looking for. What's the longest trip you've made in your Grumman Anthony?

 

[poadeleted20]

That is a very interesting idea. It might be very cool learning on an aircraft I absolutely love. Are independent instructors fairly common?

Yes, and many of us cost a lot more than a dime, although you will probably get what you pay for either way.

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks man that's why I'm asking you guys for good input. Would the AA5 series fit the bill or am I going to have to look for something heavier like a 172?

The 172 doesn't carry significantly more, and the AA-5x's are a lot faster (by 10-20 knots, depending on models), so yes, that would be a great choice for all of what you want -- PP training, 2-person traveling with lots of luggage (try putting a couple of non-folding bikes in a 172 -- something you can do with an AA-5x), and IR training and routine IR flying.

If you want the best information possible on Grummans from those who really know them, try these two places:

http://www.aya.org
http://www.grumman.net

 

[alfadog]

Yes, and many of us cost a lot more than a dime, although you will probably get what you pay for either way.

LOL. Lost the dictionary again, I see.

Yes, dime a dozen. Common. Anywhere from free to $100/hr. I pay $40/hr for my CFII for the IR and paid $65/hr for training in the Luscombe.

 

[poadeleted20]

Right on so the Grumman AA-1 & AA-5's are pretty much best used as short trip sport planes. Very cool nonetheless.

If an AA-5x is a "short trip sport plane," so is a Cessna 172/177, Piper PA28 (140-181), and Beech 19/23. Those others are all slower, carry no more, and generally can't take bulky items like bikes you can easily put in the Grummans.

 

[poadeleted20]

Right on that is good to hear. When and/if I make it through training the AA5B will be what I'll be looking for. What's the longest trip you've made in your Grumman Anthony?

Can't speak for Anthony, but I've flown mine from Salisbury MD to Sacramento CA with three adults and enough baggage for two women for two weeks (and my stuff, too). Had to leave the bike home, though, with that load.

 

[Tom-D]

The 172 doesn't carry significantly more, and the AA-5x's are a lot faster (by 10-20 knots, depending on models), so yes, that would be a great choice for all of what you want -- PP training, 2-person traveling with lots of luggage (try putting a couple of non-folding bikes in a 172 -- something you can do with an AA-5x), and IR training and routine IR flying.

If you want the best information possible on Grummans from those who really know them, try these two places:

http://www.aya.org
http://www.grumman.net

Are you saying that you can load your aircraft to the max load of a C-172 and go to the same places as the 172 can?

And get back out with the same load?

So what if a trainer is 10-20k slower, are we building hours while we train?

 

[bkspero]

Are you saying that you can load your aircraft to the max load of a C-172 and go to the same places as the 172 can?

And get back out with the same load?

So what if a trainer is 10-20k slower, are we building hours while we train?

The 172's that I've flown have been well below 900lb useful load. But my experience is far from exhaustive, so many may carry much more. I just haven't flown them.

For comparison, my 1976 AA5B has a useful load of 973 lb (weighed, not calculated). A cabin load of nearly 670 lb.with full fuel (about 500 NM range with 1 hr reserve). It carried 3 adults, full fuel and baggage (35 lb below Max gross) from Sacramento CA to NJ in 2 days of flying doing the northern mountain crossing in February over Jackson Hole alongside the Grand Tetons at a peak altitude of about 12,500 ft MSL.

I guess I could do the same with the Max load of a 172...I'd just have to find a way to remove 100 or so lbs of stuff from the plane to get down to that<G>. The highest field we used was only 6000 ft, so I can't comment on getting out of higher fields. And the temperature was near freezing, so hotter temperatures might have been limiting. But my guess is that underloaded to the carrying capacity of a 172 my AA5B would be pretty capable of handling higher density altitude airports.

None of that is relevant to a trainer intended for getting a PPL. But if you want to compare simple fixed gear, fixed pitch 4 place planes for traveling, there are IMBHO clear advantages to an AA5B over a 172. Closer comparisons would be a 1969 177 (180hp fixed gear and prop) or a PA28-181. I have no Cardinal time. I find Archers to be solid airplanes, but when I fly my Tiger, it makes me smile!. That's why I own it.

 

[Tom-D]

The 172's that I've flown have been well below 900lb useful load. But my experience is far from exhaustive, so many may carry much more. I just haven't flown them.

For comparison, my 1976 AA5B has a useful load of 973 lb (weighed, not calculated). A cabin load of nearly 670 lb.with full fuel (about 500 NM range with 1 hr reserve). It carried 3 adults, full fuel and baggage (35 lb below Max gross) from Sacramento CA to NJ in 2 days of flying doing the northern mountain crossing in February over Jackson Hole alongside the Grand Tetons at a peak altitude of about 12,500 ft MSL.

I guess I could do the same with the Max load of a 172...I'd just have to find a way to remove 100 or so lbs of stuff from the plane to get down to that<G>. The highest field we used was only 6000 ft, so I can't comment on getting out of higher fields. And the temperature was near freezing, so hotter temperatures might have been limiting. But my guess is that underloaded to the carrying capacity of a 172 my AA5B would be pretty capable of handling higher density altitude airports.

None of that is relevant to a trainer intended for getting a PPL. But if you want to compare simple fixed gear, fixed pitch 4 place planes for traveling, there are IMBHO clear advantages to an AA5B over a 172. Closer comparisons would be a 1969 177 (180hp fixed gear and prop) or a PA28-181. I have no Cardinal time. I find Archers to be solid airplanes, but when I fly my Tiger, it makes me smile!. That's why I own it.

If you think any AA series will do what a 172 will do, Load her up and let's go to Magee Ranger station and do some fishing. it's a little soft this time of year but the 172's do OK.

 

[Ghery]

The 172's that I've flown have been well below 900lb useful load. But my experience is far from exhaustive, so many may carry much more. I just haven't flown them.

For comparison, my 1976 AA5B has a useful load of 973 lb (weighed, not calculated). A cabin load of nearly 670 lb.with full fuel (about 500 NM range with 1 hr reserve). It carried 3 adults, full fuel and baggage (35 lb below Max gross) from Sacramento CA to NJ in 2 days of flying doing the northern mountain crossing in February over Jackson Hole alongside the Grand Tetons at a peak altitude of about 12,500 ft MSL.

I guess I could do the same with the Max load of a 172...I'd just have to find a way to remove 100 or so lbs of stuff from the plane to get down to that<G>. The highest field we used was only 6000 ft, so I can't comment on getting out of higher fields. And the temperature was near freezing, so hotter temperatures might have been limiting. But my guess is that underloaded to the carrying capacity of a 172 my AA5B would be pretty capable of handling higher density altitude airports.

None of that is relevant to a trainer intended for getting a PPL. But if you want to compare simple fixed gear, fixed pitch 4 place planes for traveling, there are IMBHO clear advantages to an AA5B over a 172. Closer comparisons would be a 1969 177 (180hp fixed gear and prop) or a PA28-181. I have no Cardinal time. I find Archers to be solid airplanes, but when I fly my Tiger, it makes me smile!. That's why I own it.

Put the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion in your 172 and then compare. Our club's 172N with that get up can carry 755 (or so) pounds in the cabin with full long range (50 gal useable) tanks. Beats our 182 by 100 pounds or so when you factor in full tanks (which we do as the club rules require putting the plane away with full tanks). Now, the 182 is much more comfortable, but it is /A while the 172N is /G. For getting ones PP cert that doesn't matter, but it sure is nice when you have, or are getting, your IR.

YMMV, but you get what you need and can afford.

 

[denverpilot]

Beats our 182 by 100 pounds or so when you factor in full tanks (which we do as the club rules require putting the plane away with full tanks).

That's fairly non-standard with 182s...

Usually they're kept filled "to the tabs" or something similar so fuel vs. payload can be managed.

Does the 182 have l/r tanks? That'd make that rule painful.

Filling them up is a good way to lose a lot of the airplane's utility. Especially if they're "restart" aircraft which have so much crap on board they've lost a lot of load-carrying capability.

If its a "legacy" 182 does it have a 2950 Max Gross?

Many have an STC available to raise t/o weight to 3100. Restarts are 3100 MGTOW with a 2950 landing weight.

Ours does have the STC available and we're still debating. It's ~$700. Roughly $5/lb for a 150 lb. increase. Not sure if it's worth it.

We have l/r bladders and full of fuel, it's longer-legged than most people are comfortable flying in one leg. We keep in touch and if someone's planning on a big load we don't top it off.

79 gallons is a lot of fuel. 6 hours without any reserves at 13 g/hr.

At this altitude we rarely see more than 11 g/hr average. At sea-level, higher for t/o and climb and 13 in the lower altitudes.

Our 182 with 4 hours of fuel on board for 3 flight hours with an hour reserve is quite a good weight/butt hauler. Her useful load is 1134 lbs without the STC. 4 hours fuel makes 822 lbs useful load. Full fuel useful load is 654 lbs.

With the STC she'd haul 1284 lbs of fuel and butts aloft. That'd be 972 with four hours fuel and the STC and a whopping 804 full of fuel with the STC.

Few Skyhawks can get close to that. A Skyhawk can beat her, but can't fly 5 hours and land with an hour remaining at the same time.

That full tanks rule is a PITA.

 

[LJS1993]

The 172 doesn't carry significantly more, and the AA-5x's are a lot faster (by 10-20 knots, depending on models), so yes, that would be a great choice for all of what you want -- PP training, 2-person traveling with lots of luggage (try putting a couple of non-folding bikes in a 172 -- something you can do with an AA-5x), and IR training and routine IR flying.

If you want the best information possible on Grummans from those who really know them, try these two places:

http://www.aya.org
http://www.grumman.net

I'll start checking those sites out and educating myself further.

 

[LJS1993]

Can't speak for Anthony, but I've flown mine from Salisbury MD to Sacramento CA with three adults and enough baggage for two women for two weeks (and my stuff, too). Had to leave the bike home, though, with that load.

Now that is a legit journey.

 

[Anthony]

Right on that is good to hear. When and/if I make it through training the AA5B will be what I'll be looking for. What's the longest trip you've made in your Grumman Anthony?

My Tiger has been from Maine to Florida, in most of the South, and mid-South and all over the West, but I lived in Denver for some time, and flew it out there, in and around, and through the Rockies before moving to Kentucky with it, and then back East.

 

[Tom-D]

My Tiger has been from Maine to Florida, in most of the South, and mid-South and all over the West, but I lived in Denver for some time, and flew it out there, in and around, and through the Rockies before moving to Kentucky with it, and then back East.

Is your aircraft a AA1 version powered by a 0-235, that you bought for $17,500?

That's what we were talking about.

 

[steingar]

I'm wondering if those claiming you can purchase a trainer and just sell it a couple years later have actually sold an aircraft recently. I don't recall it being so facile, and that was before our most recent economic meltdown.

Personally, I think you have to be daft to buy an airplane for training. The risk is monumental. You buy an airplane because you want to fly, and you buy the one that matches your mission.

 

[Anthony]

Is your aircraft a AA1 version powered by a 0-235, that you bought for $17,500?

That's what we were talking about.

LJS1993 wrote:

Right on that is good to hear. When and/if I make it through training the AA5B will be what I'll be looking for. What's the longest trip you've made in your Grumman Anthony?

Tom,

I was responding to this question by this gentleman, specifically asking about my Tiger.

 

[Tom-D]

Tom,

I was responding to this question by this gentleman, specifically asking about my Tiger.

OK, The AA5's are a totally different animal.

But still designed for a totally different mission than a 172. The AA5's pay a price for the speed, they don't like off airport ops or short runways.

If they fit your mission, flyem, have fun. But don't believe they will do every thing well.

 

[Anthony]

OK, The AA5's are a totally different animal.

But still designed for a totally different mission than a 172. The AA5's pay a price for the speed, they don't like off airport ops or short runways.

If they fit your mission, flyem, have fun. But don't believe they will do every thing well.

I would speculate most people do not need a "back country" bush plane or even the ability to use turf (which the Tiger can do). So for many, if not most, the few hundred feet more in runway a Tiger needs over a similarly powered Cessna, Piper, Beech, etc is not an issue.

In my eleven years of Tiger ownership, I have never been restricted by runway length on places I've travelled.

Like you said though, every airplane is a compromise.

 

[alfadog]

That's fairly non-standard with 182s...

...
That full tanks rule is a PITA.

My club has the same set-up (3 x 172M, 1 x 182Q). It is probably the only way to go with a lot of members sharing. Definitely a PITA with the 172s as they only have 850 usable to start with. Add full fuel and you can fit three lard-asses Americans with no baggage.

The 182 has 1152 lbs usable and holds 88 gal.

edit: so I guess the 182 is in the same boat and all that extra load is lost to the full tanks.

 

[weilke]

I'm wondering if those claiming you can purchase a trainer and just sell it a couple years later have actually sold an aircraft recently. I don't recall it being so facile, and that was before our most recent economic meltdown.

Those 20-25k trainer planes buy and sell quick if priced right. I have two acquaintances who are buying and selling in that market. They are also cheap to fly, cheap to insure and cheap to house. While many would love to 'buy the plane for the mission', for most who have to work for a living, that may be easier said than done. Staying with a 6gph trainer after finishing the certificate may well be the only way to own an aircraft. The performance is very comparable to the LSAs, and many people don't wince to pay 80-150k for one of those.

 

[DaleB]

Add full fuel and you can fit three lard-asses Americans with no baggage.

Hey hey HEY now. Watch it. I usually DO pack baggage.

 

[steingar]

Those 20-25k trainer planes buy and sell quick if priced right. I have two acquaintances who are buying and selling in that market. They are also cheap to fly, cheap to insure and cheap to house. While many would love to 'buy the plane for the mission', for most who have to work for a living, that may be easier said than done. Staying with a 6gph trainer after finishing the certificate may well be the only way to own an aircraft. The performance is very comparable to the LSAs, and many people don't wince to pay 80-150k for one of those.

So you've done this recently then?

 

[Tom-D]

I would speculate most people do not need a "back country" bush plane or even the ability to use turf (which the Tiger can do). So for many, if not most, the few hundred feet more in runway a Tiger needs over a similarly powered Cessna, Piper, Beech, etc is not an issue.

In my eleven years of Tiger ownership, I have never been restricted by runway length on places I've travelled.

Like you said though, every airplane is a compromise.

It's not an issue with you, If that is your point, But like I said if they fit the mission flyem and have fun.

But you won't see them being used by folks who own their small home fields. or being use to go back country.

Every ones ideal aircraft doesn't need to go fast. Some of us like to stand under the wing when we load in the rain.

 

[alfadog]

Hey hey HEY now. Watch it. I usually DO pack baggage.

One to another, bro.

 

[weilke]

So you've done this recently then?

I know two people, one of whom I work with, who do this on a regular basis. They buy and sell low end planes and make a little bit of money that way. The idea that it is impossible to sell any plane right now is simply incorrect. Low-end common planes do sell, sometimes even for cash.

If you can rent a two-seater for $95/hr wet and it takes you 65hrs to get your PPL, you have spent $6175 for the aircraft alone. If you have your own 2-seater and you can run it on mogas, your fuel cost for the same 65hrs is $1251. This gives you 5k to insure, park, maintain your plane.

As mentioned, you may or may not 'save' money, it is simply a different way to go about it with the +/- factors I mentioned above. The FBO who rents you the 152 for $95/hr isn't even making much of a profit on this, a lot of that has to do with airport mandated overhead cost and the cost of commercial insurance (which you as individual are not subject to).

And yes, I currently have a simple trainer plane. Not a two-seater and it has good radios (GNS430+KX155), but the math is the same at a slightly higher level.

 

[Pilawt]

It's not an issue with you, If that is your point, But like I said if they fit the mission flyem and have fun.

But you won't see them being used by folks who own their small home fields. or being use to go back country.

Every ones ideal aircraft doesn't need to go fast. Some of us like to stand under the wing when we load in the rain.

I've owned a Cheetah in the past and own a 172/180 now. Love 'em both.

Cheetah was more fun to fly.

172 has better short/unimproved field performance.

Cheetah could load and carry larger, bulkier cargo.

172 can carry a heavier load.

Cheetah's visibility took the sweat out of heavily-trafficked airspace.

172's high wing is nice on a hot day or in the rain.

Cheetah's sliding canopy is a gift from heaven on a hot day, and makes entry-exit easier.

172 is a better IFR platform.

Cheetah was more economical to operate

172 is more familiar to more repair shops.

Cheetah is more maneuverable on the ground.

 

[Ghery]

That's fairly non-standard with 182s...

Usually they're kept filled "to the tabs" or something similar so fuel vs. payload can be managed.

Does the 182 have l/r tanks? That'd make that rule painful.

Filling them up is a good way to lose a lot of the airplane's utility. Especially if they're "restart" aircraft which have so much crap on board they've lost a lot of load-carrying capability.

If its a "legacy" 182 does it have a 2950 Max Gross?

Many have an STC available to raise t/o weight to 3100. Restarts are 3100 MGTOW with a 2950 landing weight.

Ours does have the STC available and we're still debating. It's ~$700. Roughly $5/lb for a 150 lb. increase. Not sure if it's worth it.

We have l/r bladders and full of fuel, it's longer-legged than most people are comfortable flying in one leg. We keep in touch and if someone's planning on a big load we don't top it off.

79 gallons is a lot of fuel. 6 hours without any reserves at 13 g/hr.

At this altitude we rarely see more than 11 g/hr average. At sea-level, higher for t/o and climb and 13 in the lower altitudes.

Our 182 with 4 hours of fuel on board for 3 flight hours with an hour reserve is quite a good weight/butt hauler. Her useful load is 1134 lbs without the STC. 4 hours fuel makes 822 lbs useful load. Full fuel useful load is 654 lbs.

With the STC she'd haul 1284 lbs of fuel and butts aloft. That'd be 972 with four hours fuel and the STC and a whopping 804 full of fuel with the STC.

Few Skyhawks can get close to that. A Skyhawk can beat her, but can't fly 5 hours and land with an hour remaining at the same time.

That full tanks rule is a PITA.

Yes, it is a PITA. But, it's the rule. That way the next pilot doesn't have to waste time getting fuel. Oh, and long range tanks (74 gal useable) in the C-182P. 2950 pounds max gross. Given a discussion I had with the club president last month about how little it is getting flown I doubt we'd put money into an STC to raise that. Would be nice, but I typically just have my wife in the right seat and a reasonable amount of baggage, so for us it really isn't an issue. 6 hours of gas in either plane, and I'm not sitting in either than long. But, you do what you have to do. And for me that's do a W&B with full tanks. Oh well...

 

[Tom-D]

I've owned a Cheetah in the past and own a 172/180 now. Love 'em both.

Cheetah was more fun to fly.

172 has better short/unimproved field performance.

Cheetah could load and carry larger, bulkier cargo.

172 can carry a heavier load.

Cheetah's visibility took the sweat out of heavily-trafficked airspace.

172's high wing is nice on a hot day or in the rain.

Cheetah's sliding canopy is a gift from heaven on a hot day, and makes entry-exit easier.

172 is a better IFR platform.

Cheetah was more economical to operate

172 is more familiar to more repair shops.

Cheetah is more maneuverable on the ground.

Two different aircraft, for two different missions.

If the AA-5 series are such a great aircraft, why isn't every pilot in Alaska looking to buy one?

You will never go any place with a Grumman that you can't see a 172, but you will go a lotta places with a 172 that you won't see a Grumman.

 

[poadeleted20]

But you won't see them being used by folks who own their small home fields. or being use to go back country.

Once again, Tom is showing his lack of knowledge about Grummans. I know of several Grummans based on "small home fields," including my pal Walt who keeps his at an 1800-foot grass field behind his house (next to his Cub).

As I said, if you want to learn from those who actually know these planes well, check the Grumman Gang and the AYA.