Grumman AA1B-5B Prices

Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...
You call 1800 feet small?

You can always find an exception.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Same reason they aren't all buying 172's -- it doesn't fit their mission.
Click to expand...

That's the key, Some times ya need a beaver some times ya don't. but you'll see a whole lot more Cessna 100 series than AA5s up north.
 
Tom-D said:
You call 1800 feet small?
Click to expand...
My home field's runway is 13,000 ft long, so that makes 1800 very small. The only time I landed a 150 on gravel, I rolled for 3000 ft (according to Google Maps). Interestingly enough, I saw lots and lots of turnaround tracks in the dirt where I was able to turn around for back-taxi, so apparently I'm not uniquely unqualified. Although I suppose if I had a 1800 ft strip on my property, it would quickly adjust my expectations.
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did you folks notice Ron didn't respond to my post 97 and 99, he knows the aircraft has limitations but he rather have you thing I don't know squat about the aircraft.

If roll rate and speed are important to you, the Grumman isn't the only aircraft that will do that for you, The Vans RV series will that too, as will several others.
 
Am I somehow to gather that Tom isn't the biggest advocate of Grummans?

If ever there were a board and a discussion that called out plaintively in desperate need of the "beating a dead horse" graphic, this would definitely be it. Schnikies.
 
DaleB said:
Am I somehow to gather that Tom isn't the biggest advocate of Grummans?
Click to expand...
Just not my kind of aircraft that's all.

If they fit your needs, have a nice day, but many here try telling about their aircraft but do not want to hear the down side of their choices.

there is no perfect aircraft
 
Tom-D said:
Did you folks notice Ron didn't respond to my post 97 and 99, he knows the aircraft has limitations but he rather have you thing I don't know squat about the aircraft.

If roll rate and speed are important to you, the Grumman isn't the only aircraft that will do that for you, The Vans RV series will that too, as will several others.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you just have to say "I prefer the compromises inherent in Cessnas to the ones inherent in Grummans." and move on. That would be much better than trying to stir up arguments in every Grumman thread.
 
Tom-D said:
Just not my kind of aircraft that's all.

If they fit your needs, have a nice day, but many here try telling about their aircraft but do not want to hear the down side of their choices.

there is no perfect aircraft
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you seem to be intent on dogging Grummans pretty much exclusively, and at every possible opportunity. It does get a little threadbare after a few months. Just sayin'.
 
DaleB said:
Yeah, but you seem to be intent on dogging Grummans pretty much exclusively, and at every possible opportunity. It does get a little threadbare after a few months. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

ya think every one has gotten the point by now?

This isn't about me, as many are trying to make it.

This thread started about a AA1/0-235, thread creeped to how well a AA5 could do cross countries, and compared to the 172, Oh Well that is what this page is noted for.
 
Tom-D said:
ya think every one has gotten the point by now?
Click to expand...
Gawd, I'd certainly hope so.
Tom-D said:
This isn't about me, as many are trying to make it.

This thread started about a AA1/0-235, thread creeped to how well a AA5 could do cross countries, and compared to the 172, Oh Well that is what this page is noted for.
Click to expand...
Actually... I think it started out about an AA1, then morphed into whether an AA1 was a practical choice for a cross-country trip machine. Somewhere in there we wasted an entire page or two watching people bicker about the meaning of an overhaul.

Then -- since the OP said he really loved the looks of the Grummans would an AA5 would be a better choice than an AA1. And after all, if you can't buy a plane just because it appeals to you and you love the looks of it, no one would fly antique radial engine Fairchilds either. His specified use was flying himself and his wife a couple of places that certainly have no shortage of long, wide. paved runways, and where an AA1 or an AA5 or whatever else you want would have no problem flying in and out of.

I may have missed a diversion or two, but it kind of went down hill from there. I don't recall the OP saying he wanted to fly off of 300' mud runways in the wilds of Alaska, but somehow we even managed to go there.
 
DaleB said:
Actually... I think it started out about an AA1, then morphed into whether an AA1 was a practical choice for a cross-country trip machine. Somewhere in there we wasted an entire page or two watching people bicker about the meaning of an overhaul.

Then -- since the OP said he really loved the looks of the Grummans would an AA5 would be a better choice than an AA1. And after all, if you can't buy a plane just because it appeals to you and you love the looks of it, no one would fly antique radial engine Fairchilds either. His specified use was flying himself and his wife a couple of places that certainly have no shortage of long, wide. paved runways, and where an AA1 or an AA5 or whatever else you want would have no problem flying in and out of.

I may have missed a diversion or two, but it kind of went down hill from there. I don't recall the OP saying he wanted to fly off of 300' mud runways in the wilds of Alaska, but somehow we even managed to go there.
Click to expand...

Don't get in between if old married couples fight.
 
DaleB said:
Gawd, I'd certainly hope so.

Actually... I think it started out about an AA1, then morphed into whether an AA1 was a practical choice for a cross-country trip machine. Somewhere in there we wasted an entire page or two watching people bicker about the meaning of an overhaul.

Then -- since the OP said he really loved the looks of the Grummans would an AA5 would be a better choice than an AA1. And after all, if you can't buy a plane just because it appeals to you and you love the looks of it, no one would fly antique radial engine Fairchilds either. His specified use was flying himself and his wife a couple of places that certainly have no shortage of long, wide. paved runways, and where an AA1 or an AA5 or whatever else you want would have no problem flying in and out of.

I may have missed a diversion or two, but it kind of went down hill from there. I don't recall the OP saying he wanted to fly off of 300' mud runways in the wilds of Alaska, but somehow we even managed to go there.
Click to expand...

Mud runways!?!?!?!? Alaska!?!?!? I still need to get my PPL!!!!!!! :D:D Seriously though even while arguing I still learn from you guys.
 
weilke said:
Don't get in between if old married couples fight.
Click to expand...
I know, I know, I should stay out of it. But you know how it is some times. When the record's been skipping long enough you just feel like you gotta drop a nickel on the tone arm or something.
 
Tom-D said:
This thread started about a AA1/0-235, thread creeped to how well a AA5 could do cross countries, and compared to the 172, Oh Well that is what this page is noted for.
Click to expand...



Ummm, No.

Look at the title of the thread "Grumman AA1-5B Prices".

There were many specific questions about the AA5 series as well as the AA1. I quoted one for you.

The OP as well as others in the thread were inquring about both the AA1's and AA5's, including the Tiger.

You somehow want to bash the Grummans because they are not "Alaska Bush Planes" yet the OP nor anyone but you indicated that was a mission requirement.

BTW, a good friend of mine (who was also based in Colorado) with a 150 HP Cheetah, flew to Alaska with his Dad from Denver, and flew all over that state without issues of places to land.
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
BTW, a good friend of mine (who was also based in Colorado) with a 150 HP Cheetah, flew to Alaska with his Dad from Denver, and flew all over that state without issues of places to land.
Click to expand...

You do realize that all of the major cities have jet service now.
 
alfadog said:
:confused: How does that relate to the adventure of flying your plane to AK and flying around there?
Click to expand...

Your quote was directed to Anthony. because of his statement about his friend flying his Grumman to alaska, all the major cities have large paved runways these days, that you could fly any aircraft to and be safe.

Seems I got to be the Dirty Bastard that dared to state the Grumman has limits and it isn't a perfect aircraft for every one.

My bad, criticizing some bodies aircraft. But I'll still stick to my opinion, and you are welcome to yours.
 
Tom-D said:
Your quote was directed to Anthony. because of his statement about his friend flying his Grumman to alaska, all the major cities have large paved runways these days, that you could fly any aircraft to and be safe.

Seems I got to be the Dirty Bastard that dared to state the Grumman has limits and it isn't a perfect aircraft for every one.

My bad, criticizing some bodies aircraft. But I'll still stick to my opinion, and you are welcome to yours.
Click to expand...

Personally, I have little experience with Grumman other than I know three folks that have them - Tiger, Cheetah, and Plane Jane - so I have little opinion on their merits.

Every airplane has limits and compromises, to (re)state the obvious. I guess the point is that, IMHO, there is little point in criticizing someone else's preferences in limits and compromises except where they are misinformed, i.e. thinking their preferred compromise will do something it will not. Otherwise, it is telling someone that likes strawberry that chocolate is better because it is what you like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top