Grumman AA1B-5B Prices

L

LJS1993

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
584
Location
Riverside, California
Display Name
Display name:
LJ Savala
2250 TTAF and 2250 SMOH. That's why. They are priced similarly to other small, two seat trainers with those kind of times, however, they are much more fun to fly and a bit faster than the others.

The airframe is relatively low time, but that's the original engine, and one that old, and with that many hours needs to be viewed (from a purchase perspective) as timed out and needing replacement or overhaul.
 
Last edited:
Only one comm and no nav, too -- pure VFR machine. Good news is that with a run-out engine, it's a good candidate for a 150/160HP O-320 upgrade, giving you a real "pocket rocket" for only a few thousand more than an overhaul will cost. But either way, you're going to have over $30K in the airplane before it's done, and that's not counting any more radios.
 
So what does 880 STOH mean... To end only? Does SMOH mean entire engine overhauled?
 
LJS1993 said:
Right when I think owning a plane and aviation in general is way out of my financial league I spot deals like this one. I know there is a lot more to ownership then just the purchase, however, prices like this are encouraging. Why are these planes so "cheap"? I'm a total rookie so am I missing something about these prices?

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...76/Grumman_American+General/AA1B/1529006.html
Click to expand...

That looks like a sweet deal to train and build some hours in. Good chance you can easily get a few more hundred out of that engine and sell it for not much less than you bought it.
 
Addicted2climbing said:
So what does 880 STOH mean... To end only? Does SMOH mean entire engine overhauled?
Click to expand...
SMOH means "Since Major Overhaul", as I understand. You still need to examine the logbooks to see if the overhaul was done by a reputable shop and not just written in, but it's a good number to go by for initial impression.

STOH means "top end", basically jugs off, or things that one can do without splitting the block. Again, not speaking as A&P.

A couple of weeks ago I saw an AA-1A in Vegas with 1900 SNEW/TTAF (original engine from the factory).
 
Ron Levy said:
Only one comm and no nav, too -- pure VFR machine. Good news is that with a run-out engine, it's a good candidate for a 150/160HP O-320 upgrade, giving you a real "pocket rocket" for only a few thousand more than an overhaul will cost. But either way, you're going to have over $30K in the airplane before it's done, and that's not counting any more radios.
Click to expand...
And then what would you have?

a 2 seat VFR aircraft.
 
Tom-D said:
And then what would you have?

a 2 seat VFR aircraft.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Leave it as-is and build some hours. By then you will know what you want as your next airplane.

edit: and my guess is that by the time you upgrade with even a mid-time engine, you are closer to $40k.
 
Last edited:
alfadog said:
Exactly. Leave it as-is and build some hours. By then you will know what you want as your next airplane.

edit: and my guess is that by the time you upgrade with even a mid-time engine, you are closer to $40k.
Click to expand...

Too bad most young buyers don't think like that. Simply buy it, fly it, have fun, wear it out and walk.

as a rental it probably would pay for its self, that is what it was designed for, and where it really shines.

Just don't rent it to a lard as$
 
So does 2250 TTAF and 2250 SMOH mean that it started life with an overhauled engine?
 
gkainz said:
So does 2250 TTAF and 2250 SMOH mean that it started life with an overhauled engine?
Click to expand...

LOL. Might just be the way posting the ad works.

edit: Yeah, just checked. It is a drop-down box. He selected SMOH when he should have chosen SNEW, which was the next choice.
 
Last edited:
LJS1993 said:
I see so this plane is definitely a project for someone with experience.
Click to expand...

Huh? Where did you read that? This Grumman seems to me to be a nice clean little airplane for a fellow that just wants to fly a simple, two-place airplane for cheap. Not even necessarily a student.
 
With that many hours on the engine I'd be wary.

On the other hand, I've never bought a plane before and have only 20 hours.

Take this with a grain of salt, haha.
 
LJS1993 said:
I see so this plane is definitely a project for someone with experience.
Click to expand...

Nothing 'project' about it. This looks like a ready to fly plane with decent interior, nice paint and above average VFR avionics (many of the <20k Yankees have one 70s era radio like a KX170B).

The engine can last another 800hrs or die on you after 100, but that equation is the same whether the engine is 500hrs or 2000hrs. Factory overhaul retails for 24k on that engine, a 'field overhaul' can probably be had for 20k.

If you think about doing this, make sure you have a mechanic familiar with the type go through it for you. Preferably the same IA who will do your annuals.

There are no cheap aircraft.
 
weilke said:
Nothing 'project' about it. This looks like a ready to fly plane with decent interior, nice paint and above average VFR avionics (many of the <20k Yankees have one 70s era radio like a KX170B).

The engine can last another 800hrs or die on you after 100, but that equation is the same whether the engine is 500hrs or 2000hrs. Factory overhaul retails for 24k on that engine, a 'field overhaul' can probably be had for 20k.

If you think about doing this, make sure you have a mechanic familiar with the type go through it for you. Preferably the same IA who will do your annuals.

There are no cheap aircraft.
Click to expand...

And it looks well taken care of; hangared with recent pricey maintenance. I would have no qualms about buying this airplane after checking the Vref value and a thorough prebuy and with an offer based on more research.
 
alfadog said:
Huh? Where did you read that? This Grumman seems to me to be a nice clean little airplane for a fellow that just wants to fly a simple, two-place airplane for cheap. Not even necessarily a student.
Click to expand...


Ah my mistake with that assumption then. It sounds like it has some high hours on the engine and could use some upgrades so I assumed it wasn't exactly a ready to fly type of deal. But I am obviously wrong.
 
LJS1993 said:
Ah my mistake with that assumption then. It sounds like it has some high hours on the engine and could use some upgrades so I assumed it wasn't exactly a ready to fly type of deal. But I am obviously wrong.
Click to expand...

IF the plane is as represnted, the only thing you would have to worry about is the engine.

You will notice that engine time is a major factor in the price of that class of aircraft.

This one for example:

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...974-GRUMMAN-AMERICAN-GENERAL-AA1B/1208795.htm?

has a 240 SMOH engine, it is also about 10k more.

And then you have 'ratty interior, ratty paint, ratty radios but low-time engine for less than 20k here:

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...975-GRUMMAN-AMERICAN-GENERAL-AA1B/1223701.htm?

If they have ratty paint, ratty interior, ratty radios and timed out engine, they can basically be had if you promise to pick them up.

Btw, if you go with the one you posted, it would be cheaper to buy the second one I referenced here simply for the engine rather than overhauling the existing mill. Swap the engine from the ratty one into the one that has the nice P&I and put the ratty one back on barnstormers as a parts-kit.
 
Last edited:
LJS1993 said:
Ah my mistake with that assumption then. It sounds like it has some high hours on the engine and could use some upgrades so I assumed it wasn't exactly a ready to fly type of deal. But I am obviously wrong.
Click to expand...

What does "high hours" mean? IMO, it means that the manufacturer feels that, at a certain number of hours, a typical engine, receiving typical (read flight school) use and typical (read minimal) maintenance, would begin to show some decrease in reliability. So an engine that was carefully owned and carefully maintained can be expected to go further before taking a significant reliability hit. Recommended TBO is not a fuse that you light when the engine is new and at 2000 hours, the engine blows up. It is a guess based, I would hope, on the historical reliability of the engine and on static testing. If the engine has good compression and good oil analysis (not making metal), then why wouldn't it go 25% or more past TBO?

If I bought this airplane, I would just fly the darn thing.
 
alfadog said:
That looks like a sweet deal to train and build some hours in. Good chance you can easily get a few more hundred out of that engine
Click to expand...
Without having even seen the plane, no less having examined the engine thoroughly, how can you make such a statement? :no:
 
zaitcev said:
STOH means "top end", basically jugs off, or things that one can do without splitting the block. Again, not speaking as A&P.
Click to expand...
Since there is no regulatory definition of a "top overhaul," you really have no idea what they did until you read the maintenance records.

A couple of weeks ago I saw an AA-1A in Vegas with 1900 SNEW/TTAF (original engine from the factory).
Click to expand...
That's 1900 hours over 40 years, probably front-loaded -- not very confidence-building.
 
Ron Levy said:
Without having even seen the plane, no less having examined the engine thoroughly, how can you make such a statement? :no:
Click to expand...

Why not read the rest of my posts before you no no no. Sheesh.
 
If it were me...

Offer less than the asking price. Fly it, maintain it, keep it clean and hangared and in good shape but don't sink a fortune into upgrades. Have oil analysis done regularly. When it looks like the engine is going to become problematic, sell it and buy something else. The next buyer is probably going to pay you whatever the airframe and a rebuildable core engine is worth.

Here's my reasoning. It's a cheap airplane; say you buy it for $15K. You put a few hundred hours on it, maybe more, before the oil tells you you're on borrowed time. By now the engine is well beyond TBO; even if it's running well you're not going to get much out of it -- but you DON'T want to fly it until it breaks, or is no longer even ferryable. You could have it overhauled and have $35K invested in a $20K airplane... OR, you can sell it for probably $10K or so and buy something a step or two up, maybe with a lower time engine and do it again.

Or maybe you find out after buying this one that airplane ownership is just not for you; you're not flying enough, or it costs more than you thought it would, or whatever. OK, fine -- you're not stuck with a plane you paid $40K for and is now only worth $20K. In the end, if you buy it for $15K and only get 200 hours before the engine starts to go -- that's still some pretty cheap flying.

Edit: Of course, all of this assumes you do a proper pre-buy inspection and find nothing that would make it a bad deal. This is by no means a sure thing.
 
weilke said:
Nothing 'project' about it. This looks like a ready to fly plane with decent interior, nice paint and above average VFR avionics (many of the <20k Yankees have one 70s era radio like a KX170B).
Click to expand...
A single comm radio with no nav isn't even average for VFR. Pretty much every AA-1x left the factory with at least one nav/comm.

The engine can last another 800hrs or die on you after 100, but that equation is the same whether the engine is 500hrs or 2000hrs. Factory overhaul retails for 24k on that engine, a 'field overhaul' can probably be had for 20k.
Click to expand...
Anything's possible, but an engine with 2250 since new, no overhaul, and the flying spread out over more than 35 years has to be suspect, and the odds of running it past 3000 hours before it needs an overhaul are extremely slim.
 
alfadog said:
Why not read the rest of my posts before you no no no. Sheesh.
Click to expand...
The more you post about this engine, the less it appears you know about aircraft engine maintenance, reliability, and longevity. The best thing you can do for an engine to make it last many hours is to fly it a lot, and fly it regularly. That's why flight schools putting 50-100 hours a month on their engines can go well past TBO. OTOH, an engine left to sit idly for weeks at a time between short flights may not make half the mfr's TBO, and an engine with 2250 hours since it left the factory in 1976 has not been flown either a lot or regularly. Until you get something on the compression, some oil analysis history, the results of a SB388C valve "wobble" check, and a look inside at the camshaft (among other things), there is no way one can confidently suggest this engine is anything but a core in need of overhaul.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since there is no regulatory definition of a "top overhaul," you really have no idea what they did until you read the maintenance records.

That's 1900 hours over 40 years, probably front-loaded -- not very confidence-building.
Click to expand...

Heads up Ron, It doesn't require a regulatory definition for a term to be used and defined

Read FAA-H-8083-32 chapter 10- page 2

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/FAA-H-8083-32-AMT-Powerplant-Vol-2.pdf

"top overhaul" is a well described and well used term by both major manufactures and parts suppliers.

But it is still a "Repair" not an overhaul.
 
Tom-D said:
Heads up Ron, It doesn't require a regulatory definition for a term to be used and defined

Read FAA-H-8083-32 chapter 10- page 2

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/FAA-H-8083-32-AMT-Powerplant-Vol-2.pdf

"top overhaul" is a well described and well used term by both major manufactures and parts suppliers.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. Only problem is anyone can use the term for anything without you knowing what they really did. In contrast, "overhauled" and "rebuilt" have specific regulatory requirements, including the use of the engine manufacturer's overhaul manual.
 
Ron Levy said:
The more you post about this engine, the less it appears you know about aircraft engine maintenance, reliability, and longevity. The best thing you can do for an engine to make it last many hours is to fly it a lot, and fly it regularly. That's why flight schools putting 50-100 hours a month on their engines can go well past TBO. OTOH, an engine left to sit idly for weeks at a time between short flights may not make half the mfr's TBO, and an engine with 2250 hours since it left the factory in 1976 has not been flown either a lot or regularly. Until you get something on the compression, some oil analysis history, the results of a SB388C valve "wobble" check, and a look inside at the camshaft (among other things), there is no way one can confidently suggest this engine is anything but a core in need of overhaul.
Click to expand...

And that is why I said read my other posts in this thread. Are you telling me that an engine that has good compression, not making metal, checked over and gven a clean bill of health by a competent mechanic, would not be a good bet to soldier on for 200 - 300 or even 400 hours more with maybe no more than a top overhaul?

You are right, I am new to this airplane game but I have been rebuilding engines since I was maybe 14 years old (Honda 50 at 14, 1st car engine AH 100-4 at 15) so I don't buy that this doesn't "look like" (appear at first view to be) what I said it appeared to be. Maybe something nice for the right price and fly it as is.
 
alfadog said:
And that is why I said read my other posts in this thread. Are you telling me that an engine that has good compression, not making metal, checked over and gven a clean bill of health by a competent mechanic, would not be a good bet to soldier on for 200 - 300 or even 400 hours more with maybe no more than a top overhaul?
Click to expand...
No. But I am telling you the odds of this engine being in that good shape based on the information available are extremely long against it.

You are right, I am new to this airplane game but I have been rebuilding engines since I was maybe 14 years old (Honda 50 at 14, 1st car engine AH 100-4 at 15) so I don't buy that this doesn't "look like" (appear at first view to be) what I said it appeared to be. Maybe something nice for the right price and fly it as is.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but based on my 40+ years in the airplane business, very unlikely.
 
Every engine is a Pandora's box, you never know what you have, run hours means nothing, time or age means nothing.
You can find examples of new engines failing, you can find old engines running fine well over 3500 hours and 70 years time.

You simply can not inspect any engine and tell when it will fail.

If we could do that, we would never have engine failures in flight.

We wouldn't need to have TBOs or bother with keeping tract of the run time.

You simply can't tell. The engine in question may have been repaired many times until it is like new, but simply not signed off as a overhaul. Or it may have a piston ready to go into the oil sump. you simply never know.
 
Ron Levy said:
No. But I am telling you the odds of this engine being in that good shape based on the information available are extremely long against it.
Click to expand...

This is just spitballing. The information available tells us little except that the compressions are good. What if it has been flying regularly for the past 10 years? We don't know. There is no way to guess at this engine. Spitballing. No need to get the panties bunched up.

So then, I stand by my opinion. If it got a clean bill from the mechanic and the price was right, I would have no problem buying this if I were looking to build a couple hundred hours. Then resell it and move on.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, it is. Only problem is anyone can use the term for anything without you knowing what they really did. In contrast, "overhauled" and "rebuilt" have specific regulatory requirements, including the use of the engine manufacturer's overhaul manual.
Click to expand...

You best read the page it tells what the FAA believes it is.

and that is pretty much what the industry thinks too.

OBTW FAR 43 only tell us what can be entered as each term, it does not tell us what parts are to be changed during any overhaul, nor does it tell us how to do the work, where to start or stop, plus it does not require us to place a maximum on what can be done, just a minimum of what must be completed.
Both major manufacturers have SB that state what there "top overhaul term means, I'm just too lazy tonight to look them up for you.

So when you say there is no statement as to what a "top overhaul" is you are wrong, there are several places that state exactly what it is.
 
No problem trying to fly it a few hundred more hours. But, when purchasing, buy it as a run-out. I think that is all Ron and I are saying. Don't want to speak for Ron, but when it comes to engines this old, and with this much time, buy wisely. That's all.
 
Ron Levy said:
No. But I am telling you the odds of this engine being in that good shape based on the information available are extremely long against it.
Click to expand...

Lets reverse the question you asked, How can you say that with out inspecting the engine.
 
Anthony said:
No problem trying to fly it a few hundred more hours. But, when purchasing, buy it as a run-out. I think that is all Ron and I are saying. Don't want to speak for Ron, but when it comes to engines this old, and with this much time, buy wisely. That's all.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is what Ron is saying but I totally agree with you and I think that is clearly what I have been saying.
 
There are a couple folks here that continue to believe you can stick a bore scope in an engine and tell every thing we need to know about it. simply isn't true. For the first part, you can not see the cam and lifters on a 0-235 by using a scope. (you must pull cylinders) As a seller I would not allow you to do that on any engine this old.

the price of this aircraft is $17.5k that is well below market so I would think the engine was considered in the price. I'd not ruin the sale over a couple thousand bucks.

If I were a student looking to finish my ticket, This aircraft would do it pretty easy. the engine has had new cylinders 880 hours, that is the biggest failure rate in the 0-235, but Lycoming is notorious for cam failures, and there is no way of telling how long that will run.

the most economical method of relieving the engine problem is a used engine from a reputable salvage yard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top