Grumman AA5B Tiger

Henning said:
Hey Ron, could you clarify all the models that potentially had the bad glue and what the remedy to that was? I recall it only affected a few planes and there was something about 'purple glue'?:dunno:
Click to expand...
The so-called "purple passion" glue was used mostly in 1975 models as well as a few early 1976 models. Fletchair has the list by s/n of aircraft in which it was used. Some aircraft only had it used in part of the plane (e.g., tail but not wings) -- Fletchair can tell you which. The remedy for any delamination noted during inspection is repair with Service Kit 125A in accordance with Service Bulletin 155.

That said, there are a lot of purple glue airplanes which haven't experienced any delamination in the 37 years since they were built. If you're buying one of the affected airplanes, proper inspection per the SB should identify any problems, and it's not hard to fix.
 
Last edited:
LJS1993 said:
Guys call me nuts (since I'm not even a pilot) but for some reason the looks of this plane really appeals to me. Also the prices of this aircraft type seem very reasonable thus making actually owning a plane someday a possible reality. Not to be the type of guy who falls in love with the looks of a plane before even being in it but man it just speaks "cool" to me. How do these aircraft handle? Dependable? Good for new pilots? Any Grumman guys out there?
Click to expand...
I agree totally. I am planning ahead. When I get my truck paid off (and have my SEL) I am going to look into a Grumman. They are just cool looking planes, and look fun.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's not. The airfoil change was made by the original manufacturer (American Aviation in Cleveland) after the 1970 model year. The new airfoil was introduced with the AA-1A in the 1971 model year and is the same on all the AA-1A/B/C aircraft built from then until 2-seat production ended after the 1979 model year. There are other significant differences between the A, B, and C, so take a good look, but there is no aerodynamic reason to shun the AA-1A. In addition, because of their cleaner wing and greater speed, AA-1's are sought after; just make sure you get a proper checkout because it doesn't fly like any other 2-seater intended for the training market.
Bonding it back together is something best left to the experts, but there are half a dozen shops around the country who can do that if you bust it up that bad. Routine airframe repairs are well within the capability of any A&P with a decent shop and the right manuals.
Click to expand...

Reading the Structural repair manual, there are no authorized bonding/glue repairs, only rivets, other wise a field approval.
There are rivet repairs of the honey comb structure but they are all single skin rivet patches and never as strong as the OEM structure.
 
Tom-D said:
Reading the Structural repair manual, there are no authorized bonding/glue repairs, only rivets, other wise a field approval.
There are rivet repairs of the honey comb structure but they are all single skin rivet patches and never as strong as the OEM structure.
Click to expand...
Both TrueFlight and Fletchair have the necessary equipment and are authorized to perform bonding repairs. Other shops perform a combination repair as authorized by SB155 using SK125A.
 
Ron Levy said:
Both TrueFlight and Fletchair have the necessary equipment and are authorized to perform bonding repairs. Other shops perform a combination repair as authorized by SB155 using SK125A.
Click to expand...

It isn't done in the field, they have an authorized shop procedures, you local A&P must use a Field approval or the structural repair manual procedure and they are all rivet repairs.

Having only 2 places authorized to do glue repairs must effect the price of repairs.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Having only 2 places authorized to do glue repairs must effect the price of repairs.
Click to expand...

Let's assume that might be true. What impact do you think this obvious impairment (in your mind, anyway) has caused to fair market value, desirability, usefulness to owners, etc?
 
Tom-D said:
It isn't done in the field, they have an authorized shop procedures, you local A&P must use a Field approval or the structural repair manual procedure and they are all rivet repairs.
Click to expand...
The SB155 delamination repair includes bonding and rivets. But since you've previously indicated lack of experience with the type, I'm not surprised you're not familiar with it.

Having only 2 places authorized to do glue repairs must effect the price of repairs.
Click to expand...
Nope.

All that said, the need for repairing the bonded joints is rare, and extremely rare for the 90% of the fleet that doesn't have the purple glue. If the aircraft is seriously damaged, say in an accident, it can be shipped to a specialist shop for such major repairs. The ease with which the wings and tail feathers can be removed makes shipping much easier.
 
If they were more expensive to repair, the insurance would be much higher.

It is a non-issue.
 
wabower said:
Let's assume that might be true. What impact do you think this obvious impairment (in your mind, anyway) has caused to fair market value, desirability, usefulness to owners, etc?
Click to expand...

I just got off the phone with the local Grumman guru, and he says that if you really bend the aircraft or damage the honey comb, the insurance company is going to total it due to the cost of repairs and the aircraft market.

That may be a concern with you or not.
 
Tom-D said:
I just got off the phone with the local Grumman guru, and he says that if you really bend the aircraft or damage the honey comb, the insurance company is going to total it due to the cost of repairs and the aircraft market.

That may be a concern with you or not.
Click to expand...


Isn't that true with just about ANY aircraft?

Again, the insurance rates for Grummans are similer to other aircrafts in their class.
 
Ron Levy said:
The SB155 delamination repair includes bonding and rivets. But since you've previously indicated lack of experience with the type, I'm not surprised you're not familiar with it.

I can still read the manual, and see there is no bonded repairs with out a field approval for the common A&P types who repair 99% of the aircraft fleet.

Nope.

All that said, the need for repairing the bonded joints is rare, and extremely rare for the 90% of the fleet that doesn't have the purple glue. If the aircraft is seriously damaged, say in an accident, it can be shipped to a specialist shop for such major repairs. The ease with which the wings and tail feathers can be removed makes shipping much easier.
Click to expand...

The reality is fewer and fewer aircraft are having major repairs, most are scrapped, Prices of labor and materials are up, prices of aircraft are down.
How many times do we see the statement are that you can buy better aircraft than you can build.

As far as disassembly for shipping, they all do, the Cessna 100 series can be ready for the road in 4 hours.

My Fairchild was ready to go with wings and tail off in 6 hours.
It requires about 3 hours to place a super cub on a trailer.

So, to me there is nothing all that great about the Grumman series unless you want a small aircraft that requires a lot of runway to get off and has short wings that allow it to go a little faster than the rest of the fleet.
 
Anthony said:
Isn't that true with just about ANY aircraft?

Again, the insurance rates for Grummans are similer to other aircrafts in their class.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, So I don't believe I wish to deal with any aircraft that needs any one but a general A&P to do the repairs that require any special shop knowledge or equipment to repair.
 
Anthony said:
If they were more expensive to repair, the insurance would be much higher.

It is a non-issue.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily insurance is based upon hull value to scrap.

And the market is about flat across that market.
 
cleared4theoption said:
I agree totally. I am planning ahead. When I get my truck paid off (and have my SEL) I am going to look into a Grumman. They are just cool looking planes, and look fun.
Click to expand...

Buy your self a RV-6, better performance better value, better construction, that YOU can repair.
 
Tom-D said:
I just got off the phone with the local Grumman guru, and he says that if you really bend the aircraft or damage the honey comb, the insurance company is going to total it due to the cost of repairs and the aircraft market.

That may be a concern with you or not.
Click to expand...

What other questions did you ask of the Guru?

Did you specifically inquire about the WSGOLTG policy that applies only to owners of Grumman honeycomb-construction aircraft?
 
Tom-D said:
I just got off the phone with the local Grumman guru, and he says that if you really bend the aircraft or damage the honey comb, the insurance company is going to total it due to the cost of repairs and the aircraft market.
Click to expand...
If you hit hard enough to damage the structure of a Grumman, you would do enough damage to total pretty much anything. Nevertheless, a friend of mine did just that in his Tiger after an engine failure just after liftoff on a runway too short to land on the remaining pavement. He bought the hulk from the insurance company and had it restored by John Sjaardema at ExcelAir for just about what the insurer paid him. Given what he had in that plane in the way of modifications and improvements, that was cheaper than buying another Tiger and doing everything he'd done to that airplane.
 
Id own one, just finished an annual on a tiger, rugged simple airplane. If buying one be sure that the mechanic has been taking care of it with the correct manuals. Silly little things like removing the nose strut are often not done. If done yearly then it's just a matter of removing two bolts and sliding it out, if it's been neglected for a while it can become an ordeal.
 
wabower said:
What other questions did you ask of the Guru?

Did you specifically inquire about the WSGOLTG policy that applies only to owners of Grumman honeycomb-construction aircraft?
Click to expand...

I asked if they were doing Glue repairs on the Grumann structure, he said he had in the past but they are very difficult to get a 337 approved or expensive the get a DER to do it.
I also asked if he was going to be around, I had work for him. (hangar rash) on a AA5, he said no he had already gave an estimate and now the owner is looking for a cheaper way to repair it.

So, I'm not going there either, If you don't have the money to deal with specialty shops don't buy out of the norm.
 
In reviewing Tom Downey's posts about Grummans in this and other threads, it's pretty clear that he has very little experience with or knowledge about the them. If you want to know about a Grumman, ask someone who really knows the plane -- their names are listed above.
 
Just be sure you take somebody along to help you get out. Breaking the suction can be difficult.

Ron Levy said:
I know bigger folks than that flying them. If you're not sure, go find one and sit in it.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
If you hit hard enough to damage the structure of a Grumman, you would do enough damage to total pretty much anything. Nevertheless, a friend of mine did just that in his Tiger after an engine failure just after liftoff on a runway too short to land on the remaining pavement. He bought the hulk from the insurance company and had it restored by John Sjaardema at ExcelAir for just about what the insurer paid him. Given what he had in that plane in the way of modifications and improvements, that was cheaper than buying another Tiger and doing everything he'd done to that airplane.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the insurance company totaled it. who else but a dedicated Grumman fan would do what your friend did.
 
Anybody who understands arithmetic?

Tom-D said:
Like I said, the insurance company totaled it. who else but a dedicated Grumman fan would do what your friend did.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Just be sure you take somebody along to help you get out. Breaking the suction can be difficult.
Click to expand...
That's funny..

230 pounds and over 6', he best take it flying and see if those stubby little wings will pick him up. AA-1B
 
cleared4theoption said:
Question about the AA-1B Trainer
It seems I have heard it might be an issue to fit in if you are tall...say 6-2 like me??
Click to expand...

I'm between 6' and 6'1" and probably 240 and 1 hour in an AA-1C was about all I could do, before I needed to get out. Getting in and out wasn't that easy either.

But it was fun to fly.
 
To be brutally honest, tall isn't a big problem in a Grumman, but fat is. However, there's more cabin width at hip level in the AA-1x's than in a Cessna 152 or Tomahawk, so as 2-seaters go, if you're a wide-body, you may find a better fit in the Grumman than in other side-by-side 2-seaters. As I said, try it on for size before you make a decision either way.

In addition, there are a lot of AA-1x's out there which have had O-320 engines put on under STC, and that can make a big difference in performance for those carrying around more body than I have. Useful load doesn't increase, but performance does.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
To be brutally honest, tall isn't a big problem in a Grumman, but fat is. However, there's more cabin width at hip level in the AA-1x's than in a Cessna 152 or Tomahawk, so as 2-seaters go, if you're a wide-body, you may find a better fit in the Grumman than in other side-by-side 2-seaters. As I said, try it on for size before you make a decision either way.

In addition, there are a lot of AA-1x's out there which have had O-320 engines put on under STC, and that can make a big difference in performance for those carrying around more body than I have. Useful load doesn't increase, but performance does.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info...I have reached out to an AA-1 owner here in the Atlanta area to see if I can't talk him into a seat sitting, and maybe a ride:wink2:
 
cleared4theoption said:
Thanks for the info...I have reached out to an AA-1 owner here in the Atlanta area to see if I can't talk him into a seat sitting, and maybe a ride:wink2:
Click to expand...
With most of the folks in the Grumman community, the latter shouldn't be hard -- we tend to be somewhat evangelical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top