Grumman for flight training

I learned to fly in an AA1. Was a little tough to find an instructor with time in type that could also fit weight wise. Great airplane to learn in though.
 
I gave primary instruction in AA1s, frankly I prefer them to 172/152/PA28s for training.
 
Bryan is offering instruction in his Grumman, apparently. (JUST KIDDING FAA, REALLY I'M JUST FRIGGIN KIDDING <INSERT SMILEY FACE> THIS IS A SATIRICAL COMMENT NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. ITS A BLOODY JOKE!!!)
 
Yep, did my PP in my AA5. So did my Husband. great little plane.
 
Grum.Man said:
I learned to fly in an AA1. Was a little tough to find an instructor with time in type that could also fit weight wise. Great airplane to learn in though.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I haven’t heard many people say they didn’t like training in them. I think I’m leaning toward the AA5’s for the useful load/comfort.
 
Supposedly Superior Flight at KRYY has a Tiger available for flight training.

I learned in AA1's at KLZU and KBNA (yes!), but that was a long time ago.
 
I can see the headlines now if a flight school used an AA 1 today. “Family sues flight school for operating an airplane with a dangerous history after spinning it into the ground”
 
Bill Gatlin said:
Did you do any instrument training in them? Just curious as I’ve only flown one once.
Click to expand...
I did some IFR training in it awhile ago. 2 VORs and an ADF-no autopilot, but I didn't finish. I never really used it for IFR-life got in the way. When I eventually got my IFR I went to GATTS and used their plane. I had never used a 430 before-wow, makes it too easy.

It's great for VFR, great visibility, easy handling.
 
Grum.Man said:
I can see the headlines now if a flight school used an AA 1 today. “Family sues flight school for operating an airplane with a dangerous history after spinning it into the ground”
Click to expand...

I reckon there is a reason no one is using them. Maybe right. I’m just getting as many opinions as I can. I may just get a Cheetah to start for stability as an IFR platform. Thanks for your input, really appreciate
 
Bill Gatlin said:
I reckon there is a reason no one is using them. Maybe right. I’m just getting as many opinions as I can. I may just get a Cheetah to start for stability as an IFR platform. Thanks for your input, really appreciate
Click to expand...

I was being a smart a. The Grumman has no bad habits, just a bunch of exaggerated stories that have grown in magnitude over the years by people who have never flown one.
 
Bill Gatlin said:
Did you do any instrument training in them? Just curious as I’ve only flown one once.
Click to expand...
I know of several Tiger owners in the area.... and one recently finished is IFR training in his. Equipped with dual 430W's, dual G5's, and a good autopilot. He shared that that particular setup made flight training and the checkride a joy to complete.
 
James331 said:
I gave primary instruction in AA1s, frankly I prefer them to 172/152/PA28s for training.
Click to expand...
I instructed in several early ones when they were new. One of my primary students bought Yankee s/n 7 (N5605L) off our used airplane line. I thought they were an excellent preparation for someone planning to move up to high-performance, high-wing-loading aircraft. And a heckuva lot of fun to fly. In 1971 I gave a half-hour demo ride in a Yankee to Col. Glenn Eagleston, a WW2/Korea ace. He loved it.

We were a Piper Flite Center, but students learned a lot more in the AA-1s than in the Cherokee 140s on our line.
 
what height person fits?
 
My instructor was probably 6'2" and fit fine. It's not the cockpit height you have to worry about, it's the leg room. Much longer legged than that and you can't get full control movement without hitting your legs.
 
FormerHangie said:
Supposedly Superior Flight at KRYY has a Tiger available for flight training.
Click to expand...

They do have one in the fleet. Not sure if they do initial training in it or not. They did an interior refurb last winter and it's a really nice plane.
 
All but a couple of my first 280 hours were in an AA5. I soloed at 10 hours, finished PPL in under 50. It's a great little plane to learn to fly in. My CFI was - as we used to say in the old country - a little husky. But we fit in the AA5 much better than the 152 or 172...
 
Bill Gatlin said:
Did you do any instrument training in them? Just curious as I’ve only flown one once.
Click to expand...

I did all my instrument training in my AA5. Upgraded from an AA-1A specifically for that purpose. Economical little planes for regional travel.

The AA-1X planes are like Miatas in the sky. Very responsive, and exceedingly fun to fly with that bubble canopy. Fly them by the POH and they are pussycats. Fly them like your C152 or carry extra speed on final and you will get yourself into trouble.
 
Bill Gatlin said:
Did you do any instrument training in them? Just curious as I’ve only flown one once.
Click to expand...

Ditto what @chemgeek said. All my IFR training was in the AA5. Steam gauges, VOR/LOC/ILS/ADF, no autopilot and ailerons that were constantly out of trim. One learns quickly to keep the scan going in that kind of environment...
 
Just the stuff required for PPLs and a little extra, the one I was in had one VOR and no glide slope, though properly equipped I have no issue doing IFR training in a AA1/5

Per the size thing, I’m 6’ and had no issue, it’s more of a weight issue than a height one in my experience.

I did make sure to do a full stall series (as I normally do no matter the type, minus I couldn’t do spins in the Grumman) pre solo. Power on and off, straight and level full stall to the break, also did falling leaf stalls, than stall in a bank. I know some CFIs arnt heavy into the stalls, especially pre solo, but in the Grumman I think it’s important to do, especially the falling leaf, building in the muscle memory to not try to pick the wing up with the alerons but instead to step on the high wing with the rudder.
 
Mr.T said:
ailerons that were constantly out of trim.
Click to expand...

That's what the little bendy tabs are for. :) If an AA5 is not perfectly rigged, some trim tab bending is required. It takes 3-4 flights/iterations to get it right. But it does work. However, my plane (and this behavior is also reported by other owners) tends to roll slightly in one direction when it gets wet and water builds up on the trailing edge of the ailerons. It's annoying but predictable and an autopilot will easily deal with it.
 
All but the worst roll tendencies can be balanced with fuel at least in the AA1. When the airplane started to roll in one direction or the other I knew it was time to switch tanks lol.
 
Bill Gatlin said:
I reckon there is a reason no one is using them. Maybe right. I’m just getting as many opinions as I can. I may just get a Cheetah to start for stability as an IFR platform. Thanks for your input, really appreciate
Click to expand...

There isn't all that much training activity in two seaters these days, and there aren't a huge number of AA1s around, so that's probably most of it. How many Tomahawks do you know of that are in the training fleet?
 
Pilawt said:
I instructed in several early ones when they were new. One of my primary students bought Yankee s/n 7 (N5605L) off our used airplane line. I thought they were an excellent preparation for someone planning to move up to high-performance, high-wing-loading aircraft. And a heckuva lot of fun to fly. In 1971 I gave a half-hour demo ride in a Yankee to Col. Glenn Eagleston, a WW2/Korea ace. He loved it.

We were a Piper Flite Center, but students learned a lot more in the AA-1s than in the Cherokee 140s on our line.
Click to expand...

That is awesome....how many folks you reckon have ever flown an ace!
 
Bill Gatlin said:
Did you do any instrument training in them? Just curious as I’ve only flown one once.
Click to expand...

Finished my primary training in my AA5B and now working on my instrument in it. Great visibility, fun to fly and no bad habits I have found.
 
Bill Gatlin said:
Did you do any instrument training in them? Just curious as I’ve only flown one once.
Click to expand...

I did Instrument and most of my Commercial in a Traveler. I don’t remember anything negative to say about them. I had done Private in C150’s and don’t remember ever thinking I’d rather have a Cessna to do this. Only thing I could think of now is the shorter panel. Radios and GPS’s tend to get spread out farther to the right than most planes. Lotsa people fly them IFR that way so I guess it’s not that big a deal
 
Last edited:
I did my PP in a Cheetah AA5A back in 2006. Flew an AA5 Traveler for about 10 years, and recently we upgraded to a Tiger AA5B a couple of years ago that we've since upgraded the panel. I completed my IFR in that last year. I'm 6'4" and on the hefty side and we fit just fine. As our plane now qualifies as a TAA aircraft with the panel upgrade I'm planning to complete my commercial in it this year and then start working on my CFI.

You'll love flying the Grummans. Great planes, and great people that fly them for the most part ;) I think the AA5 series are one of the best kept secrets around for affordable planes.
 
Mitch817 said:
As our plane now qualifies as a TAA aircraft with the panel upgrade I'm planning to complete my commercial in it this year and then start working on my CFI.
Click to expand...
What did you put in there that qualifies it for TAA?
 
I would argue that a 172 is the worst plane to train on simply because it is too easy to fly and when you eventually move up to a more advanced airplane that could sneak up on you.. flying a Grumman is awesome because it teaches you to respect the controls and the control inputs
 
Grummans are well built. The company built warbirds, and these are built about the same way - sturdy.
 
I know the 172 is probably the most popular plane in the world, and I have quite a few PPL training hours in them, but I don't like them because they feel ponderous in the air. I like planes that are a little more responsive, i.e. a cowpony vs. a workhorse.
 
Crashnburn said:
but I don't like them because they feel ponderous
Click to expand...
They're complete piles of trash, my hatred for them is well known on this site. I've probably flown about a dozen different 172 from early 70s up through late 2000s birds, and they all suck to fly.. like you said, they seem to just wallow about

by comparison even a beat up out of rig Cherokee feels much more solid, like it's riding on rails

And a Grumman gives you that same solid feeling but is also remarkably responsive on the controls
 
asicer said:
What did you put in there that qualifies it for TAA?
Click to expand...

14 CFR 61.129(j) supports that the combination of a G5 PFD, GFC500 2-axis autopilot, and GNS430 (whose GPS-driven moving map displays aircraft position) makes our Tiger a TAA for my CP-ASEL and ultimately CFI-ASEL purposes.

In our case we have a pair of dual G5s(that gives us fail-down on the G5s for added redundancy), a Garmin 430W, and a Garmin GFC500 autopilot. That will meet what the FAA needs for us to be qualified as a TAA aircraft. It's nice to live in the future. :) She's a lot of fun with the new panel!
 
Tantalum said:
......

by comparison even a beat up out of rig Cherokee feels much more solid, like it's riding on rails

And a Grumman gives you that same solid feeling but is also remarkably responsive on the controls
Click to expand...

Grummans are a JOY to fly! Not that I'm not game to fly just about anything they'll let me in the seat of. But Grummans are very nice. Flown by a proficient pilot they are great airplanes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top