Grumman Tiger Overview

[poadeleted20]

Are the Grummans fairly typical airplanes from a maintenance standpoint? That is, if I wanted to get a pre-buy, or have maint performed, is it reasonable to expect that the same crew that handles maint on the local Cessnas should be able to handle it?

Unless you get a mechanic who's already "Grumman-savvy," you'd want to join AYA and review on line (free to members) or buy a hard copy of the AYA Operations/Maintenance Compendium, and have them read the maintenance portion, which contains just about every "gotcha" there is. Also, knowing the various Grumman gurus like David Fletcher at Fletchair, Ken Blackman at Air Mods NW, Bill Scott at Precision Engine, Bob Steward, John Sjaardema at Excel-Air, and Cliff Hanson at Cascade Country Aviation (and a few others whose names regrettably aren't tripping off my tonguefingers), would be useful so you can ask them for advice on anything that looks fishy. They're all easy enough to find on the internet if you look, and all very happy to provide advice and expertise.

That said, the Grummans are really dirt-simple machines, less complex in their systems and design than their Cessna and Piper counterparts.

 

[Skylane81E]

X2 on David Fletcher, he helped me out a lot when I was an AA5 newb

 

[poadeleted20]

One of the producers of the Tiger should have done the IO-360/200hp, and C/S prop conversion, and offered it as an upgrade. Maybe it will happen some day. It would help a lot at high DA's.

Tiger Aircraft considered it, but decided it wasn't enough of a performance delta to be worth doing. They looked at putting in another engine in the 230HP class and stretching the cabin a bit (possibly in width as well as length) to make a 182/Dakota competitor, but the company went under before they got very far. I don't think Kevin Lancaster at True Flight Aerospace in Valdosta GA, which now holds the type certificate and production rights, is going to consider doing anything but getting the "current design" (i.e., what Tiger Aircraft last produced in Martinsburg WV) into production until he's got things in high gear.

 

[poadeleted20]

Nose Gear: Would it be safe to say you want to see these inspections being done due to the castoring design of the nose gear?

No. The real problem is the potential for development of corrosion in the fitting into which the nose gear strut fits if it isn't removed, cleaned and lubricated for a long time. Those which are properly serviced every year at annual have no problems at all, and are very easy to service. Those which go a decade or two without having the fitting serviced can require some real brute force to get out, and have the potential for hiddent corrosion which could result in component failure.

I would infer that this is one aircraft that won't appreciate any amount of wheel barrowing.

FWIW, you get a prop strike before you damage the nose strut structure, but the rule with Grummans is that if the nosewheel touches the ground without the mains already down, you power up/pitch up/flaps up and try again on the next pass.

A recent landing with a friend in her Traveller had her not happy with a landing and how "hard" she came down on the mains and the short interval before we were "three on the ground".

The Traveler's smaller horizontal stab and elevator make it a little harder to hold the nosewheel off during touchdown and as the airplane decelerates on the roll-out, but it can be done with a little practice. It's a piece of cake in the Cheetah and Tiger. The idea is to touch down on the mains while holding the nose off, and gently lower the nose to the runway as you roll out.

I would think that while this nose gear is robust enough, it's won't be forgiving as the "strutt style" of P & C aircraft.

They have their own issues, like having to service the strut and shimmy dampers all the time and "air" the strut periodically. The nosewheel steering system on them also complicates maintenance and inspections, and gives you one more thing to worry about in general.

 

[poadeleted20]

When I had my Cheetah I let the local Cessna shop do routine work on the engine, but for annuals or anything else to do with the airframe it went to a well-known Grumman guru about sixty miles away.

Let's see -- you're in Vancouver, WA -- had to be Cliff Hanson in Independence, OR -- Ken Blackman is more than 60 miles up the road north of Seattle.

 

[Pilawt]

Let's see -- you're in Vancouver, WA -- had to be Cliff Hanson in Independence, OR -- Ken Blackman is more than 60 miles up the road north of Seattle.

Yes indeed, it was Cliff.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Which brings up the question of stability as an IFR platform, ease of handling sp ifr without an a/p? How is she in the clag, and how does she handle turbulence?

 

[Pilawt]

Which brings up the question of stability as an IFR platform, ease of handling sp ifr without an a/p? How is she in the clag, and how does she handle turbulence?

Grummans are responsive and beautifully harmonized in their controls -- that doesn't mean unstable. They're more stable in pitch, for example, than a stabilator-equipped Cherokee. The handling is reminiscent of a Bonanza, only lighter, and without the Bo's tendency to overbank. Also similar to the Bonanza's handling is a slight tailwag in turbulence.

 

[Anthony]

Good explanation Pilawt. While the Tiger has "sporty", and crisp handling, it is NOT twitchy, nor unstable. It is a very easy airplane to fly, even in IMC. I came from Cessnas, and Pipers, and found the transition easy, and actually very refreshing.

 

[spdracer888]

I just want to give a big shout out to Turbo (aka Turbo1ZR/Jersey Mike). What a gentleman: not only was he kind enough to answer all the questions I had about the Tiger, but he also invited me to check out his plane in person, took me for a flight AND bought me lunch (I forgot my wallet).

I've been on many car forums and I rarely run into guys like Mike. I have to say aviation guys in general are just way cooler.

Just out of curiosity, I know the last few Tigers were equipped with G1000s, has anyone retro fitted a G1000 into the tiger? Is it doable? If so what's the cost? I want a G1000 b/c I'm familiar with the system, I like to have traffic and the synthetic vision.

 

[poadeleted20]

Just out of curiosity, I know the last few Tigers were equipped with G1000s,

The last six, I believe. And their orphans, too, because Tiger Aircraft went belly up before they got the WAAS upgrade certified, so if you have one, you're stuck with non-WAAS unless/until Kevin Lancaster gets things back in production at True Flight and gets the certification upgraded.

has anyone retro fitted a G1000 into the tiger?

Not to my knowledge.

Is it doable?

Not to my knowledge. You'd pretty much have to disassemble and reassemble the airframe.

If so what's the cost? I want a G1000 b/c I'm familiar with the system, I like to have traffic and the synthetic vision.

You can't have a G1000, but you can have a pretty good copy of it by putting in a couple of Garmin GTN650's and the two-screen Garmin G500 display system with the optional SVT. If you want TAWS, too, you could either upgrade one of the 650's to TAWS, or go to the G600 which has internal TAWS rather than the G500 which has no internal TAWS option. I've done one IR course with a guy in a C310J which had a G500, including the optional SVT, plus a GTN750 and 650 installed along with a GTX33 hidden transponder, and it was pretty much like what you get with the G1000's I've used in Cirrus and Diamond aircraft.

Based on advertised prices, you can probably get the legacy avionics in an AA-5B Tiger or 1989-1993 AG-5B replaced with a G500 and two GTN650's for about $40K installed. If you get a post-2000 AG-5B which came from the factory with a Garmin 530/430 package, it will be about $20K to replace the original instruments with a G500 package which can feed off the 530/430 very nicely. And both options give you WAAS, which the factory G1000 Tigers do not have and may never have.

 

[poadeleted20]

The tigers are really nice airplanes for a lot of reasons, but they also have a significantly higher accident rate than fairly similar make/models.

Dean's facts are not correct. Ken Ibold did a study of the Tiger versus similar P/C/B products, and the accident rate is at worst comparable and at best somewhat better. This was published in Aviation Safety magazine some years back. Perhaps Dean is thinking about the problems we had with the original "slick wing" AA-1 Yankees over 40 years ago, before the leading edge cuff was developed in 1971 and used in every AA-1/5-series plane built since then. The problem we had was Cessna 150-trained pilots and instructors who tried to fly those original "slick-wing" Yankees like C-150's, with (if you knew the plane) predictably bad results, but that has nothing to do with Tigers today.

A new owner should really consider a good comprehensive check out with a CFI with descent amount of experiance in this plane.

Dean is absolutely correct on this. The Grumman owners group (AYA -- http://www.aya.org) has a comprehensive Pilot Familiarization Program taught by a few dozen AYA-designated PFP instructors around the country. Check the web site for more. Several insurers waive the minimum time in type (typically 5-15 hours) or give discounts to those who have completed the PFP, which typically takes about half a day including ground and flight training if you're a proficient light single fixed-gear pilot going in.

That said, a good checkout with a properly-experienced CFI is a really good idea in any type new to you, so the Tiger is no different than any other plane in this regard.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

The Grumman AA1/5s are not dangerous AT ALL for anyone with even a remotely acceptable skill level, just don't spin it, remember to step onthe high wing and don't chase the flare.

I've soloed folks in em' nothing one of my 12-15hr total time students couldnt handle.

Very fun planes

Just fly the plane No biggie

 

[poadeleted20]

The Grumman AA1/5s are not dangerous AT ALL for anyone with even a remotely acceptable skill level, just don't spin it, remember to step onthe high wing and don't chase the flare.

And if you're flying an original 1969-70 "slick wing" AA-1, keep your approach speed up a lot higher than you typical 2-seat trainer like a C-150/152, BE77 Skipper, or PA-38 Tomahawk. OTOH, if you're flying anything else in the series, approach speeds are pretty close to the competition, so don't let anyone's AA-1 experience push you into flying an AA-1A/B/C or AA-5-series plane way faster than it's supposed to be flown on final. And like he said, if you hit nosewheel first or get into a PIO porpoise in the flare, just add power, go around, and make a better approach next pass.

 

[poadeleted20]

Here is one other persons opinion on AA-5B accident rates. http://www.grumman.net/cgrcc/aa5.html

Actually, that's illegally copied from an issue of Aviation Consumer, and it is both merely opinion and some 25 years old. Ken's data is far more up to date and verifiably accurate.

The aircraft itself is not dangerous, but the some design characteristics lend themselves to a higher accident rate among pilots transitioning to this plane. Primary the non stearing nose gear and the very small flaps. Another issue with the plane is the canopy which increases the risk of a fatal accident in a roll over.

Hogwash. First of all, the aluminum honeycomb box cockpit structure far more crashworthy than the standard bulkhead/skin/stringer construction of the competition. This is verifiable by going through numerous accident reports or basic engineering (and I've got 12 years' experience as an aircraft survivability engineer behind my opinion).

Second, the nosewheel is not "non stearing" -- it is free-castering, but can be steered by use of differential braking. In fact, it has advantages in terms of control during crosswind takeoffs and landings since you don't have the dramatic change of steering authority you get with steerable nosewheels at rotation and touchdown. Further, it gives you far more maneuverability when taxiing in close quarters.

As for the "very small flaps", they are about the same ratio to wing span/area/chord as those on Piper PA-28-series, and I've never heard anyone refer to those as "small". In any event, how do you conclude that those "very small flaps" degrade safety?

BTW, just how much experience do you have in the Grumman series aircraft, and how much training have you given in them? I'm pushing 3000 hours in AA/AG-1/5-series planes, and probably 500 hours training given in them, including a lot of transition training for those new to the type, and I've never seen any reason to believe the design characteristics you mentioned "lend themselves to a higher accident rate among pilots transitioning to this plane" unless the pilots try to transition themselves without qualified assistance, and then that problem is not limited to the Grumman series.

 

[poadeleted20]

Edit: It a great plane, and I reccomend it to first time owners, but the plane in some operations is less forgiving than other make/models. I don't believe comparing a Tiger to a 172 is kind like comparing a PA28R to M20J. There not quite the same.

That I'll buy. But that's a far cry from having characteristics which lend themselves to a higher accident rate other than the fact that they are different, and when someone gets in a different plane, they need proper training to be safe in it -- and that applies for someone transitioning from a Warrior to a 172 as well as someone transitioning from a 172 to a Tiger.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't have the number of hours instructing in them that you do, but I do have the experiance of transitioning to this model as a low time pilots in the 70s which maybe you did not. The plane can be a challanging model for the low time pilot.

Actually, I did -- in 1970, into the AA-1 (the toughest of the bunch). Two flights and done, and I had about 80 hours TT when I did it.

What ever you call the nose gear, it does require at least a different skill on XWind landings.

You're right -- less skill, in fact, since the airplane isn't going to pull hard on rotation or when the nosewheel drops on landing.

As far as the canopy, you'll have to demonstrate opening it with the plane resting uo side down on its top some time.

That's why Grumman folks carry canopy break tools and canopy lock bars. The lock bars ensure the canopy stays open on impact so you can open it before landing with enough space to get out even if it jams where it is on crash-- can't do that with the doors on C/P/B types. As for breaking out, it's been done plenty of times, even under water, and I don't know of anyone ever actually trapped inside and unable to escape who could still move enough to get out of any other plane.

That does't mean entrapment isn't possible in doored models too, but to dismiss this risk is not prudent.

When you said "the canopy ... increases the risk of a fatal accident in a roll over," I thought you were talking about structural collapse rather than entrapment, and the structure is definitely more crashworthy. However, regarding entrapment, I don't know of any fatalities due solely to entrapment after the plane ended upon its back. Do you have some examples?

 

[dukeblue219]

Based on advertised prices, you can probably get the legacy avionics in an AA-5B Tiger or 1989-1993 AG-5B replaced with a G500 and two GTN650's for about $40K installed. If you get a post-2000 AG-5B which came from the factory with a Garmin 530/430 package, it will be about $20K to replace the original instruments with a G500 package which can feed off the 530/430 very nicely. And both options give you WAAS, which the factory G1000 Tigers do not have and may never have.

Also worth considering the Aspen route (with synthetic vision if desired). If the poster is insistent on the G1000 Garmin-style then a G500 would be fine, but a single Aspen is probably an easier drop-in installation (and cheaper I think) that lets you keep the existing six pack. Works just fine with the dual 430W stack and the STEC autopilot.

 

[poadeleted20]

I have no personal observations of an accident where a person was trapped by a canopy, but over that last 3 decades I have heard of them.

I'd prefer not to rely on hearsay. If you can find an accident report demonstrating this (preferably more than one over the 44 years that the Grumman fleet has been flying), please let me know.

Did the 70s models of AA5s come with canopy tools you list? I know I don't remember them and maybe an equipment addition with time that somebody determined was warranted.

Never an OEM item, but carried by lots of Grumman owner/pilots, and a frequent topic of discussion in Grumman circles. BTW, the Diamond and Cirrus fleets have nearly all the same issues regarding egress and a free-castering nosewheel, and you don't see those being discussed as major concerns.

 

[kyleb]

BTW, the Diamond and Cirrus fleets have nearly all the same issues regarding egress and a free-castering nosewheel, and you don't see those being discussed as major concerns.

As do all of the nosegear RV's. A castoring nosewheel isn't bad, just different.

 

[spdracer888]

Also worth considering the Aspen route (with synthetic vision if desired). If the poster is insistent on the G1000 Garmin-style then a G500 would be fine, but a single Aspen is probably an easier drop-in installation (and cheaper I think) that lets you keep the existing six pack. Works just fine with the dual 430W stack and the STEC autopilot.

I've heard a lot of good things about Aspen Avionics. I'm not dead set on the Garmin; i just prefer to have SV and TAS. As long as both can be accomplished, I rather save money.

Btw, I appreciate both Dean and Capt Ron's posts.

 

[kyleb]

True, but the Cirrus fleet also has a higher end accident rate.

Here is someone else who agrees on the AA5 canopy and suggests the egress tools. So if this is not a problem, it sure gets a lot of attention.

http://www.controller.com/images/Controller/externalfiles/31274.pdf

Just because someone asks the question doesn't mean it is a real issue. It has been discussed time and time again in the RV community too, but the reality is that getting trapped due to an upside down airplane with an intact canopy is a pretty remote possibility. Not that you can't take steps to mitigate *that* risk, but it is pretty far down on the list of things to be concerned about.

 

[poadeleted20]

True, but the Cirrus fleet also has a higher end accident rate.

So? How many end up on their backs with occupants unable to get out?

Here is someone else who agrees on the AA5 canopy and suggests the egress tools. So if this is not a problem, it sure gets a lot of attention.

http://www.controller.com/images/Controller/externalfiles/31274.pdf

I agree. Lots of speculation and consternation, not much in the way of statistics to show it's problem.

 

[wabower]

But what about the chidren?

So? How many end up on their backs with occupants unable to get out?

I agree. Lots of speculation and consternation, not much in the way of statistics to show it's problem.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Noticed a few comments on some diffrences in these planes, being we operate them in our school..

Free castoring nosewheel: takes the average PPL about 10 minutes to get it down pat, presuming good instruction, it doesnt not make x-wind work any easier or harder. One of the reasons we operate a AA1 is due to it's high wingloading and excellent penetration, we are coastal and our ab into students constantly have winds over 12kts.

Small flaps: Yeah, I learned how to fly in a Champ so you'll get little pitty from me on that lol, ain't a big deal, our guys demo 0 flap and tailwind 0 flap before solo, if my 15hr total time students can handle it a PPL shouldn't have a problem.

Nosewheel first: OMG! never had a 0 time student do this or a PPL do this, if we saw this that person would be off the flight line immedetly for quite a bit of re-training.

Osculations: Just bad piloting and or instructing. This has NEVER been a issue for us with our 0 time students, had some poorly trained PPLs have issues, tend to be cleaned up after a fight to two. Just a result of poor training.

Trapped on the planes back: We don't flip our planes so we have little experience with this, haven't seen a NTSB on someone burning up due to this and with how easily it is to accidentally crack the canopy by putting weight on it just getting into the plane, not worried about it. We do have fire extinguishers in our planes and I'm confident you could bust the plexi out with that and a size 12 boot.

I wouldn't waste money of glass, but if you're into that stuff get those new budget Aspen panels.

 

[Turboz1r]

First off, Thanks to John for the compliments. It was nice to meet you and hope my Grumman Demo was helpful in your purchasing a Tiger.

As for the original AA-1. I was soloed in an original AA-1 at age 16 while a student pilot waiting for my 17th birthday to take my test. Reason was the instructor said get checked out in the AA-1, no one ever rents it, so it's always available on the schedule. Had so much flying it, didnt have a drivers license yet, but was tooling around in the AA-1. Went on to own a AA-1B and a AA-1C, now a Tiger.

Mike in NJ

 

[ryoung99]

Finally a topic that I can comment on.

Recently I purchased a 1979 Tiger, after close to a 13 year hiatus from flying (and only 100 hours). I adapted to the Tiger very quickly, in fact my BFR/Checkout was done in less than 4 hours of dual. Granted most recently (3 years ago), I had flown a DA40 for about 10 hours, so the nose wheel was not really an issue.

Since the checkout I have logged a handful of hours (about 8) and have found the Tiger easy to fly and more than enjoyable. While I did not use the AYA PFP checkout, I did find a current CFI who has a Tiger who did the checkout.

Honestly the only place I am struggling is with my speed on final (similar to when I was flying the DA40). I have a tend to come in high and need to drop the plane in. If I am at all hot when turing final (75+) I have struggled to get the AA5B down and have tended to float a bit. Once I enter the flair i have stuck with it through the float and the plane has settled nicely. This weekend, I really worked on my speeds and the Tiger came down very nice (I just need more practice).

When I was looking at which plane to buy, due to the safety record, I was really thinking DA40. After doing some research and talking to some Grumman experts I quickly learned about the amazing capabilities of the Tiger. Talk to Gary Vogt who has been in two wrecks and walked away from both of them (he has stories about them on his site Aucountry.com) The stories of Grumman pilots walking away sold me.

I love the community of owners and happy to be a part of the family.

Rick

 

[AdamZ]

Tiger is an AWESOME plane. I love flying them.

 

[poadeleted20]

Honestly the only place I am struggling is with my speed on final (similar to when I was flying the DA40). I have a tend to come in high and need to drop the plane in.

Part of this comes when folks transition from airplanes which are more forgiving of being off speed, and they aren't used to the clean aerodynamics, so they end up fast. We also see this with folks who resist using full flaps -- you need that drag to make a good descent angle on final.

If I am at all hot when turing final (75+) I have struggled to get the AA5B down and have tended to float a bit. Once I enter the flair i have stuck with it through the float and the plane has settled nicely. This weekend, I really worked on my speeds and the Tiger came down very nice (I just need more practice).

That's it -- all about speed control. The PTS gives you +10/-5, but if you're 10 knots fast in a Grumman, you're going to float a long way. I teach +5/-2 during Grumman checkouts, and when folks strive for that, they do better.

 

[Tom-D]

Since the approval precedence exists, could a different someone revive a prior STC like this and make it available again?

Yes that can be done.

When you know the STC number, you can ask FSDO if the STC is in public domain, if it is, any one can use it.

If it isn't, you can use the Field approval process by using the data that was used on the few aircraft that were modified.

It's more of a creative writing exercise than any thing else.

 

[slacktide]

Here is one other persons opinion on AA-5B accident rates. http://www.grumman.net/cgrcc/aa5.html

Since you give high credence to Aviation Consumer, perhaps you would be interested in what a more recent issue says about the Tiger's accident rate. This is from the September 2010 issue. I think this PDF will work without logging in, but you need an account for the whole review.

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/newspics/0910-ACCIDENT-SCAN.pdf

 

[kyleb]

Actually, I just searched for info and aviation consumer (AC) comes up. Two of their authors state the plane has a higher accident rate than some other models considered competition, which I agree with. The third AC author says its not so, granted it doesn't say much for the validity of AC. The values in the AC article you list has no mention of accidents per 100,000 hours, so it does not establish an accident rate for the Tiger. Also keep in mind that the cause of the accidents have no bearing on the accident rate of an aircraft.

Of the total AA5 units built (3282), 67 have been involved in a fatal accident. Thats 1 fatal accident for each 49 planes.. 1 in 10 have been recorded in an accident.

In comparrison, Cirrus has about 1 in 56 of their units involved in a fatal accident with about the same number of units built.

Horrible use of data. Tigers have been in the fleet since the mid 70's. Cirruses didn't come out until the late 90's. Tigers have had 20+ more years of exposure to risk.

 

[dukeblue219]

Horrible use of data. Tigers have been in the fleet since the mid 70's. Cirruses didn't come out until the late 90's. Tigers have had 20+ more years of exposure to risk.

No only did they start making them a long time ago, the vast majority of the fleet is from the 70s so the average airframe probably has three or four times the history of the average Cirrus.

 

[bnt83]

IDK if my AA-1C (160 hp conversion) experience is pertinent or not but here is what I didn’t like about it:

VERY narrow wing walk. So bad that I always felt that I would damage the wing skin by accidently losing balance and stepping off the wing walk.

The airplane pitches so easy, the main wheels seemed to grab the runway when landing and bounce the nose spring all the time. Not sure I ever got a greaser landing.

Felt like a soap box (literally is with three sides of the fuselage being flat composite honeycomb without much additional structure)

Very little space between the firewall and the back of the engine making it difficult to service.

The cowling was kind of ingenious, but not really meant to go the long haul. The way it is put together (like tongue and grove woodworking) means the whole thing sits there and vibrates those pieces and they just get thinner and thinner chafing each other.

I have no idea if the bigger brothers are the same.

 

[Jaybird180]

Free castoring nosewheel: takes the average PPL about 10 minutes to get it down pat, presuming good instruction, it doesnt not make x-wind work any easier or harder. One of the reasons we operate a AA1 is due to it's high wingloading and excellent penetration, we are coastal and our ab into students constantly have winds over 12kts.

The first airplane I did transition training in was a castoring type (DA-40). It was so little of an issue that I barely noticed.

Yes that can be done.

When you know the STC number, you can ask FSDO if the STC is in public domain, if it is, any one can use it.

If it isn't, you can use the Field approval process by using the data that was used on the few aircraft that were modified.

It's more of a creative writing exercise than any thing else.

Isn't the FAA fun

 

[poadeleted20]

If it isn't, you can use the Field approval process by using the data that was used on the few aircraft that were modified.

The FAA will not grant field approval based on an STC which is not in the public domain. That's policy from the top designed to protect the party who paid for all the work to get the STC -- sort of like patent protection. If the STC holder disappears and the STC goes into the public domain, that ends, but not as long as the STC holder is around.

 

[poadeleted20]

Of the total AA5 units built (3282), 67 have been involved in a fatal accident. Thats 1 fatal accident for each 49 planes.. 1 in 10 have been recorded in an accident.

In comparrison, Cirrus has about 1 in 56 of their units involved in a fatal accident with about the same number of units built.

...and Cirrus accumulated those accidents in less than 15 years, while the AA5-series has been around for over 40. Sounds like the Tiger does a lot better than the Cirrus.

In any event, I suggest finding Ken's article in Aviation Safety, because he does have the per-flight hour rates on all the types in that class.

 

[poadeleted20]

IDK if my AA-1C (160 hp conversion) experience is pertinent or not but here is what I didn’t like about it:

VERY narrow wing walk. So bad that I always felt that I would damage the wing skin by accidently losing balance and stepping off the wing walk.

The airplane pitches so easy, the main wheels seemed to grab the runway when landing and bounce the nose spring all the time. Not sure I ever got a greaser landing.

Felt like a soap box (literally is with three sides of the fuselage being flat composite honeycomb without much additional structure)

Very little space between the firewall and the back of the engine making it difficult to service.

The cowling was kind of ingenious, but not really meant to go the long haul. The way it is put together (like tongue and grove woodworking) means the whole thing sits there and vibrates those pieces and they just get thinner and thinner chafing each other.

I have no idea if the bigger brothers are the same.

The comments on the 2-seat conversion jobs with an O-320 stuffed into an engine compartment designed for an O-235 have some validity -- there's not much room left in the engine compartment to work, and it is a bit nose-heavier, although moving the battery back behind the cabin helps that a lot. Either way, I can still teach you how to make good landings in that airplane.

The wing walk is a bit narrow compared to a PA28, but in 3000 hours in them, I've not had a problem.

The crashworthiness of the honeycomb sandwich box structure is legendary in the safety world. If you doubt that, go punch the side of the cabin on one, then do the same to a traditional aluminum skin-and-bulkhead plane (if your knuckles weren't busted hitting the Grumman and if you can find someone to let you punch their Cessna/Piper/Beech).

 

[Jaybird180]

The comments on the 2-seat conversion jobs with an O-320 stuffed into an engine compartment designed for an O-235 have some validity -- there's not much room left in the engine compartment to work, and it is a bit nose-heavier, although moving the battery back behind the cabin helps that a lot. Either way, I can still teach you how to make good landings in that airplane.

The wing walk is a bit narrow compared to a PA28, but in 3000 hours in them, I've not had a problem.

The crashworthiness of the honeycomb sandwich box structure is legendary in the safety world.

There just might be a physiology issue

 

[bnt83]

The comments on the 2-seat conversion jobs with an O-320 stuffed into an engine compartment designed for an O-235 have some validity -- there's not much room left in the engine compartment to work, and it is a bit nose-heavier, although moving the battery back behind the cabin helps that a lot. Either way, I can still teach you how to make good landings in that airplane.

The wing walk is a bit narrow compared to a PA28, but in 3000 hours in them, I've not had a problem.

The crashworthiness of the honeycomb sandwich box structure is legendary in the safety world. If you doubt that, go punch the side of the cabin on one, then do the same to a traditional aluminum skin-and-bulkhead plane (if your knuckles weren't busted hitting the Grumman and if you can find someone to let you punch their Cessna/Piper/Beech).

The wing walk on this one was awful for me. Only wide as one foot and it kinda had roll to it + the dihedral angle. I was not impressed. I'm glad it's gone. It was also very hard for me to push/pull and manage tow bar. It didn't seem like the wheels tracked well.

Once in the air, it was fun to fly, but everything in between wasn't.

It had some odd vibrations and it may have been the very short engine mount and old isolators + small plane and relatively large 4 banger but it sure seemed rough.

Again this was an AA-1C.