Tell me all about the Grumman AA1B

[docmirror]

Can anyone with an O-235 AA1B speak to the cruise fuel consumption per hour? I was figuring on about 6?

Can anyone with an O-235 AA1B speak to the approx useful load? Standard VFR 6 pack, single com, single nav, nothing else, no frills.

I don't currently have it, but back when I did, we figured 6GPH was a good number for high cruise consumption. Usually we'd be a bit under that, but we had the climb prop, so we weren't the most economical. We could fly 3 hours, and then we'd look for gas, which would be right around 6PGH with standard fuel.

IIRC, our plane had dual early digital nav/coms, txp, std 6 pack of inst and our useful was 471, sticks in my head.

 

[Grum.Man]

Can anyone with an O-235 AA1B speak to the cruise fuel consumption per hour? I was figuring on about 6?

Can anyone with an O-235 AA1B speak to the approx useful load? Standard VFR 6 pack, single com, single nav, nothing else, no frills.

It depends on how fast you want to go. Mine is an AA1 with an O-235 and I can do 100 kts on about 6 gph or a little less, or I can do 109-110 kts on about 7 gph. The AA1B is considerably slower though in the real world.

Mine doesn't have wheel pants or the center caps for that matter and I am sure it's not the slickest bird of the bunch. It also has the cruise prop.

I see exactly book numbers on a standard day at gross weight when it comes to climb. Solo on a cool morning I can see 8-900 fpm maybe even 1k for the first couple of thousand feet. My home base is at 800 ft msl.

 

[bnt83]

Everyone seems to love these planes!

Can anyone with an O-235 AA1B speak to the cruise fuel consumption per hour? I was figuring on about 6?

Can anyone with an O-235 AA1B speak to the approx useful load? Standard VFR 6 pack, single com, single nav, nothing else, no frills.

Gonna ask about climb?

 

[N5922S]

Got a bunch of time in a AA1A, great aircraft!

WAAY more fun than a 150/2,
the fuel gauges are fool proof,
handles like a sports car, can fly with the canopy open,
very little mx and easy to work on
Higher wing loading for x winds and turbulence
Swappable flaps and ailerons
Ground handling is great with the nose wheel, it can pivot on one main wheel
Great transition plane to a high performance aircraft.

My only recommendation would be to do some falling leaf stalls with a CFI to get yourself feeling better about the spin thing, step on the high wing and it's much to do about nothing

I have gobs of time in AA1-xs and I totally agree with the above. Max fun per buck.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

Gonna ask about climb?

Several people have spoken to the climb performance. Like all the other low power piston single trainers, it's a dog in high DA. We don't go anywhere where this will be a purchase consideration.

 

[Pilawt]

The AA-1 series "flies like it looks." Those stubby, low-aspect-ratio wings are a clue to its high-altitude and low-speed performance.

I instructed in the original AA-1 shortly after it came out. We had up to three of them in our fleet, and one of my primary students bought s/n 7 (the first Yankee to have come to the West Coast) from our used airplane for-sale line. I liked it, though it was noisier (that early one was the worst) than the Cherokee 140 and C-150, and we didn't use headsets in those days. I thought the AA-1 was good preparation for students planning to move up to heavier, high-performance airplanes.

I once gave an AA-1 demo ride to a gen-u-wine WW2/Korea fighter ace (Col. Glenn Eagleston). He loved it.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

Report from the visit below. Trying to schedule a test flight for soon.

The useful load is 524lbs. This is not a functional difference versus our current 150G. This is not the only consideration, just one of the factors. It is not a gain, but also not a loss. Complete draw.
260lb Owner + 200lb instructor + VFR reserve = 1hr fuel
210lb Owner + 200lb instructor + VFR reserve = 2.5hrs fuel (me)
170lb Owner + 200lb instructor + VFR reserve = 3hrs fuel (full tanks)

600smoh is a huge plus compared to our current engine on the 150G which is at 1860smoh. We think this would yield decent future maintenance savings. Obviously nothing is certain. Like any engine, it could explode tomorrow. But I think time is more on our side with this.

Fresh Annual a few weeks ago. Our 150G is due for annual in January. This eliminates that pending $800-$1500 immediate expense.

Digital Flip-Flop Com w/ Monitor compared to the ICSplus piece of junk in our 150G. This alone makes me want to buy it tomorrow.

Apollo 604 Loran is obviously inop. This is the only nav radio. Options for us are limitless based on how much $$ we want to spend. We could do nothing and navigate by tablet. We could use a yoke or airgizmo 196. We could buy a used GX60 GPS which is a $1000 slide in replacement for the Apollo. A KX125 Nav/Com with the integrated CDI. Lots of choices. Not a deal breaker.

 

[Grum.Man]

Report from the visit below. Trying to schedule a test flight for soon.

The useful load is 524lbs. This is not a functional difference versus our current 150G. This is not the only consideration, just one of the factors. It is not a gain, but also not a loss. Complete draw.
260lb Owner + 200lb instructor + VFR reserve = 1hr fuel
210lb Owner + 200lb instructor + VFR reserve = 2.5hrs fuel (me)
170lb Owner + 200lb instructor + VFR reserve = 3hrs fuel (full tanks)

600smoh is a huge plus compared to our current engine on the 150G which is at 1860smoh. We think this would yield decent future maintenance savings. Obviously nothing is certain. Like any engine, it could explode tomorrow. But I think time is more on our side with this.

Fresh Annual a few weeks ago. Our 150G is due for annual in January. This eliminates that pending $800-$1500 immediate expense.

Digital Flip-Flop Com w/ Monitor compared to the ICSplus piece of junk in our 150G. This alone makes me want to buy it tomorrow.

Apollo 604 Loran is obviously inop. This is the only nav radio. Options for us are limitless based on how much $$ we want to spend. We could do nothing and navigate by tablet. We could use a yoke or airgizmo 196. We could buy a used GX60 GPS which is a $1000 slide in replacement for the Apollo. A KX125 Nav/Com with the integrated CDI. Lots of choices. Not a deal breaker.

Inspect the engine baffling carefully as they are prone to cracking and causing the engine to over heat. It should already have an oil cooler, if not get one installed ASAP! See if it has inspection holes cut in the bottom of the wing near the fuselage fairing. If it does inspect the rubber fuel line that connects the tanks to the fuel line. They are prone to cracking and leaking. If not I would consider doing it soon. The only other major thing is to inspect the spinner backing plate for cracks. That is another known area of concern and is expensive to repair.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

Inspect the engine baffling carefully as they are prone to cracking and causing the engine to over heat. It should already have an oil cooler, if not get one installed ASAP! See if it has inspection holes cut in the bottom of the wing near the fuselage fairing. If it does inspect the rubber fuel line that connects the tanks to the fuel line. They are prone to cracking and leaking. If not I would consider doing it soon. The only other major thing is to inspect the spinner backing plate for cracks. That is another known area of concern and is expensive to repair.

We heard there is an issue on these planes with the O-235 and one of the cylinders not being cooled adequately. And there is some STC'd modification to remedy that. Is that what you're speaking of?

The fuel leak thing already happened and was repaired according to the MX logs. Will check.

 

[poadeleted20]

How do you figure? A weight and balance was done at it's last annual. It's common sense that doesn't take an AYA PFPI to understand. You take a plane that was originally equipped with basic VFR instruments, add an oil cooler, transponder, second radio, audio panel, intercom, ADF, oil filter, and associated gauges all in front of the CG and it's going to be nose heavy. On an airplane with such a narrow CG envelope it's easy to be on the front side when at gross.

If you knew more about the type, you'd know that there's no way all that is going to make you that nose-heavy. Based on what you've written, something is misrigged, and should be checked in accordance with the maintenance manual -- and any Grumman-savvy instructor would have known that from the start.

 

[poadeleted20]

Rubbish! Next thing you'll want is every pilot to get typed in every airplane.

Nope. You want to teach yourself, mighty fine -- but realize that it's likely to be expensive to have to relearn on your own all the things those of us with decades of experience both flying and owning/maintaining these planes have learned.

IOW, you can pay me now, or you can pay a lot more later.

 

[James331]

The Grumman I flew did just fine without me getting dual from a Grumman guru, then, all my students also did fine, not even a single "close call"

Mx was fine. It's a very basic airframe, read the ADs and any monkey can check for de lamination, etc.

It's just not that much if a mystery ship, ain't like going from a C150 to a PC12 or anything.

 

[poadeleted20]

Can anyone with an O-235 AA1B speak to the cruise fuel consumption per hour? I was figuring on about 6?

We owned and flew one for four years 35 years back. 6 gph is a very good planning figure.

Can anyone with an O-235 AA1B speak to the approx useful load? Standard VFR 6 pack, single com, single nav, nothing else, no frills.

I honestly can't remember exactly what we had, but we were well within max gross with the two of us (then about 280 lb total) plus 30 lb of luggage and full fuel. My gut feel based on memory and a lot of Grumman Gang posts is that a generally-stock AA-1B will haul two 180-lb people plus full fuel and overnight bags and the usual junk folks haul around in the back.

And keep in mind that the B-model has a 60-lb increase in MGW over the original and A-model, without much greater empty weight. The C-model has a further 40-lb increase to 1600 MGW, but weighs a bit more thanks to the larger tail.

 

[dtuuri]

Nope. You want to teach yourself, mighty fine -- but realize that it's likely to be expensive to have to relearn on your own all the things those of us with decades of experience both flying and owning/maintaining these planes have learned.

IOW, you can pay me now, or you can pay a lot more later.

Nope. You can say the same for any airplane.

IOW, you have the requisite club approval and wish to have a monopoly on the service.

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

The Grumman I flew did just fine without me getting dual from a Grumman guru, then, all my students also did fine, not even a single "close call"

Mx was fine. It's a very basic airframe, read the ADs and any monkey can check for de lamination, etc.

It's just not that much if a mystery ship, ain't like going from a C150 to a PC12 or anything.

It's not just the basic stick-and-rudder flying (although that's what leads to the exacerbated landing accident rate during the first 15 hours in type), it's also the care and feeding of your new kitty. We spend a lot of time on that in the PFP, and you ain't gonna learn all that yourself without a lot of pain and money.

 

[Silvaire]

...You cannot safely teach yourself to fly these planes...

Oh brother

Glad you weren't around when I was 23 because I did. They were all pretty much new airplanes back then and I don't recall Grumman American having any "special" instructors to keep us from killing ourselves. The only issue I recall about them was that people kept snapping the nose gear off on grass strips.

 

[poadeleted20]

You can say the same for any airplane.

Exactly. But most people learn in Cessans or Pipers, and learn all that as they go.

IOW, you have the requisite club approval and wish to have a monopoly on the service.

Hardly. I never said you must get an AYA PFP checkout, only that you should get with an instructor with significant Grumman operating and ownership experience. It just so happens that the easiest way to find such an instructor is through the AYA, and membership does have its rewards beyond this one, but if you can find someone with that knowledge and experience elsewhere, mighty fine.

 

[poadeleted20]

Oh brother

Glad you weren't around when I was 23 because I did. They were all pretty much new airplanes back then and I don't recall Grumman American having any "special" instructors to keep us from killing ourselves. The only issue I recall about them was that people kept snapping the nose gear off on grass strips.

Didn't say "keep us from killing ourselves", but you have clearly pointed out one typical problem with folks trying to teach themselves to fly an unfamiliar type that is not similar to what they've flown before.

 

[James331]

It's not just the basic stick-and-rudder flying (although that's what leads to the exacerbated landing accident rate during the first 15 hours in type), it's also the care and feeding of your new kitty. We spend a lot of time on that in the PFP, and you ain't gonna learn all that yourself without a lot of pain and money.

Could you give a few pointers on what's so exotic on the AA1X?

That 235 is in quite a few planes, maybe watch the oil temp and flatten the climb and or add a cooler if it gets hot, but that can be applied to any plane.

The delam is easy to check for, and not very common

I just can't think of anything that falls outside the realm of common sense.

 

[poadeleted20]

Could you give a few pointers on what's so exotic on the AA1X?

Sure. Call me and schedule a training session. $400/day or $60/hr plus expenses. Or join AYA and download the 2-seat Tips Sheet. Other than that, TAANSTAFL.

 

[James331]

Not even a teaser?

Yeah,

I'd recommend folks save their money, read the manual, read up on the free sites, read the ADs, talk to some A&Ps, there isn't anything sooo exotic on the things that requires some overpriced guru.

 

[Irish_Armada]

I really want to like the Grummans as they sound amazing performance/value-wise and owners rave about them, but I honestly can't get over how they look -- like a toy airplane. Am I the only one?

 

[Silvaire]

Didn't say "keep us from killing ourselves", but you have clearly pointed out one typical problem with folks trying to teach themselves to fly an unfamiliar type that is not similar to what they've flown before.

As I recall the snapped nose gears were a maintenance rather than operator issue. The proper torque was not being maintained on the castor nuts resulting in severe shimmy problems. That coupled with the fact that the Grummans never were that great for soft field use, especially when wet.

 

[dtuuri]

Glad you weren't around when I was 23 because I did. They were all pretty much new airplanes back then and I don't recall Grumman American having any "special" instructors to keep us from killing ourselves.

I bet he's glad he wasn't around when he was 23 too:

We owned and flew one for four years 35 years back.

dtuuri

 

[Grum.Man]

Not even a teaser?

Yeah,

I'd recommend folks save their money, read the manual, read up on the free sites, read the ADs, talk to some A&Ps, there isn't anything sooo exotic on the things that requires some overpriced guru.

+100 looks like he is just trying to make some money and promote a community. I joined the AYA my first year, visited the site once and haven't renewed since. Some time spent on google, in the poh and maintenance manual will teach you 95% of what you need to know. The rest is a short phone call away to Fletchair or Airmods NW. All of which will talk your head off about the type.

 

[Grum.Man]

If you knew more about the type, you'd know that there's no way all that is going to make you that nose-heavy. Based on what you've written, something is misrigged, and should be checked in accordance with the maintenance manual -- and any Grumman-savvy instructor would have known that from the start.

I assure you I know plenty about the type. I have gone through just about every system on the plane. There is nothing misrigged on the plane and rigging has nothing to do with doing an actual weight and balance of which puts my airplane at toward the front of the CG envelope. Maybe you should spend more time with your airplane than on the AYA website.

 

[James331]

..... short phone call away to Fletchair....

Fletch Air! Yep I've delt with them, that's where we got the flap motor. Good folks

 

[Grum.Man]

Another suggestion is to join the Grumman Gang. It's a free e-mail group chat that you can ask question on and read other peoples questions and answers. Both Fletch Air and Airmods NW are on there and respond time to time.

 

[FormerHangie]

I learned in AA1Bs and AA1Cs. Like others have said, the climb rate is nothing to write home about. Approach speeds are higher than some other trainers. Having an openable canopy is the bomb on hot days. The landing gear is tough, the instructor let me get just a little slow once to show me what kind of landing I'd get, I didn't repeat the mistake. Flaps have a very minimal effect. Crosswind capabilities are good.

If I were looking for a two seater for myself, the Grumman is what I'd get.

I remember them very fondly and think they're a better trainer than is a 150, assuming the pilot is going on to something heavier.

 

[Pilawt]

Flaps have a very minimal effect.

The flap toggle switch is identical to that in the '68-'75 C-150 -- spring-loaded requiring you to hold the toggle in the down position to lower the flaps, and a detent to hold it in the up position so the flaps can retract on their own.

At least in the early AA-1, the spring in the 'down' position was quite strong. If you absent-mindedly let go of it so that it flicked off the end of your finger, the toggle could recoil all the way back into the 'up' detent -- retracting the flaps while you're on short final.

I've landed flaps-up more than once that way ...

 

[Hiperbiper]

I loved my Grumman...

One big pre-buy thing to check is the torsion bar behind the firewall. It mounts on the left and right cabin sidewalls and is supposed to provide shock absorption for the front gear. Position the prop horizontal and wrap your arms around the prop close to the hub. Now pull the nose down as hard as you can to load the torque tube and listen for a "clunk". No clunk= good to go! The clunk comes from the torque tube being broken loose from the sidewall. $$$$.
Flying is simply a hoot! Great vis, A/C (pull the canopy back in flight about 10") and built like a brick outhouse (except for the nose gear...).

A few tips:
DO remember to switch fuel tanks (there ain't no "both").
DO practice taxing where your friends can't video you for the first 1/2 hour.
DON'T allow the area under the seat(s) to get slick/dirty (the first time your foot slips off the "pad" and you drop into the seat with a thud you'll know why).
DON'T land on the nose wheel!!!. It is there to keep the prop from making ugly noises during taxi ops, nothing more! Remember that Torsion Spring check from above? That sucker can bounce the nose to the moon given half a chance.

Chris (former N9679L)

 

[poadeleted20]

I assure you I know plenty about the type. I have gone through just about every system on the plane. There is nothing misrigged on the plane and rigging has nothing to do with doing an actual weight and balance of which puts my airplane at toward the front of the CG envelope. Maybe you should spend more time with your airplane than on the AYA website.

I've only been flying these planes since 1970, so maybe you know more than I do. Good luck.

 

[Silvaire]

I've only been flying these planes since 1970, so maybe you know more than I do. Good luck.

I'm surprised you have ANY clients, you do have a knack for rubbing folks the wrong way and coming across with the snootiest attitude, even by internet forum standards. You need to get over yourself dude.

 

[mrkbbd]

I'm surprised you have ANY clients, you do have a knack for rubbing folks the wrong way and coming across with the snootiest attitude, even by internet forum standards. You need to get over yourself dude.

You asked for advice and he gave it, he clearly has the experience and knowledge to back it up. If you attack people over sharing their experiences, no one else is going to learn...

 

[poadeleted20]

Yeah. He says:

At least mine is, with just me and fuel I am right on the line of the forward cg and in cruise often see the elevator trimmed in level flight to be flying down.

If the plane is at the forward cg limit, a properly rigged elevator/trim system should be trimmed more nose-up, not nose-down. One can only wonder what happens when the plane is loaded anywhere aft of the forward cg limit -- I'd certainly hate to be flying that plane. But I guess he thinks I need more than the 3000 hours of Grumman time I have in order to judge that properly, so I'll have to stop giving him advice.

 

[Silvaire]

You asked for advice and he gave it...

I didn't ask for advice, I learned how to fly the AA1 and the AA5's in the mid 70's after a simple check-out and Mr Levy is saying it's not possible to do that. I'm living proof that it is possible. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Grum.Man]

Yeah. He says:
If the plane is at the forward cg limit, a properly rigged elevator/trim system should be trimmed more nose-up, not nose-down. One can only wonder what happens when the plane is loaded anywhere aft of the forward cg limit -- I'd certainly hate to be flying that plane. But I guess he thinks I need more than the 3000 hours of Grumman time I have in order to judge that properly, so I'll have to stop giving him advice.

I didn't say it was trimmed nose down. I said if you looked at the elevator in flight it was flying down which means trying to keep the nose up. So maybe you should spend more of your free time on reading comprehension.

 

[docmirror]

I didn't say it was trimmed nose down. I said if you looked at the elevator in flight it was flying down which means trying to keep the nose up. So maybe you should spend more of your free time on reading comprehension.

Nope, either you got it backwards, or you're not describing it right.

Trim tab - down = elevator - up = tail - down = nose up.

When you say "flying down" I think you mean the elevator was deflected up, therefore pushing the tail down. But - it did not read that way.

I never looked at my tail during flight, but I know when we weighed the plane, it was nose heavy.

 

[jesse]

You cannot safely teach yourself to fly these planes

The first time I flew in a Grumman I was solo. The first time I've flown in many other types I was solo or with a student that just bought it.

There is nothing that makes a Grumman more challenging to fly than any other airplane you are new to.

I hope you don't give instruction in anything other than a Grumman, because surely, you can't be a type expert in every airplane that you've given dual in.

 

[Grum.Man]

Nope, either you got it backwards, or you're not describing it right.

Trim tab - down = elevator - up = tail - down = nose up.

When you say "flying down" I think you mean the elevator was deflected up, therefore pushing the tail down. But - it did not read that way.

I never looked at my tail during flight, but I know when we weighed the plane, it was nose heavy.

I didn't say anything about the trim tab. I said the elevator is trying to fly down which yes is wrong. What I mean to say was the tail of the airplane. Which yes means the elevator is deflected down at the rear, or up at the front since that's all you can really see in flight.

I noticed it before I had the weight and balance done. I did the mathematical weight and balance when I bought the plane and was surprised it was so far forward. While flying to confirm I looked back in cruise to see if the tail was trying to fly up, neutral, or down. As expected it was trying to fly down to keep the nose up.