Tell me all about the Grumman AA1B

[Pedals2Paddles]

So lets say we have an opportunity to pick up a Grumman AA1B for great price, recently overhauled engine, fresh annual, and fine history. Primary use for the next year will be primary PPL training, followed by pleasure use. This would be replacing the current C150. Gaining useful load, a few knots, and the pluses listed above.

What can ya'll tell me about flight characteristics and handling? I've read that spins can quickly become unrecoverable, so don't.

 

[docmirror]

Well, spins aren't approved for any of the light Grummans so I guess - don't. easy to get in and out but you have to climb over the canopy sill. Good visibility, pretty comfortable, noise level is about the same as the Cessna.

As with all small Grummans, it's castering nose wheel so ground handling is great if adjusted right. Controls are simple, and well placed. It requires plenty of speed to get off so don't pull it off early. Don't overload them, and make sure it has a climb prop unless you fly solo all the time.

Easy to overload them, check the empty weight carefully. Controls are light and well balanced. Engines are bulletproof. Check for the nose gear cross brace up in the firewall area for damage as they get a lot of strain with a nose gear shimmy.

 

[mcmanigle]

I did most of my PPL training in an AA1B. As my primary instructor liked to say, it flies "like a fighter jet without an engine." Lighter controls and faster roll than typical trainers. Higher wing loading at 14.9 lb/sq ft than the C150 (10 lb/sq ft) or the PA38 (13.4 lb/sq ft), more comparable to an RV-4 (14 lb/sq ft).

I found it a lot of fun to fly, even if back then I didn't really have much to compare it to. Its climb isn't particularly impressive, especially at gross on a warm day, but it was a great little plane to learn in. I also personally prefer the low wing situation (probably because that was my first).

I'd say go for it, if the price is right.

 

[timwinters]

I saw one land with about 50' of barbed wire in tow once. It had flown about 20 miles dragging the wire from its gear after going thru a fence departing a private airstrip.

Handled it pretty well!

Then again, the dents in both wings from the t-posts didn't "buff right out."

It was being flown by "the oldest aviator in Arkansas" at the time.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

I keep hearing/reading people say it is loads of fun to fly. Literally, everyone says this, and i like the sounds of it. Also, all my training 7 years ago was a Piper Warrior. Transitioning to the Cessna 150 has been... different and not too comfortable. I feel like the AA1B would be taking me back to where I was comfortable again.

Many things I've read also state that the AA1B is not nearly as forgiving as a 150. You have to fight the 150 to get it to drop a wing. You can botch landing in a 150 without much worry. The trim in a 150 is practically set-and-forget in the pattern. And it isn't overly picked about gross weight.

I will watch out for fence posts.

 

[AggieMike88]

Been watching the Grummans in the sale sites for a while now. Compared to P&C models, there are some good examples of Travellers, Cheetahs, and Tigers at attractive prices.

 

[SCCutler]

AA-1 is a nice flying bird. I used to fly one based at Love Field (seriously!), just grand. Always requested 13R because it was hangared at (then) Regal Aviation, right by the threshold of 13R. Surrounded by 737s.

You can fly with the canopy partly-open on a nice day.

 

[James331]

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

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

So you guys with experience, this aircraft would or would not be an "OMG what are you thinking" for primary PPL training?

 

[James331]

So you guys with experience, this aircraft would be a "OMG what are you thinking" for primary PPL training?

No, not at all!


All the time I have in the Grumman was giving dual in it, soloed plenty of folks in the plane.

 

[docmirror]

Just the gross weight issue. If the student and inst are hefty guys, the Grumman doesn't like being overloaded at all. Even at gross you gotta know your take off distances.

 

[Anthony]

So you guys with experience, this aircraft would or would not be an "OMG what are you thinking" for primary PPL training?

They are a good trainer. You just have to remember to watch your speeds on landing, and keep the nosewheel off the ground (land on the mains always).

 

[poadeleted20]

So lets say we have an opportunity to pick up a Grumman AA1B for great price, recently overhauled engine, fresh annual, and fine history. Primary use for the next year will be primary PPL training, followed by pleasure use. This would be replacing the current C150. Gaining useful load, a few knots, and the pluses listed above.

Note that due to changes in the landing gear, the AA-1B has 60 lb more max gross weight than the earlier AA-1/1A, without being significantly heavier. This could be a big deal for flight training, so choosing a B-model is a good thing. But check the actual W&B on the plane and do not exceed MGW or your takeoff/climb performance will disappear completely.

Also, I wouldn't recommend a stock AA-1-series plane for flight training at higher DA's -- for that, you'd want one of the AA-1x's STC'd with an O-320 engine. You don't get a significant increase in payload, but takeoff/climb performance improves spectacularly. I see you're in Maryland, so that shouldn't be an issue unless you're flying out of Garrett County in the summertime.

What can ya'll tell me about flight characteristics and handling?

Light, responsive, quick, and crisp. No tolerance for being sloppy or off the correct speeds on approach/landing. IOW, it makes you be a better pilot, and rewards you for being such. Getting a checkout from an AYA PFP Instructor would be a very good idea, especially one of the more experienced ones who've seen enough type-specific student mistakes to give you an instructor-oriented checkout.

I've read that spins can quickly become unrecoverable, so don't.

Not exactly true, but intentional spins are indeed prohibited, so don't. However, if you do mishandle it at the stall, it will recover promptly from an inadvertent incipient spin (that is, up to 3 seconds or one turn) by application of proper anti-spin controls as described in the aircraft manual, and was so tested during certification.

However, if you accidentally spin it and don't initiate recovery within 3 turns, it can go flat on you, blanking the rudder, and then recovery becomes a lot trickier and takes a lot more altitude, so don't. But if you do get into that situation, try using ailerons full with the spin to generate some adverse yaw to counter the rotation of the spin. No guarantees on this working, but it was done once to my knowledge. I warn you, however, that the idiot who intentionally tried this entered the spin at 12,500 and recovered at 1,500.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

Cool. We were looking at the W&B numbers yesterday. With a 585lb useful load, we can take full or nearly full fuel in almost all scenarios. Our CFI is 200lbs. The three of us range weigh 170/210/270. However, duly noted not to exceed. The 150 is probably forgiving of screwing up the W&B. Sounds like the Grumman, not so much.

 

[James331]

It's not that much of a fire breathing dragon.

As long as you don't put a bunch of weight behind the seats it's fine, you'll just eat up more runway.

As far as needing a super Grumman experienced CFI, not really. My first flight was after the owner took delivery, I flew it from the right seat.

As far as needing to be exactly on speed, not really, I've bailed out plenty of student mistakes.

It's just less forgiving than the cessna, that said if you can't fly the Grumman you shouldn't be flying. It's just not that difficult or dangerous

 

[poadeleted20]

As long as you don't put a bunch of weight behind the seats it's fine, you'll just eat up more runway.

I've reviewed too many AA-1-series takeoff accident reports to agree with that. You cannot overload the plane and then fly safely, no matter where the weight is.

As far as needing a super Grumman experienced CFI, not really. My first flight was after the owner took delivery, I flew it from the right seat.

Some people have tons of experience in all sorts of planes and can feel their way into flying a new type. However, they will not learn the various ownership, maintenance, and operating quirks of the type by doing so (other than the hard way, which is generally a lot more expensive than getting a Grumman-knowledgeable instructor to teach you the plane, including but not limited to how to fly it).

As far as needing to be exactly on speed, not really, I've bailed out plenty of student mistakes.

I have, too. But if your first student makes one of those mistakes, you may not realize how serious it is until it's too late to fix it.

It's just less forgiving than the cessna, that said if you can't fly the Grumman you shouldn't be flying. It's just not that difficult or dangerous

Agreed to a point. Every airplane has its own characteristics, but some are more unique than others. The record of people trying to learn them on their own is why most insurers charge an extra premium for Grummans without either 15 hours PIC or a type checkout from an approved instructor. And having checked out a lot Cessna-type people in Grummans, I have seen first-hand why they feel that way.

 

[docmirror]

Cool. We were looking at the W&B numbers yesterday. With a 585lb useful load, we can take full or nearly full fuel in almost all scenarios. Our CFI is 200lbs. The three of us range weigh 170/210/270. However, duly noted not to exceed. The 150 is probably forgiving of screwing up the W&B. Sounds like the Grumman, not so much.

Really suggest you weigh the plane. Even if there's a number in the logs from 10 years ago, weigh it now and be sure.

 

[poadeleted20]

Cool. We were looking at the W&B numbers yesterday. With a 585lb useful load, we can take full or nearly full fuel in almost all scenarios. Our CFI is 200lbs. The three of us range weigh 170/210/270. However, duly noted not to exceed.

585 useful load with a 1560 MGW suggests the plane weighs 975 empty. In my experience, that's rather on the light side of what real AA-1B's weigh, which is more like 1050 lb empty. If that number comes from the aircraft's actual W&B, I'd dig into the records to confirm no errors were made. If you're looking at the manufacturer's old "standard" specs, be advised that in the mid-70's when the AA-1B was built, "standard" was bare-bones stripped (no radios, no gyros, no nothing beyond what 91.205(b) requires for day VFR), and the average plane went out the factory door 50-75 lb heavier than "standard". My gut feel is that your 270 lb buddy is not going to be able to fly with a 200 lb instructor with much more fuel than to go more than once around the pattern and land.

The 150 is probably forgiving of screwing up the W&B. Sounds like the Grumman, not so much.

I can't say how forgiving a 150 is for operating outside the W&B envelope, but I can tell you for sure an AA-1x is not at all forgiving of that. Overweight kills takeoff/climb performance, and out of aft cg makes it scary squirrely in pitch.

 

[Grum.Man]

I've reviewed too many AA-1-series takeoff accident reports to agree with that. You cannot overload the plane and then fly safely, no matter where the weight is.

Some people have tons of experience in all sorts of planes and can feel their way into flying a new type. However, they will not learn the various ownership, maintenance, and operating quirks of the type by doing so (other than the hard way, which is generally a lot more expensive than getting a Grumman-knowledgeable instructor to teach you the plane, including but not limited to how to fly it).

I have, too. But if your first student makes one of those mistakes, you may not realize how serious it is until it's too late to fix it.

Agreed to a point. Every airplane has its own characteristics, but some are more unique than others. The record of people trying to learn them on their own is why most insurers charge an extra premium for Grummans without either 15 hours PIC or a type checkout from an approved instructor. And having checked out a lot Cessna-type people in Grummans, I have seen first-hand why they feel that way.

Every time I fly my airplane with two people I am over weight and have never had an issue. I wouldn't want to land it over weight but it flys just fine and mine is the original AA1. On hot days or with high density altitudes you can forget it though. It really turns into a dog in climb.

I learned to fly in mine with an instructor that had never flown one. Study the manual and memorize the procedures and speeds and it's no different than transitioning to any other type of airplane. A lot of people say it flies just like a Bonanza speed wise in the pattern.

The hardest part of getting used to a Grumman AA1 is adjusting your reflexes to the much more responsive controls. The other learning curve is the free castering nose wheel. It can be a hand full on take off and landing for sure. Other pilots remark it is a lot like flying a Citabria. A few minutes of ground work and some high speed taxi time will have you good to go.

 

[ja_user]

I know of a couple of them that might be for sale. They are fun to fly, just flat out fun. Not as forgiving of poor airspeed control on TO/Landing as a c150.. But not a big deal either...

 

[Grum.Man]

585 useful load with a 1560 MGW suggests the plane weighs 975 empty. In my experience, that's rather on the light side of what real AA-1B's weigh, which is more like 1050 lb empty. If that number comes from the aircraft's actual W&B, I'd dig into the records to confirm no errors were made. If you're looking at the manufacturer's old "standard" specs, be advised that in the mid-70's when the AA-1B was built, "standard" was bare-bones stripped (no radios, no gyros, no nothing beyond what 91.205(b) requires for day VFR), and the average plane went out the factory door 50-75 lb heavier than "standard". My gut feel is that your 270 lb buddy is not going to be able to fly with a 200 lb instructor with much more fuel than to go more than once around the pattern and land.

I can't say how forgiving a 150 is for operating outside the W&B envelope, but I can tell you for sure an AA-1x is not at all forgiving of that. Overweight kills takeoff/climb performance, and out of aft cg makes it scary squirrely in pitch.

Most modern AA1's are going to be nose heavy. 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.

 

[poadeleted20]

Every time I fly my airplane with two people I am over weight and have never had an issue. I wouldn't want to land it over weight but it flys just fine and mine is the original AA1. On hot days or with high density altitudes you can forget it though. It really turns into a dog in climb.

I learned to fly in mine with an instructor that had never flown one.

That explains the rest of your post.

The records is clear -- there is a strong correlation between accidents in the first 15 hours and not getting a proper type checkout from a Grumman-experienced instructor. You cannot safely teach yourself to fly these planes, and you definitely won't learn everything else you need to know as an owner/operator on your own other than by expensive experience.

Choose wisely.

 

[docmirror]

OK, if you're gonna use it for training, I'll give you a little cheat. It's not in the flight manual, and it's not something that is widely known, but the AA-1B engine and AA-1C engine are basically the same, although they have a slightly different suffix. They both have Slick mags, and the same comp ratio but the L2C puts out 115HP.

What I did with my plane, long long ago made quite a difference. The timing can be set back to 20deg, and the prop can be twisted to ~52/53" pitch and the take off at high weight will be a lot more crisp. The engine can turn 2700 with no problem, and 2800 for takeoff. But - in stock form with the stock timing and prop it won't spin that fast. The fuel burn went up a bit back then, and I suppose it won't get the same economy, but take off with two people won't be as exciting. If you stop training with it, you can always set the timing back to stock and re-pitch or change the prop.

 

[poadeleted20]

Most modern AA1's are going to be nose heavy. 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 that's true, your airplane isn't set up properly -- something an AYA PFPI would have detected right from the start.

 

[docmirror]

Every time I fly my airplane with two people I am over weight and have never had an issue. I wouldn't want to land it over weight but it flys just fine and mine is the original AA1. On hot days or with high density altitudes you can forget it though. It really turns into a dog in climb.

I learned to fly in mine with an instructor that had never flown one. Study the manual and memorize the procedures and speeds and it's no different than transitioning to any other type of airplane. A lot of people say it flies just like a Bonanza speed wise in the pattern.

The hardest part of getting used to a Grumman AA1 is adjusting your reflexes to the much more responsive controls. The other learning curve is the free castering nose wheel. It can be a hand full on take off and landing for sure. Other pilots remark it is a lot like flying a Citabria. A few minutes of ground work and some high speed taxi time will have you good to go.

That's pretty accurate. I started in a Citabria, and the landing is similar except of course for the nose wheel! The AA-1 speeds in the pattern do seem similar to the Bonanza. The AA-1B is somewhat more forgiving with the different wing. Keep your speed up when heavy. That little wing will dip without much provocation.

 

[Grum.Man]

That explains the rest of your post.

The records is clear -- there is a strong correlation between accidents in the first 15 hours and not getting a proper type checkout from a Grumman-experienced instructor. You cannot safely teach yourself to fly these planes, and you definitely won't learn everything else you need to know as an owner/operator on your own other than by expensive experience.

Choose wisely.

Well I guess I know some exceptions instead of the rules. I know 3 people that checked them selves out in mine and I got my PPL in a "hot wing" AA1. In fact I own mine and have had no surprises. The wealth of knowledge on the internet and a few phone calls to grumman experts is all it took. They are no different to check out in than any other airplane. Read the POH and memorize the procedures and speeds and there is no reason you can not safely fly the airplane. They don't just fall out of the air on their own. Most Grumman accidents are from fuel starvation/mis management or highjinx gone wrong. The fuel aspect is common sense and anyone with a brain will not be doing low passes while you are familiarizing your self with a new airplane.

 

[Grum.Man]

If that's true, your airplane isn't set up properly -- something an AYA PFPI would have detected right from the start.

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.

 

[bnt83]

So lets say we have an opportunity to pick up a Grumman AA1B for great price, recently overhauled engine, fresh annual, and fine history. Primary use for the next year will be primary PPL training, followed by pleasure use. This would be replacing the current C150. Gaining useful load, a few knots, and the pluses listed above.

What can ya'll tell me about flight characteristics and handling? I've read that spins can quickly become unrecoverable, so don't.

In my opinion you aren't gaining performance. I flew an AA-1C with a 150 horse conversion and wasn't impressed. That's coming from 5 years of owning a C150B with 100 horse.

Handling is more fun in the Grumman, but it can bite you.

 

[docmirror]

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.

Yup, that was just like mine. I was in a partnership with three guys and when we got all the junk installed in it, we were right at the front CG too. The plane always had a gallon of water, and 4 qts of oil strapped in the back of the baggage bay. As I recall the 150HP conversion, they move the battery way back to get it to balance.

Some of the Grummans had a metal plate in the prop hub too, and you could change it from steel to Al and that helped. I can't recall if that was the AA1 or 5?

 

[dtuuri]

Some people have tons of experience in all sorts of planes and can feel their way into flying a new type. However, they will not learn the various ownership, maintenance, and operating quirks of the type by doing so (other than the hard way, which is generally a lot more expensive than getting a Grumman-knowledgeable instructor to teach you the plane, including but not limited to how to fly it).

Rubbish! Next thing you'll want is every pilot to get typed in every airplane. If a CFI can't read the book and check out in the airplane all by him or her self, it's not much of a CFI. If I were the OP I'd double check the math on that W&B. Not saying it isn't true, but I do remember flying one with a useful load of only 470#. That wasn't a B model, but it had no weight-adding options either.

dtuuri

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

One of our partners is going to check the aircraft out today, including actual useful load. I briefed him on the W&B points made here to carefully verify it all.

 

[dtuuri]

You two guys say all the wrong things:

Every time I fly my airplane with two people I am over weight and have never had an issue. ... I learned to fly in mine with an instructor .... ... A lot of people say it flies just like a Bonanza speed wise in the pattern.

... Other pilots remark it is a lot like flying a Citabria.

Most modern AA1's are going to be nose heavy. ...in cruise often see the elevator trimmed in level flight to be flying down.

OK, if you're gonna use it for training, I'll give you a little cheat. ... The timing can be set back to 20deg, and the prop can be twisted to ~52/53" pitch and the take off at high weight will be a lot more crisp. The engine can turn 2700 with no problem, and 2800 for takeoff. ... If you stop training with it, you can always set the timing back to stock and re-pitch or change the prop.

You simply CANNOT advocate flying over gross! You CANNOT justify it with faulty aerodynamics. A Citabria is heavy and sluggish on the controls. Bonanzas and Yankees don't fit in the same sentence. If you "CHEAT" it means you aren't flying under an Experimental airworthiness certificate or STC and haven't recorded the changes in the logbooks for future owners to consider. Baaaad.

dtuuri

 

[docmirror]

You two guys say all the wrong things:





You simply CANNOT advocate flying over gross! You CANNOT justify it with faulty aerodynamics. A Citabria is heavy and sluggish on the controls. Bonanzas and Yankees don't fit in the same sentence. If you "CHEAT" it means you aren't flying under an Experimental airworthiness certificate or STC and haven't recorded the changes in the logbooks for future owners to consider. Baaaad.

dtuuri

I did NOT advocate flying over gross. In fact, in two prev posts I strongly suggested that the plane is a ground hog, and don't stretch it with excess weight.

However, even at legal gross weight, it's a bit of a dog, and I offered a way to turn his type certificated AA-1B into a homologated AA-1C without the type certificate. Trust me, I'm all about advocating for safer flying. You know why Grumman changed the power and the prop on the AA-1C and upped the gross weight, so why would an enterprising owner want to avoid that? The only reason the AA-1C has a higher gross is the higher HP rating and the thinner pitched prop and timing change. One inch of prop gives about 100RPM. I'd hate to see anyone on here not get off the ground because they refused to do what Grumman did when they brought out the C model.

But - who am I to opine? Don't want to do it, then don't. Live with the even more anemic factory settings on the B model. I try to help when I can, with proven results, if that counts for nothing, meh - I can sleep tonight.

 

[bnt83]

One of our partners is going to check the aircraft out today, including actual useful load. I briefed him on the W&B points made here to carefully verify it all.

I'd fly it a few times before buying.

 

[Grum.Man]

You two guys say all the wrong things:





You simply CANNOT advocate flying over gross! You CANNOT justify it with faulty aerodynamics. A Citabria is heavy and sluggish on the controls. Bonanzas and Yankees don't fit in the same sentence. If you "CHEAT" it means you aren't flying under an Experimental airworthiness certificate or STC and haven't recorded the changes in the logbooks for future owners to consider. Baaaad.

dtuuri

I don't advocate it but anyone that has flown an old airplane has probably flown it over gross. If you look at the pattern speeds Bonanza's and Yankees are very similar, more so than a Cessna. I didn't mean to say the Grumman and Citabria fly alike, but that they are similar in difficulty to land and takeoff.

 

[Grum.Man]

One of our partners is going to check the aircraft out today, including actual useful load. I briefed him on the W&B points made here to carefully verify it all.

The useful load on my AA1 is 433 lbs. The B got an increase and mine is IFR capable at least when it comes to the regs.

 

[Matthew]

The limited experience I have in the AA1B has been positive. As others have said, it's pretty nimble. I probably had more trouble than I should have getting on/off the wing - my old knees don't like that kind of step anymore. It was the first time I flew with a bubble canopy, other than in a glider. Get used to extra sun and glare because of that.

 

[Silvaire]

...Many things I've read also state that the AA1B is not nearly as forgiving as a 150...

I would reword that to say that it's not as capable of certain flight regimes, that it operates in a narrower envelope and although it is a lot of fun to fly I would say that other than the high density altitude performance issues that might get you into trouble it's actually easier to fly than a 150. Approach and landing speeds are faster so you don't get tossed around so much, it basically just cuts right through everything and the flaps do virtually nothing.

I'd say that overall the 150 is a better trainer but that's not to say you couldn't train in a Yankee.

 

[JoeSelch]

Enjoyed my AA1B.
I'm small, so it worked well for me - I could take anybody I'd care to fly with.

Mine had an O-320 in it, which actually made it useful. If it was a choice between a Cessna 150 and an AA1x with a stock engine, I'd take the 150.

A big drawback for me was its short legs ... 3 hours fuel total, I kept legs to 2. A real PITA for most any cross country.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

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.