AA1A Book Numbers?

[SkyHog]

Anyone have specific numbers, or even better, a scan of the actual POH pages, for performance on the AA1A?

I know its a long shot, but I've had luck here before (thanks, Brian Austin and Joe Williams).

*crosses fingers*

 

[Trapper John]

Anyone have specific numbers, or even better, a scan of the actual POH pages, for performance on the AA1A?

I know its a long shot, but I've had luck here before (thanks, Brian Austin and Joe Williams).

*crosses fingers*

http://www.grumman.net/cgrcc/specs.html

Useful load with full tanks doesn't look so great, but none of the 2-seat trainers are very good in that category.


Trapper John

 

[Anthony]

Wow. Two names I have not heard in a while. Wonder how they are doing?

Nick, don't have one handy, but let me look for it on they AYA website.

Don't know if you are able without a membership.

http://www.clubhouse.aya.org/s/358/...d=80&curdir=2&catid=6&umode=1&mode=1&fileid=7

Not the POH, but it will contains some valuable info.

 

[SkyHog]

Wow. Two names I have not heard in a while. Wonder how they are doing?

Nick, don't have one handy, but let me look for it on they AYA website.

Don't know if you are able without a membership.

http://www.clubhouse.aya.org/s/358/...d=80&curdir=2&catid=6&umode=1&mode=1&fileid=7

Not the POH, but it will contains some valuable info.

Nah, it requires membership, unfortunately. I don't want to drop money on the info just yet.

 

[SCCutler]

Nick:

You do not want an AA1; not that there is anything wrong with an AA1, but dude, it has (best case) full-fuel payload of 349 lb.

Range is very limited, but that's OK, because it's slow.

http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane37.shtml

 

[Anthony]

He'd want an AA1 if it had an O-320 conversion, but you're right Spike, the book won't help him there. The numbers are TOTALLY different. The 125 HP conversion would work too.

 

[SCCutler]

IF he goes for an AA1, I would think he'd want a C with the 320; totally different airplane.

But a Traveler would be a much better choice, and much less likely to be tapped out and used up.

 

[Anthony]

IF he goes for an AA1, I would think he'd want a C with the 320; totally different airplane.

But a Traveler would be a much better choice, and much less likely to be tapped out and used up.

You should understand this response.


It depends.

 

[SCCutler]

So true, Antonio.

I just try to envision Nick and... ummm... anyone... flying in an AA1.

 

[Anthony]

Yeah, especially where he lives the four place would be better.

 

[SkyHog]

I'm just looking at the numbers I see, and I don't get why everyone says "out there."

1200ft takeoff roll at gross is certainly not that long. That's at sea level, of course, so, I'd fathom around 2200ft or so out here.

There are no short runways out here....I'm confused. That's why I want to see the book.

 

[SCCutler]

Nick, forget the numbers, all of 'em except useful load. You're toast there to start with.

 

[Shipoke]

Nick if you have my Number call me, i did my training in Grummans.
Dave G
717-554-8247

 

[poadeleted20]

The 125 HP conversion would work too.

Not enough "oomph" for Nick's mass unless he flies it with only the dog with him. Within the Grumman world, I'll stick with my AA-5 Traveler recommendation for him.

 

[poadeleted20]

1200ft takeoff roll at gross is certainly not that long.

It's also not that realistic.