Are AA1’s a bad purchase?

D

DMD3.

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
592
Display Name
DMD3.
Home Airfield
KABY
I’m borrowing Lawson-Stone’s thread title about PA28’s to ask about 2-seater Grummans. As of right now there are a number of AA1’s (Yankee, Lynx, Trainers) for sale, and pretty much all of them are priced at or below $50k. Could one of these make for a good cheap plane for someone who just wants to own instead of rent? Or at least make a good first plane? Or are they potentially a maintenance nightmare as many ‘cheap planes’ have turned out to be for unfortunate buyers? I don’t plan to spend much on cosmetics or avionics, I’d just like to have an airplane that is mine. $50k and below is an amount I’d be comfortable spending and still have plenty left over for repair bills and other expenses (fuel, tiedown, insurance, etc.), but spending over $100k for a Cheetah/Tiger would wipe out most of my wealth. Even 2-seat Vans RVs are getting hard to find for under $100k.
 
I have a four seat Grumman, but haven’t heard anything negative about the two-seaters in terms of maintenance or parts availability. Make sure you have the main spar checked for corrosion before buying. You might also look at Travelers (basically early 70s Cheetahs) if you think four seats would be important.
 
AlleyCat67 said:
I have a four seat Grumman, but haven’t heard anything negative about the two-seaters in terms of maintenance or parts availability. Make sure you have the main spar checked for corrosion before buying. You might also look at Travelers (basically early 70s Cheetahs) if you think four seats would be important.
Click to expand...
Having 4 seats would be nice, but it’s simply having more head & legroom as I’m 6f 3in tall.
 
DMD3. said:
Or are they potentially a maintenance nightmare as many ‘cheap planes’ have turned out to be for unfortunate buyers?
Click to expand...

ANY of our older planes can turn out to be a maintenance nightmare. Be as diligent as you can, get a good pre-buy, but be prepared for problems.

DMD3. said:
$50k and below is an amount I’d be comfortable spending and still have plenty left over for repair bills and other expenses (fuel, tiedown, insurance, etc.), but spending over $100k for a Cheetah/Tiger would wipe out most of my wealth.
Click to expand...

As a suggestion, you might want to be sure you have enough set aside in a contingency fund to cover an engine overhaul. There's variability in that cost, but it can easily be 30-40 AMUs. Hopefully you won't need it any time soon, but don't take the chance.
 
DMD3. said:
Having 4 seats would be nice, but it’s simply having more head & legroom as I’m 6f 3in tall.
Click to expand...
I’m 6’6” and have flown a two seat Grumman. It was quite a while ago but I don’t remember any negatives from the experience. More room than a C-150 and I taught in those…
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I’m 6’6” and have flown a two seat Grumman. It was quite a while ago but I don’t remember any negatives from the experience. More room than a C-150 and I taught in those…
Click to expand...
I have time in a C150 though I did not enjoy it due to the small cockpit size. It wasn’t TOO horrible flying solo for flights under 1 hour, but with a passenger I was already wanting to get out before getting done with the engine run-up.
 
DMD3. said:
I have time in a C150 though I did not enjoy it due to the small cockpit size. It wasn’t TOO horrible flying solo for flights under 1 hour, but with a passenger I was already wanting to get out before getting done with the engine run-up.
Click to expand...
I was paid to be there, young and hungry. Pretty sure I could have squeezed a passenger behind the seats.
 
AA1 would fit the bill...but for the powerplant situation. That's the achilles heel of the sub 80K market; the post-2020 powerplant cost basis. Definitionally, few samples in that price point can support an engine overhaul anymore. And as opposed to EAB, you don't have any substitution value options. Which completely captures you to the flight school business centering vendor prices, for only your exact make/model powerplant per the TCDS. Then the lead time insult to injury.

That would be the show stopper for me when it comes to things like 150s and AA1s. If you're ok with gambling with whatever longevity you can get out of the engine
as-is until you arrive at the surprise engine overhauling expense (reaper comes to us all), then by all means. Otherwise, do yourself a favor and nope outta that lane.

The last option to deal with surprise overhaul anxiety is to whole-airplane arbitrage. But that only works as long as you keep it minimalist and don't sink money on panels and the like. In the case of my Arrow, I could have been back in the air in 60 days with a whole-replacement arrow for 20K less than what they quoted me the overhaul (10 month lead to add insult to injury), and gotten a free paint job upgrade lol! That was based on 2023 asking prices and what I got back from the carcass, vs incurring the price risk of the overhaul. That's how r-word the powerplant situation is.
 
I just had my O-320-E2C overhauled for $20K with new Millennium cylinders. If I get new mags that’ll be $4K more, but I’m still undecided. The exceptionally robust parallel valve 4-cylinder Lycomings are exactly the engine I want to own and that amount of money is not enough to think about scrapping a plane and buying another, it’s the cost of doing business in maintaining the plane after (in my case) over twenty years of plane ownership with no such expenses.

Flying inexpensive old planes for fun is not a consumer activity, it is an enthusiast activity for people who aren’t afraid to get heir hands dirty and who aren’t scratching for money even if they are at the bottom of the airplane market. If you don’t fit that description, own or do something different.

On topic, I think the reason the two-seat Grummans are inexpensive is because they were designed to be easy to build above all (as a homebuilt design derivative) and don’t come across to the unfamiliar as a high quality product. But they work fine at lower altitudes, in reality have proved to hold up pretty well and are fun to fly.
 
Last edited:
Tusayan said:
I just had my O-320-E2C overhauled for $20K with new Millennium cylinders. If I get new mags that’ll be $4K more, but I’m still undecided. The exceptionally robust parallel valve 4-cylinder Lycomings are exactly the engine I want to own and that amount of money is not enough to think about scrapping a plane and buying another, it’s the cost of doing business in maintaining the plane after (in my case) over twenty years of plane ownership with no such expenses.

Flying inexpensive old planes for fun is not a consumer activity, it is an enthusiast activity for people who aren’t afraid to get heir hands dirty and who aren’t scratching for money even if they are at the bottom of the airplane market. If you don’t fit that description, own or do something different.
Click to expand...

I mean this with due respect, get off that high horse. If they had quoted me $20K for my lyco 4 banger 3 years ago, let alone today, I would have put that pittance in cash so fast I would have gotten a friction burn on my richard hand. And that's with the horrid lead turn times they weren't even willing to agree to on paper. (heck western skyways wanted me to sign to the opposite, that I understood it could go way longer).

I've owned O-320s too. They're not significantly different in O/H pricing as 360s; yes even the "cheap" -320-E series like yours with the weaker O-235 front bearing. You're in mixed company here, not just neophytes. You're not gaslighting anyone into believing 20K is the 2026 out the door price for a sub 210hp Lycoming of any variant. And to the degree we can agree to disagree all day, you didn't have to go where you did with the bolded (my emphasis).

@Jim K did his engine stunt on a home brew basis, but at least he has the integrity to admit he did all the work. Now, if you think that's the bar for belonging in this hobby, cool. I disagree, which is why I bailed on the overhaul. But spare us that argument in bad faith of suggesting a ridiculously low O/H figure in order to couch a mischaracterization of 2026 hull-to-overhaul cost gripes as merely the lamentations of "poors" who don't belong.

P.S. unwillingness != inability money bags.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I mean this with due respect, get off that high horse. If they had quoted me $20K for my lyco 4 banger 3 years ago, let alone today, I would have put that pittance in cash so fast I would have gotten a friction burn on my richard hand. And that's with the horrid lead turn times they weren't even willing to agree to on paper. (heck western skyways wanted me to sign to the opposite, that I understood it could go way longer).

I've owned O-320s too. They're not significantly different in O/H pricing as 360s; yes even the "cheap" -320-E series like yours with the weaker O-235 front bearing. You're in mixed company here, not just neophytes. You're not gaslighting anyone into believing 20K is the 2026 out the door price for a sub 210hp Lycoming of any variant. And to the degree we can agree to disagree all day, you didn't have to go where you did with the bolded (my emphasis).

@Jim K did his engine stunt on a home brew basis, but at least he has the integrity to admit he did all the work. Now, if you think that's the bar for belonging in this hobby, cool. I disagree, which is why I bailed on the overhaul. But spare us that argument in bad faith of suggesting a ridiculously low O/H figure in order to couch a mischaracterization of 2026 hull-to-overhaul cost gripes as merely the lamentations of "poors" who don't belong.

P.S. unwillingness != inability money bags.
Click to expand...

OTOH, it is an option to do much of the OH work yourself, and a field OH can be done by any A&P. You don’t have to use an engine shop. @Tusayan didn’t say how or where he had his work done, so maybe he did a bunch himself. If I hadn’t had to replace my crank and cam and buy new cylinders, my OH on my O-360 would likely have been under $20k. As it was I spent about $27k.

Upthread, I recommended setting aside $40k for an OH, and I stand by that assuming the use of a professional engine shop. But the number of methods to dehide a feline is >1. Money can be saved by those willing to bust a knuckle or two and get a little grime under their fingernails.
 
Do airboat peeps do this kind of work at a more competitive rate, or do they Luke 22:57 ya the second they hear the engine came from a winged lawnmower? (EAB of course). Never did ask last time because facbuilt potato, but that got me thinking, now that I window shop in the libertarian utopia of "death by my own hands" aka EAB. :biggrin:
 
@Half Fast my overhaul was done by a local A&P who sent the crankshaft, rods etc to Lycon for overhaul. I bought and supplied new cylinders that I purchased at Air Power for about $6K. Labor was $5K IIRC and the rest was parts and services for a total of about $20K. This doesn’t include mag or carb overhauls, which I haven’t done yet.

I did remove the engine from the airframe, remove the baffling, accessories etc. but then handed the engine over to the A&P who as you might imagine is very busy and does a fair number of engine overhauls.

The O-320-E2C does not BTW have the O-235 front main bearing, it is a fairly unusual variant that was used by Beech for some Musketeers and by very few other OEMs (my aircraft is certified).
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
Do airboat peeps do this kind of work at a more competitive rate, or do they Luke 22:57 ya the second they hear the engine came from a winged lawnmower? (EAB of course). Never did ask last time because facbuilt potato, but that got me thinking, now that I window shop in the libertarian utopia of "death by my own hands" aka EAB. :biggrin:
Click to expand...

I haven’t talked to any airboat businesses about engine OHs, but I suspect the answer is “No.” I do know that some aircraft engine shops do airboat work, and I doubt anyone would use them for that if an airboat shop would do an OH for less. It’s unconfirmed, but I’ve heard Zephyr does a fair amount of airboat engine OHs.
 
FWIW and nothing to do with my overhaul, friends overhauling e.g. 300 HP Lycomings for racing and other experimental category aircraft used to use one particular airboat engine supplier in Florida for machine work, and claimed his machines and quality were better than aircraft suppliers.
 
Tusayan said:
FWIW and nothing to do with my overhaul, friends overhauling e.g. 300 HP Lycomings for racing and other experimental category aircraft used to use one particular airboat engine supplier in Florida for machine work, and claimed his machines and quality were better than aircraft suppliers.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard some Vets are better than Doctors.
 
Half Fast said:
Well of course they are! Vets can treat more than one species!
Click to expand...
I've always respected vets for the diversity of their patient panel. Human patients, compared to animals, are easier to talk to, far more untruthful, and roughly equally liable to bite in some emergency departments.
 
DMD3. said:
I’m borrowing Lawson-Stone’s thread title about PA28’s to ask about 2-seater Grummans. As of right now there are a number of AA1’s (Yankee, Lynx, Trainers) for sale, and pretty much all of them are priced at or below $50k. Could one of these make for a good cheap plane for someone who just wants to own instead of rent?
Click to expand...
The first big question is why do you want to own vs rent? For me it was to be able to take longer trips. When I was renting, it was a big additional chuck on change for the rental plane that was just sitting on the ramp. And to do a X-US or any kind of longer multi day fight the question became why don't I pay myself for the maintenance, etc., rather than pay big rental fees to someone else.

So if your goal is to make long XC flights, I'd recommend against the smaller Grummans. I'd also consider you give owning a lot of thought if you generally just take trips for breakfast or lunch and don't do a lot of flying throughout the year. But if you are looking to take multi day and some long XC fights, then do look into owning, but make sure it is a plane that gives you the range and the baggage capacity you might need.

Oh... If you're working on your Instrument and/or Commercial with an independent CFI(I), then owning a smaller Grumman may be a good way to go. Then sell it after you have the ratings (at probably a similar price that you bought it for.)
 
For a low time pilot, I would not recommend an AA1. Go with the AA1A, B, or C.
 
Sorry to digress, but back to the OP's original question........

DMD3. said:
I’d just like to have an airplane that is mine.
Click to expand...

What flying mission, what type of flying do you want to be doing? Affording a plane that doesn't do what you need it to do doesn't really get you anything.
 
I had an AA1A and it was a pretty great plane. Very affordable, lots of fun to fly. It doesn't carry much and it doesn't go far but it cheap, fun, and easy to fly.
 
I did a little “research” about two years ago when I was regularly scanning the online sales sites. Have a little experience in an AA1 (think it was a yankee model, logbook is gone)
Regardless, range was too limiting for my mission- which includes 300nm plus trips to SoCal from sql.

It’s a fun, responsive, neat plane.
 
M20K said:
The first big question is why do you want to own vs rent? For me it was to be able to take longer trips. When I was renting, it was a big additional chuck on change for the rental plane that was just sitting on the ramp. And to do a X-US or any kind of longer multi day fight the question became why don't I pay myself for the maintenance, etc., rather than pay big rental fees to someone else.

So if your goal is to make long XC flights, I'd recommend against the smaller Grummans. I'd also consider you give owning a lot of thought if you generally just take trips for breakfast or lunch and don't do a lot of flying throughout the year. But if you are looking to take multi day and some long XC fights, then do look into owning, but make sure it is a plane that gives you the range and the baggage capacity you might need.

Oh... If you're working on your Instrument and/or Commercial with an independent CFI(I), then owning a smaller Grumman may be a good way to go. Then sell it after you have the ratings (at probably a similar price that you bought it for.)
Click to expand...

Every pilot I knew who didn't have access to an airplane other than one from an FBO's rental fleet, eventually stopped flying.

I learned in AA1Bs and AA1Cs, and still think of them fondly. With two aboard on a hot day, the rate of climb is nothing to write home about, but they're responsive and fun to fly, and being able to fly with the canopy partially open is really nice on a hot day. These are some of the simplest airframes you can find, they shouldn't be too difficult to maintain.
 

Attachments

  • 1780092524776.png
    1780092524776.png
    78.8 KB · Views: 8
SFDukie said:
Regardless, range was too limiting for my mission- which includes 300nm plus trips to SoCal from sql.
Click to expand...
That should be doable if you slow down, no? 100ktas burning 5gph from 24 gallons of tankage should get you 400nm range plus reserves.
FormerHangie said:
Every pilot I knew who didn't have access to an airplane other than one from an FBO's rental fleet, eventually stopped flying.
Click to expand...
Every pilot I ever knew and ever will know will eventually stop flying. There's gotta be a better metric than that.
 
asicer said:
That should be doable if you slow down, no? 100ktas burning 5gph from 24 gallons of tankage should get you 400nm range plus reserves.
Click to expand...
Aa-1 holds 22 gal usable I think. 5 gph/100kts may be achievable, but 30 minute reserves leaves 3 3/4 hr range, not including climb to cruise, (those numbers are only achievable at significant altitude for an o-235 in an airframe not known for climb efficiency) headwinds, etc

Not trying to dump on the aa1. Has many neat features
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3454.png
    IMG_3454.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 5
  • IMG_3455.png
    IMG_3455.png
    5.2 MB · Views: 5
Last edited:
Tusayan said:
Flying inexpensive old planes for fun is not a consumer activity, it is an enthusiast activity for people who aren’t afraid to get heir hands dirty and who aren’t scratching for money even if they are at the bottom of the airplane market. If you don’t fit that description, own or do something different.
Click to expand...
IMHO, owning any plane is not for someone who is at that point in their life where money is tight. It is a great hobby, but it is expensive with extra "surprises" thrown in. Wife and I own a plane, we love it, but it wasn't something I would have done years ago when we weren't in the financial situation we are in now.

Spending a big chunk of savings to buy a plane to have it sit because of tightness of money to keep it repaired or for lack of gas money isn't fun.

WWDRD? What would Dave Ramsey do? A smart question to ask yourself - would this plane crunch you if you had to miss a few months of paychecks?

OK...... I'll get down from my "Dad" box now. Carry on.
 
Rcmutz said:
For a low time pilot, I would not recommend an AA1. Go with the AA1A, B, or C.
Click to expand...
Agreed. AA-1 has a very sharp stall.

Also, talking about over haul costs of a O-320 doesn't mean much unless the airplane has the STC for this engine. The stock engine is the O-235. Different parts availablity.

I did my Private in AA-5B Tigers. I had access to an AA-1B for a while. Both are a dream to fly.
 
We were working on a Cheetah a couple of days ago...When Cessna 172's are comfortably and regularly over $100k, AA1's and other Grumman's seem like a perfectly good buy. Some love the castering wheel, some don't like it, but at the end of the day, if you're timebuilding, do you really care what you're doing it with? Their wings are bonded instead of riveted, and the airplane flies just fine. We love to paint them and install avionics in them...
 
So... how many hours have you flown in a AA1 so far? What other planes have you flown?
 
I don't know if that was directed at me.

I currently own and have flown 150's, a 172 I've owned for 30+ years, a Mooney M20K I've owned as long, 2 Comanche's (250, 260), sold a 180, a Bonanza, a Seneca, an Apache, an R44, an R22, a Mooney Mite and a Lancair - most flying and some projects. I've owned many others I don't currently fly. I've got about 15 hours in Grummans, quite a few more in Skippers, Tomahawks, and other 2 seaters, have flown plenty of 4 and 6 seaters over the years, as well as T34's, T2's, and more...started flying at 16 with the Civil Air Patrol, and I'm currently 60. Compared to hangar mates of mine that have 26,000 flight hours or so, I'm a puppy.



WDD said:
So... how many hours have you flown in a AA1 so far? What other planes have you flown?
Click to expand...
 
theplanesalon said:
We were working on a Cheetah a couple of days ago...When Cessna 172's are comfortably and regularly over $100k, AA1's and other Grumman's seem like a perfectly good buy.
Click to expand...
172 are work airplanes in present circumstances, AA5s generally are not. I'm sure some outifts have used AA1s in the past, I don't recall one in recent memory that relies on AA1s for dedicated flight school rentals. At any rate, pricing your recreational pick against a work airplane is not a particularly useful metric. That gives away the punch line, that being that the pricing is revenue-centric; recreationalists don't generally have a price-use-case-adjusted option in that space, other than the cost shifting of partnerships and clubs, which is just renting with extra steps.

I'll say this, thank them lucky stars the market didn't rely on AAxx for flight school work too much. The PA28 being a trainer killed my long term ownership, when the AD moral hazard came from me as a result of the rapacious commercial users. I used to believe in the commonality of a trainer for long term sustainability, no more. Non-trainer sleepers are a better bet, even if they lead to other problems like parts orphaning.
 
theplanesalon said:
I don't know if that was directed at me.

I currently own and have flown 150's, a 172 I've owned for 30+ years, a Mooney M20K I've owned as long, 2 Comanche's (250, 260), sold a 180, a Bonanza, a Seneca, an Apache, an R44, an R22, a Mooney Mite and a Lancair - most flying and some projects. I've owned many others I don't currently fly. I've got about 15 hours in Grummans, quite a few more in Skippers, Tomahawks, and other 2 seaters, have flown plenty of 4 and 6 seaters over the years, as well as T34's, T2's, and more...started flying at 16 with the Civil Air Patrol, and I'm currently 60. Compared to hangar mates of mine that have 26,000 flight hours or so, I'm a puppy.
Click to expand...
Was asking the OP. Wondering if he narrowed down to the A1 from actually flying one.
 
AvNavCom said:
Sure, but when that guy gets back to his bicycle to find his wheels missing, he's going to be mad at you.
Click to expand...
Ah... the famous 1920 Schwinn bi plane, complete with cockpit banana seats but without the optional monkey bar high yoke. I think I see a clothespin and a playing card next to the left wheel to make that cool clicking noise.
 
Never mind the wheels - have you ever tried climbing into the front seat of a Pietenpol (I'm assuming that's what the pictured plane is)? Makes climbing into a Mooney seem downright easy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top