Grumman AA-1

PilotRPI

PilotRPI

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
618
Location
MA - 1B9
Display Name
Display name:
PilotRPI
All that talk about the Grumman Tiger had me thinking again about the AA-1. I knew a guy that loved his, but have never flown one. Seems to fit my mission well (inexpensive flying for me, the wife, and maybe the dog at a reasonable price).

How do you guys/gals like the 2 seat Grumman? Can you fly that one with the canopy open? Weird taxiing/takeoff with a castoring nosewheel?

Thanks!

Jesse
 
The only person I've known to own one sold it because he was convinced it was going to kill him or his partner, not sure it's the best landing of the 2 seater's out there.
 
PilotRPI said:
How do you guys/gals like the 2 seat Grumman?
Click to expand...
Loads of fun to fly; nimble, delightful handling, fast, good cabin room for its class and spectacular visibility. On the downside, its low-aspect-ratio wing, tiny flaps and relatively small engine spell anemic climb and poor short-field performance. Limited fuel capacity means you won't go too far, especially if you have one modified with a larger engine.

Many years ago I gave a demo ride in an early AA-1 Yankee to a genuine fighter ace (18.5 kills) from WW2 and Korea, and he absolutely loved it.

Can you fly that one with the canopy open?
Click to expand...
Partially open, yes, enough to provide lots of welcome ventilation on a hot day.

I do know of an early AA-1 that had the canopy come off in flight and lodge against the tail, when the 17-year-old private pilot renter tried to fly with it all the way open. The airplane came down into a stand of old oak trees, and its sturdy honeycomb box cabin structure protected the pilot well. His only injury was a broken leg when he fell out of the tree. http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=1319&key=0

Weird taxiing/takeoff with a castoring nosewheel?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is. Should take you the better part of five minutes to get used to it. :)
 
The original AA-1 Yankee (1969-71) had a slick, laminar-flow wing, a fairly high stall speed (Vs0=65 mph; Vs1=66 mph) and a rather sharp stall. It was actually a good trainer for students planning to transition to high-performance aircraft, and I trained several primary students in them.

Beginning with the AA-1A Trainer of 1971 and continuing with the AA-1B ("Tr-2") and AA-1C ("Lynx") the wing leading edge was recontoured, taming the stall and lowering stall speeds, at the expense of some cruise speed. That is the same airfoil contour later used on all the four-seat AA-5x series. The AA-1C had a larger horizontal tail.

Lots of good information on the American / Grumman-American airplanes here:

American Yankee Association

Grumman Gang
 
I think the AA-1/Yankee is a delight to fly. Light on the controls. Yes, it stalls faster
and sharper than other 2-seaters.

The TR2/Grumman was more docile in slow flight & stall. Still fun to fly.

re: Canopy open flight. I recall restrictions. Best to check the AYA and GG sites.

The nosewheel? Not a big deal. During one of my TR2 checkouts, Howard Fried really
hammered me for making nice soft landing. It was winter ... and he insisted that if
slush froze the brake disk and caliper ... a soft landing might not break-it-free.

Apparently he'd had a few TR2's end-up in snowbanks. Howard wanted the airplane
planted FIRMLY if there was any chance of thaw:freeze.
 
I owned the AA1-C (115hp) in my profile pic up until last year.
They are great fun. Aviation Consumer described it as "fighter fun at a trainer price!"

Climb rate is pretty much what you'd expect from a 115hp engine. At max weight with a 3000ft DA, I could get 500fpm from take off. It has a stall speed of 53kts, so not much different than other trainers.

The main downsides are:
  • Sun burn
  • Impossible to use an iPad on a sunny day
  • Poor glide ratio
 
I owned an AA1 and it was more fun than a roomful of nymphomaniacs. BUT you gotta keep your speeds up and stay ahead of it. Don't try to rotate before you get to Vx. Unless you're pretty skinny, it's a 1-man airplane in hot wx.

Most fun of all the planes I've owned. :goofy:
 
Just got home from flying ours for a 2 plus hour cross country. Didn't have any problem using my Ipad with yoke mount. Flew it on 11 hour cross country last week. Today I was flying at 6500 ft with a 10kt tailwind. Was getting 140mph actual. Using 7.4 gals per hour with the 160hp engine upgrade. I like it. Seems like crosswinds don't really bother it much. You do fly it more like a High performance plane but thats not bad. I was getting 1200 fpm climb with full fuel and my wife and me aboard. which is within a hundred pounds of gross.
 
Theboys said:
Just got home from flying ours for a 2 plus hour cross country. Didn't have any problem using my Ipad with yoke mount. Flew it on 11 hour cross country last week. Today I was flying at 6500 ft with a 10kt tailwind. Was getting 140mph actual. Using 7.4 gals per hour with the 160hp engine upgrade. I like it. Seems like crosswinds don't really bother it much. You do fly it more like a High performance plane but thats not bad. I was getting 1200 fpm climb with full fuel and my wife and me aboard. which is within a hundred pounds of gross.
Click to expand...

Nice. Really Nice. :yes:
 
I have owned an AA1B with an O-320 upgrade (a Sooper Yankee) for almost five years now.
The only thing scary about the plane is me, as the pilot!
Seriously, it's an honest plane that will make an honest pilot out of you.

The O-235 equipped planes can be rather anemic on climb (unless equipped with a climb prop ... but I have no experience with that). With the O-320, I can get out of any place I can get into - typically climbing at least 800fpm on a Michigan summer day with pax. Then, I throttle back to O-235 fuel burns for cruise.
I'm based at an airport with a 2500' paved runway and a 2100' turf runway - happy and comfortable operating off of either.

It's a very responsive plane and a hoot to fly, as far as production aircraft go. And, it still turns a lot of heads at fly-ins ... people are always asking me about it.

I do fly with the canopy open. Mine is placarded for speeds below 130mph and only open about half way (which is plenty far enough). Typically, I just crack it open a whisker to get some airflow - which is just fine for a typical summer day. If I'm down low and it's a scorcher, another inch or two will create a really pleasant breeze without being windy.
(BTW - I do taxi with the canopy open a bit and have found it to be much windier and less pleasant on the ground than in flight, where the air is moving faster and perhaps more smoothly over the fuselage.)

The airframe is dirt simple. My annual inspections have been around $600 including minor repairs. I did once spend a bit replacing a cylinder (with the new cylinder itself being provided at not cost).

If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.
(Oh, and my plane just might be for sale shortly.)
 
I'm not at all keen about avgas sight gauges in the cockpit.

Too bad there is not a STC for sticks!
 
I'm not all that keen on sight gauges in cockpit either allthough they are probably as accurate as electric fuel guages tend to be. (When you can't see the ball its not a good thing). However on mine I have a fuel moniter and it tends to be very accurate. Checked it today and on tank of fuel it was within 3/10s of gallon. Makes it very easy to keep track of when to panic!
 
> sight gauges in cockpit either allthough they are probably as accurate
> as electric fuel guages

It's not about the accuracy, it's about the increased possibility of having
fuel in the cockpit.
 
rainsux said:
> sight gauges in cockpit either allthough they are probably as accurate
> as electric fuel guages

It's not about the accuracy, it's about the increased possibility of having
fuel in the cockpit.
Click to expand...
As I said, there's no record of that ever happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top