Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Maintenance Bay' started by Rick H., Oct 27, 2017.
Can anybody recommend a Grumman savvy mechanic for a pre-buy in Southern California?
Why would they be required to be some one special?
It has an engine like no other ?
All the instruments are different than any other?
Are the wheels tire and brakes different than what?
The airframe is about as brick simple as it gets.
why wouldn't any good A&P or better yet a member of the grumann gang be a better choice?
True. So do you have any A&P recommendations?
On one of the Grumman web sites they have a check list for annuals and it covers most everything..
There are a few idiosyncrasies that might be over looked if not brought to the A&P's attention
Oh @Tom-D I think this is the only time I've seen advice AGAINST having the prebuy done by someone that is very familiar with the exact make and model.
Call either Ken Blackman, fletchair, Gary vogt or Roscoe. They should be able to point you in the right direction
Do yourself a favor. Join American Yankee Association, the type club for all of the AA-1 and AA-5 series airplanes. It's one of the best type clubs around, with exceptional resources. They have vetted lists of mechanics and instructors, knowledgeable with these airplanes. Yes, they are simple, but there are some idiosyncrasies, particularly with regard to the landing gear and bonded airframe. You can also try the free web group, the Grumman Gang.
Get somebody who knows what they're doing, rather than paying someone to learn.
Yes, those would all be good sources. Add to that Cliff Hanson in Independence, Oregon, who was my mechanic when I had a Cheetah. They are all active in AYA.
Advice against it?? no that is not what I asked.
Just tell me why a regular old A&P wouldn't do the job well?
C'mon. Every thread on every forum about prebuy inspections says to use someone who works that plane often.
To answer your question: The regular A&P would do a fine job. Except that he might not know the goofy quirky stuff that makes some people better with a particular plane.
Just as I suspect you have some planes you know inside and out and upside down, and some you don't work on very often if ever.
Gary Vogt at AUCountry near Sacramento is a very good source in the area. He'll know if there's a good Grumman-savvy a&p in southern California. I'd recommend the guy that did the prebuy on my Traveler almost 10 years ago that I bought near LA, but he was a really old gentleman then, and I can't imagine he's still in business. Good luck!
Tom, no disrespect but your post in my eyes is a little negative, the guy is asking a question. Don't beat him up, offer advice.
I got lucky the folks at the FBO I bought my plane from were fair and helped me out. I agree, I could do the inspection feeling good with my findings, but why not use someone who works on them all the time...
Thanks for the info guys. I actually have talked personally with Gary Vogt, and he didn’t really know anybody down in Southern Cal that he could recommend. I also posted the same question on the Grumman Pilots Association, but no responses yet.
How many other planes are held together with purple glue?
As long as it is, we are good right?
First time you've stood up for me
How much experience do you have with bonded aluminum honeycomb structure, Tom?
OP....what airport? My IA did my pre-buy for my Tiger and knows them very well...but he's old school and doesn't have a phone or email. You gotta go talk to him. He's at WHP.
The airplane is at Cable. What’s your IA’s name, or business name?
Why would a member of the Grumman Gang be a better choice, when earlier in the same sentence you talk about any good A&P?
Sheetmetal bonding, tube spar, sliding canopy, honeycomb firewall, free castoring nose wheel that bolts to the fuselage, composite main gear, horizontal carb. These differences are off the top of my head. I haven`t worked on one in a long time, but they do require extra attention in certain areas. Someone who is familiar and current with them will make for an easier inspection. Same is true for a 150, Cherokee, 747, Camaro, etc.
A&P schools teach composite construction.
What is so mystifying about a tubular spar?
IF I were buying one I'd hire Ron -(you know who) to inspect it for me.
and he is nether a A&P- or IA.
What A&P school did you go to?
And, here is the level of proficiency at which composites must be taught:
(2) Level 2 requires:
(i) Knowledge of general principles, and limited practical application.
(ii) Development of sufficient manipulative skill to perform basic operations.
(iii) Instruction by lecture, demonstration, discussion, and limited practical application.
Yeah, I want one of those guys doing my pre buy.
I ... Um ... So ...
Ah never mind.
To the OP, there are resources and people out there who have actual experience with your exact aircraft in question. They would best know all the little and not so little things to look for. Good luck.
No, because the purple glue, "purple passion" used on some 74-75 models, was defective and disbonding occured. You want to see a tan color glue along the bonding lines.
Sent you a PM
Beware folks..... every aircraft type has their gurus
you many forget, every aircraft out there is made from off the shelf parts and appliances.
Your GA regular A&P knows those items.
My best advice here is simply this, " find your mechanic first" have them help find your aircraft.
Grumman Aircraft are about brick simple as any aircraft can be. That Is how they were designed, that's how they were sold, that is why the company failed.
they were designed to be built cheap, to sell cheap, for flight schools to buy fly and when damaged throw away.
The company didn’t fail. Grumman-American was bought out by an entrepreneur (Allen Paulsen of American Jet Industries) who wanted it only for the Gulfstream jet line, and made no bones about the fact that he wanted nothing to do with light singles. The new company, Gulfstream American, shut down the single-engine line within a year, just as the entire industry started to tank. Six years later even Cessna stopped making piston singles. Gulfstream American is still in business, now as Gulfstream Aerospace, a subsidiary of General Dynamics.
And why didn't he want the whole thing? No one like teaching in them.
There is a bit of difference between a Gulfstream 5 and a AA 5
The "line of light planes" had never made a profit, and the recession was proving disasterous. Paulson also wanted to make room for various development and production programs in the works or on the drawing boards, according to the book: "The Legend of Gulfstream"
In the mid 1970s Paulson was obsessed with his "Hustler" project -- a six-seat executive aircraft with a PT-6 (later TPE-331) in the nose and a Williams turbofan in the tail. His American Jet Industries in Van Nuys didn't have the facilities and trained workers to build it. Around the same time Grumman was seeking to unload its civilian airplane program (both light singles and bizjets) to concentrate on military and space work, so Paulson's AJI swallowed up Grumman-American at a bargain price. Paulson renamed it Gulfstream American.
The two-seat AA-1C Lynx was discontinued after the 1978 model year. The four-seat Cheetah and Tiger for 1979 were built with "Gulfstream American" nameplates. Curiously the line for the twin-engine GA-7 Cougar was kept going for another year or so.
The "Hustler" went through a number of design permutations, including a proposed military trainer, and finally a single-engine bizjet. The last version was the single-jet "Peregrine 500", and had a rear fuselage engine installation that resembled the center engine of a Dassault Falcon 7. The Hustler/Peregrine was never certified.
The demise of the Grumman American line of light singles had nothing to do with the merits of the airplanes themselves, and everything to do with an indifferent management and changing economies of the industry.
Oh ... and I enjoyed instructing in the AA-1 Yankees.
I loved training in the AA5B and my instructor thought it was one of the best flying planes in its class.
After you fly a AA5, a Cessna 172 seems like flying an old truck. I liked it so much I bought one
Even the common Cessna 150 has a type club and type experts.
Too bad there wasn't a lot more of you in the time they were needed.
Most flight instructors of the day thought it required too much time to master the airspeed control prior to solo, so the cost of a pilots certificate went up. no one want to learn in them because it costs too much.
Plus many thought the little birds were way under powered.
Like someone said. They will learn the plane on your dime. Every plane has its own distinct maintenance Items. Do you deny that?
Tom my AA5B comes standard with the o-360 Don't know about the Yankees and T- cats as far as being under powered, never flew one.
The "purple passion" problem.
Most flight instructors of the day never flew in one. For a student planning to step up into a high-performance, high-wing-loading airplane, learning to master airspeed early on is not a bad thing. We had a two or three early AA-1 Yankees on our rental and flight school line. If training in the Yankee took a couple of extra hours, it was offset by the lower rental cost compared to our 150 hp Cherokee 140s -- and the Yankee-trained new private pilot probably had a finer touch than one who learned in the hyper-forgiving Cherokee. One of my primary students bought N5605L, s/n 7, the first Yankee on the west coast. He did fine. Maybe some flight instructors don't like a Cub as a trainer because it takes too much time to master the tailwheel. Different strokes, and all that.
Besides, the Yankee was primarily marketed as a $6,495 (in 1968 money) personal runabout and fun flyer, and a trainer only as an aside. At 117 KTAS on 108 hp and with sports car handling, it filled the "personal airplane" bill nicely. I gave a demo ride in an early Yankee to a P-51/P-47/F-86 fighter ace, and he never stopped grinning the whole flight.
The recontoured leading edge on the 1971 AA-1A "Trainer", as carried over to all subsequent AA-1 and AA-5 models, made the handling more Cherokee-like and suited to the trainer role, at the cost of a few knots of cruise speed.
But after nearly half a century the OWTs dominate the narrative. Too bad. Those who have flown the AA-1s know the truth.
Then why the bad results?
The perception of the buyer of the time..
A/c got a bad reputation along before the company did anything about it.
Timing. Grumman never had the dealer network or aligned training centers Cessna and Piper did. Cessna and Piper had a 20+ year head start on dealer and training center networks which kept them in the catbird's seat until the GA collapse.
They couldn't get that net work, because the product wouldn't sell.