Grumman Question

J

JasonCT

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
1,547
Location
Eastern, CT
Display Name
Display name:
JasonCT
I am looking to buy my first plane and I am in love with the little Grumman Yankees.

Anyone have any opinions or thoughts etc that they would share.

Any info is appreciated.

Thanks again,

~Jay
 
I looked at em first too. Then I bought something with 180HP.

If you have a LONG paved runway that you will always be landing on, they will do fine. They are a little underpowered I think. Faster than a 150/152, but what pushed me away from them was performance in the T/O and landing distances.
 
N2212R said:
I looked at em first too. Then I bought something with 180HP.

If you have a LONG paved runway that you will always be landing on, they will do fine. They are a little underpowered I think. Faster than a 150/152, but what pushed me away from them was performance in the T/O and landing distances.
Click to expand...

That's quite an overstatement. I have a Tiger, not a Yankee which also has a rep for runway use, which is also unfounded. The difference in takeoff distance is minimal and well worth the tradeoff in cruise speed and handling. The Yankee is a blast to fly. Unless you are flying from insanely short or unimproved strips the Yankee is fine. FLY ONE and compare it to a Cessna 150/152. You will be favorably impressed. More info here:

http://www.aya.org

http://www.grumman.net
 
Last edited:
Book numbers show ground roll on the Tigers to be 20% more than my 180.
20% that's A LOT to me.
 
N2212R said:
Book numbers show ground roll on the Tigers to be 20% more than my 180.
20% that's A LOT to me.
Click to expand...

Book numbers show the Tiger's cruise speed to be 16 knots more than the Cherokee 180 on the same fuel burn. That's a lot to me. :)

Real world, I fly in AND OUT of 2,200 ft. strips at sea level wth no problem. Most GA airports are usually longer. I think you fly out of a shorter, grass strip and I would not use the Tiger there. Different strokes.
 
I had good fortune of flying a sweet AA1, with the 0-320 upgrade. What a fine ride. As someone mentioned above, fly a 150/152, then hop into an AA1, and try to tell me they are comparable. No way.

The AA1 is very roomy, and with the slide-back canopy, you can even fly with canopy open. It may have a longer ground roll, but not an issue on any fields I flew to, and there were plenty which were tight.

I would hapily have taken a longish trip in the AA1; in a 150, I'd think long and hard.
 
Check out the AYA and Grumman Gang web sites.

A stock-engine Yankee really needs 2500 feet of paved surface at sea level to be comfortable. What's your runway? However, the O-320 engine conversions can handle a lot less.
 
Thanks everyone for your input. Now let me ask another question related to the plane.

Will most mechanics work on these planes? Are parts readily available, etc. ?

~Jay
 
CapeCodJay said:
Thanks everyone for your input. Now let me ask another question related to the plane.

Will most mechanics work on these planes? Are parts readily available, etc. ?
Click to expand...

While Grummans are very similar to other planes and use common Lycoming engines and other common parts, they do have their quirks. Getting a mechanic that knows Grummans is the best way to go. The Grumman Gang email network and various aviation boards like this one are a great way to find Grumman savvy mechanics in your area. There are a lot of Grumman owners in Mass., so I'm sure you can find good alternatives.

Parts are readily available from Fletchair.
 
I've not flown the two seaters, but I've got to say that the Tiger is hands down the most fun to fly plane I've gotten my hands on yet. The speed, handling, visibility, comfort, ease of landing and ease of ground handling combine to make a plane that is a pure joy to be in.

BTW, a four seat Traveller or Cheetah may not cost all that much more than a Yankee to buy and fly, so if you've got the extra $$$ the room and increased utility of having a back seat may be worth checking out, even though w&b restrictions may limit what you can actually carry back there.
 
Anthony said:
That's quite an overstatement. I have a Tiger, not a Yankee which also has a rep for runway use, which is also unfounded. The difference in takeoff distance is minimal and well worth the tradeoff in cruise speed and handling. The Yankee is a blast to fly. Unless you are flying from insanely short or unimproved strips the Yankee is fine. FLY ONE and compare it to a Cessna 150/152. You will be favorably impressed. More info here:

http://www.aya.org

http://www.grumman.net
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the difference in takeoff distance is minimal, though we've gone around about this before. I can EASILY get a Skyhawk out of 1500 ft. I would want at least 2500 feet in a Tiger, which is a pretty good difference. On the flip side, I can land a Tiger shorter than I can a Skyhawk. It's a plane that really could use a constant speed prop to help takeoff performance, IMHO. On the other hand, while I like playing with some shorter fields, if we win the lottery Cathy and I have already picked a Tiger as our plane. Frankly, I can think of only a few places where I can't find 2500 feet somewhere near where I want to be :)
 
Joe Williams said:
I can EASILY get a Skyhawk out of 1500 ft. I would want at least 2500 feet in a Tiger, which is a pretty good difference.
Click to expand...


I hear ya Joe. If I was going to operate out of short fields like that, it wouldn't be with the Tiger. When we lived back east, I use to fly in and out of here without a problem though.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/W75
 
CapeCodJay said:
I am looking to buy my first plane and I am in love with the little Grumman Yankees.

Anyone have any opinions or thoughts etc that they would share.

Any info is appreciated.
Click to expand...

There are four models of Grumman 2 seaters (AA1, AA1-A, AA1-B and AA1-C)...lots of folks call them all Yankees but there are some interesting differences between the original AA1 and the 3 successive models.

I saw mentioned here the ability to insert an O-320 engine for the stock O-235 that these planes sported when they left the factory. This engine change imparts a significant HP boost with attendant increase in speed and climb capability but, using the "no free lunch" rule of engineering there are some trade offs in the areas of useful load and reduced flight duration. This is also a significant modification from a cost perspective.

Another way to boost in performance from the original 108HP or 115HP can be had by swaping the cylinder heads where the O-235 engine then creates 125HP. Not as signficant from a cost perspective.

As with any two seater check useful load against your occupancy load.

The original AA1 has the laminer flow wing.

By the time the -B model rolled out the nose gear was modified to make it a tad harder to ding the prop if you happen to touch the nose gear first during landing (though not a habit you want to get into with any aircraft let along a Grumman), gross weight was increased a bit and the original Yankee wing was changed. Also, the B is the last model with the rounded nose air inlets and smaller original tail

The C model has the highest max gross weight. The C model has the squared nose of the Tiger and the Cheetha and a larger tail (which eats into cruise speed and adds weight).

My favorite two seat Grumman was an AA1-B with the 125HP STC. It was a nice trade off between speed and useful load though I've never flown an original "thin wing" Yankee. I always thought that an original Yankee with the 125HP mod would be nice but I'd have to look at the useful load numbers.

Len
 
Joe Williams said:
I can EASILY get a Skyhawk out of 1500 ft.
Click to expand...
You must be better at it than I am, because I can't do that "easily" unless the plane is pretty light or the wind is blowing pretty good down the runway.
 
CapeCodJay said:
Will most mechanics work on these planes? Are parts readily available, etc. ?
Click to expand...
Parts are no problem at all -- Fletchair has been supplying them since Grumman stopped making them in 1979. The airplanes are mechanically dirt-simple, and there are several very Grumman-savvy shops in New England. You can get some referrals via the Grumman Gang.
 
Ron Levy said:
You must be better at it than I am, because I can't do that "easily" unless the plane is pretty light or the wind is blowing pretty good down the runway.
Click to expand...

That's cause you follow the POH, Ron. :)
 
Ron Levy said:
You must be better at it than I am, because I can't do that "easily" unless the plane is pretty light or the wind is blowing pretty good down the runway.
Click to expand...

Most runway I can remember using in a Skyhawk was with DA around 3200 feet on a hot summer day, with a little bit of tailwind on a 2,000 foot runway, loaded to gross, when we used around 1500-1700 feet to actually get off the ground. Honestly, I would kind of liked to have aborted that one, but doing so would have run us off the runway and into the valley at the end of it :(
 
Last edited:
Len Lanetti said:
I saw mentioned here the ability to insert an O-320 engine for the stock O-235 that these planes sported when they left the factory. This engine change imparts a significant HP boost with attendant increase in speed and climb capability but, using the "no free lunch" rule of engineering there are some trade offs in the areas of useful load and reduced flight duration.
Len
Click to expand...

There is an STC for an increased gross weight that you can get with some of the engine upgrades. From what I understand, the standard O-235 weighs the same as the O-320. That means you may actually get an increase in useful load with the engine upgrade.
 
GaryO said:
There is an STC for an increased gross weight that you can get with some of the engine upgrades. From what I understand, the standard O-235 weighs the same as the O-320. That means you may actually get an increase in useful load with the engine upgrade.
Click to expand...

And if you throttle back to stock cruise speeds you can extend the range a lot. I'd love to fly a 150 or 160 HP AA1. Yowzaa!
 
GaryO said:
There is an STC for an increased gross weight that you can get with some of the engine upgrades. From what I understand, the standard O-235 weighs the same as the O-320. That means you may actually get an increase in useful load with the engine upgrade.
Click to expand...
Close -- most of the O-320 STC's (and there are several) give you a max gross increase equal to the difference in the weight of the engines, i.e., no loss in useful load, but no increase, either.
 
Here ya go... why buy a little two seater, when for $10K or less extra you can have a really nice four seater, which costs just a little more to fly? IIRC, the cabin in the Traveller is the same size as that in the Tiger, and the extra room may come in handy sometime. You won't be carrying four adults and full gas, of course. Still, the extra room may be nice for carrying a cooler to the beach or what not, for very little extra money.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/unprotected/specs/39195.html
 
Joe Williams said:
Here ya go... why buy a little two seater, when for $10K or less extra you can have a really nice four seater, which costs just a little more to fly?
Click to expand...

Actually, that's $24,900 more than I paid for my AA1B in July.
 
Well it's official! I am now the proud owner of a 1971 AA1-A!
I can't wait to get involved with this great group of owners.
Paint is poor but mechanics are great and good flyer, so I am already working on a paint scheme for the plane.
I will get pics up next week, just thought I would share,
~Jay
 
I'm so jealous I could just.. just.. drat, I'm speechless. I guess it's time to re-visit the whole CFI thing.
 
Welcome to the ranks of the damned. Damned to wander the earth, for eternity, righting the wrongs and correcting all that espouse false negatives upon Grumman light aircraft.


Congrats!

:D
 
Anthony said:
Welcome to the ranks of the damned. Damned to wander the earth, for eternity, righting the wrongs and correcting all that espouse false negatives upon Grumman light aircraft.
Click to expand...

Anthony,

Is there a secret handshake and a decoder ring too!? ;<)

Jay,

Best of luck with your new plane. Make sure you have all paperwork secured when you fly with the canopy open.

Len
 
Can flyers of Grumman heavy aircraft become honorary members of this secret brotherhood?
 
gkainz said:
Can flyers of Grumman heavy aircraft become honorary members of this secret brotherhood?
Click to expand...

Only if your airplane requires thousands more feet to take off than other similar planes :D
 
Joe Williams said:
Only if your airplane requires thousands more feet to take off than other similar planes :D
Click to expand...


Joe. When you go to poor your milk into your Cap'n Crunch tomorrow morning, don't be surprised if you find a fetal mouse or rat in there. :)
 
Hmmm, depends on the departure runway ... for the latest model E-2, from your typical Naval Air Station, minimum takeoff distance (ground roll) at max gross T/O weight of 53,000 lbs is 1,850 ft.

From USS Bohica, the whole playing field levels out. Somewhere shortly after 300 feet or so, you're either flying or your swimming - doesn't matter what brand of aircraft you're in...
 
Congratulations! <img> You're going to love flying it! <img>
 
gkainz said:
Can flyers of Grumman heavy aircraft become honorary members of this secret brotherhood?
Click to expand...

Sure you just can't post anything about your plane on the Grumman Gang email net...you can't post about Grumman amphibians, trucks or canoes either.

Len
 
Hey Greg,

There was an E-2C at Sun 'n Fun out of Norfolk last week. Dang thang had 8-bladed props!:eek:


gkainz said:
Hmmm, depends on the departure runway ... for the latest model E-2, from your typical Naval Air Station, minimum takeoff distance (ground roll) at max gross T/O weight of 53,000 lbs is 1,850 ft.

From USS Bohica, the whole playing field levels out. Somewhere shortly after 300 feet or so, you're either flying or your swimming - doesn't matter what brand of aircraft you're in...
Click to expand...
 
Congrats Jason, i did my PPL in Travler and Tiger, Buddy had a Yankee and loved it. probabaly would have never sold it except for his Family out grew it. Enjoy, Grummans are fun to fly.
Dave G
 
Steve said:
Hey Greg,

There was an E-2C at Sun 'n Fun out of Norfolk last week. Dang thang had 8-bladed props!:eek:
Click to expand...

That's the Rolls Royce AE 2100 turbo prop at 13,000 horses, and the Dowdy Rotal prop and RGB, Awesome stuff. for an old E2A driver. (Buno 151617) T-56-8As with the Areoquip steel blade props, at 3500 horses.
 
CapeCodJay said:
Well it's official! I am now the proud owner of a 1971 AA1-A!
I can't wait to get involved with this great group of owners.
Paint is poor but mechanics are great and good flyer, so I am already working on a paint scheme for the plane.
I will get pics up next week, just thought I would share,
~Jay
Click to expand...

Congrats - the happiest day is the day you buy your aircraft! Enjoy :goofy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top