.If those two adults together weight only 218 lb, then that useful load will work, but I think you mean a payload of 450 lb, and that may not be within the reach of any of the AA-1x's. Typical full-fuel payload is under 400 lb, even on most AA-1C's, and full fuel is only 22 gallons (132 lb) to start with. AA-1C's typically weight near 1100 lb empty, and with a 1600 lb MGW, that leaves not much more than 500 lb useful load, and that translates to less than 400 lb payload with full fuel. I think you folks would either need to go on a serious diet or learn to travel with a lot less baggage to make an AA-1x work.
I'd like to see the paperwork on this -- that's an increase in MGW of over 600 lb, and I know of no approval for that. The increase with the O-320 engine STC is 5%, roughly equal to the increase in empty weight due to the bigger engine, so you get no real increase in useful load. Also, I know of no approval for 38 gallon fuel capacity as advertised -- most I know of is the two 5-gal aux tanks to give you 32 gallons, but that does not include any increase in MGW. Something is either very fishy or this is a unique field approval that I've never heard of, and there isn't much about Grummans about which I've never heard.
Not any AA-1x of any approved configuration. An AA-5A Cheetah (with the optional 51-gallon "long range" with which about 95% of Cheetahs left the factory) would be perfect, and AA-5 Traveler would be very good (37 gallons usable -- could be skosh for 350nm IFR with a headwind and an alternate required)
That's a whole different world. Make sure you understand all the advantages and disadvantages of going the E-AB route before you do that. Note that if you go the E-AB route for your IR training, there is always the problem of finding a DPE willing to give a practical test in one. DPE's do have the option to decline to fly in E-AB's, and I know several who simply do not, and others who are picky about them, reserving their decision until they personally inspect the plane.
You're not likely to find much of a Tiger for $40K, but funny you should mention the word "Traveler," as I think that would be a great fit for the OP's mission (the fuel capacity issue mentioned above notwithstanding) and you can probably find a very nice one for that price (or a cheaper one with money left over for upgrades).
But it's a lot of fun watching people compete in the Broken Tow Bar event every summer at the AYA convention as they try to push an AA-1 backwards through a twisty course without benefit of a tow bar. Regrettably, the event must be rated R for the language of the contestants.I don't know how they fly but they are not fun to move out of the way if they're parked in front of you in the hangar without a towbar. They're not really fun to push backwards with a towbar.
I agree. At a typical 8.5 gph burn rate, the stock fuel tanks give you only about 2+40 time to silence. Of course, you can throttle back to 5-6 gph and have more time aloft going at stock engine cruise speeds, and use the extra power only for takeoff and climb, so you get 3+40 to 4 hours endurance, but nobody really does that.
There is no such thing as a post-1975 AA-5 -- that's the last year they made the Traveler. The follow-on AA-5A Cheetah was introduced with the 1976 model year and the Traveler was then terminated. However, if you can live with only 4+20 endurance, I see no reason not to look at 1972-74 Travelers as well as the 1975 model, and you can probably find some good deals on AA-5 Travelers compared to the later AA-5A Cheetah which replaced it.
The long range tanks were never available on the AA-5 Travelers built 1972-75, only the AA-5A Cheetah, which were built 1976-79. While the were technically optional, about 95% of the Cheetahs left the factory with them.
The wings have a 12,000/12,500 hour life (center vs outer spar), so unless you're looking at one of those 10,000+ hour Cheetahs used by that air freight outfit, I wouldn't worry too much about that. The only other limited life components are the wing shoulder bolts at 7250 hours, but those are only $140 for all four and don't take long to replace.
I do and you do, but people who don't know the type (like the broker who posted the ad mentioned above) probably don't.
Then come down to Rockport TX next May, show us how good you are, and take home a trophy.Need more practice, I've always found it easy
Must have been a long time ago, and as you said, mid-time engine, inadequate avionics, and paint needed. Based on what I see of Grumman selling prices lately, $35K will get you a nice Traveler, a decent Cheetah, or a Tiger that needs work.
