Thoughts on Grumman AA-1B/C safety?

S

samiamPA

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 23, 2020
Messages
199
Display Name
samiamPA
Any thoughts on the safety of the AA-1B/C? I think this would be an ideal airplane for me but I'm concerned that it might be more risk than is necessary. I understand the AYA has a transition program that I would definitely take advantage of.
 
I owned an AA1-B and I loved it. I was a low hour pilot at the time and it was my first airplane I ever purchased. I never had any issues. When you say more risk than necessary are you talking safety or maintenance or what?
 
Curious on your question as well. I've always heard they were easy flying, great planes.
 
Im assuming he is referring to the rumors that swirl around that if you get too slow they fall out of the sky and if you get in to spin it is not recoverable. I think that was mainly the AA1 due to the wing design but the AA1-B was a great little plane. I have the original O-235 with 108HP so it was lethargic on climb but it would outrun a 152 in level flight on less fuel. I has always wished I have the O290 or O320, that would be an amazing plane.
 
Yeah, I was referring to the higher stall speed and spin issues. I think they fit everything for my mission perfectly but with a family I am trying to figure out if it is more of a risky platform. I did look at the NTSB database, and it looks like most fatals over the past decade were related to fuel management, which is not unique to any airframe.

It helps to hear that actual owners do not find them "squirrelly."
 
I loved it, not squirrely at all and I used to fly with my kids. The fuel thing I can see because the fuel level in the sight gauge is jot completely accurate due to angle of the plane and turbulence. I had a fuel flow 450 which helped alot.
 
In what way would an AA-1B/C be "risky"? It is a basic, 2-seat trainer. The A, B, and C models have stall strips on the leading edge that makes the stall more benign that in the original AA-1 wing. These are very fun, sprightly handling aircraft with full bubble canopies that will cruise at 108 kt on 6 gph. Payload is very limited with full fuel (two normal size adults plus a toothbrush). I flew an AA-1A for four years, mostly solo, but occasionally for fun trips with another person. Fly by the POH and they are pussycats. Definitely get some transition training. They are not the same as Cessnas, but not "risky" aircraft.

The A and B models use the 108 hp O-235-C2C, which is one of Lycoming's "bulletproof" engines. The C model uses the 115 hp L2C engine, which is a high compression version limited to 100LL.
 
samiamPA said:
Yeah, I was referring to the higher stall speed and spin issues. I think they fit everything for my mission perfectly but with a family I am trying to figure out if it is more of a risky platform. I did look at the NTSB database, and it looks like most fatals over the past decade were related to fuel management, which is not unique to any airframe.

It helps to hear that actual owners do not find them "squirrelly."
Click to expand...

Spins are prohibited in the AA-1X series. Spins are not a problem if you are not deeply stalling your airplane in uncoordinated flight. Stalls in the ABC models are benign, more like a mush. The AA-1 aircraft will slip like no tomorrow with their big rudder if you need to get down fast.

Fuel management couldn't be simpler. The fuel gauges are sight tubes. If you mess up your fuel in an AA-1X, you are totally clueless. Using a stopwatch, after 3 hours, you better be over an airport.

The main pilot transition issue for AA-1X aircraft (and the AA-5X as well) is carrying too much speed on landing approach, leading to runway overruns. Fly by the POH. I carried 75-80 mph on final (no more) for normal landings. Short field landings (70 mph) and you can stop it in two runway lights.
 
samiamPA said:
It helps to hear that actual owners do not find them "squirrelly."
Click to expand...
Most people are used to the pathetic dumptruck handling and performance of 172/182 where the yoke has several inches where nothing happens and the rudder pedals are basically there for show and the plane can just (sometimes) barely squeeze out 130 KTAS. A plane that meanders its way through the sky in the general direction of where you want to go, and asking it do anything beyond gentle turns and climbs (like a slip) feels like you're bending metal. A truly awful plane that creates sloppy pilots.

So when they fly something that actually responds to control inputs, like a Grumman Tiger (et al*) people will say they're unstable, "squirrely", etc. and rumors abound about spins, being "unforgiving" etc. This is also why folks have issues transitioning to really anything else once they've gotten used to flying 172/182
 
Tantalum said:
Most people are used to the pathetic dumptruck handling and performance of 172/182 where the yoke has several inches where nothing happens and the rudder pedals are basically there for show and the plane can just (sometimes) barely squeeze out 130 KTAS. A plane that meanders its way through the sky in the general direction of where you want to go, and asking it do anything beyond gentle turns and climbs (like a slip) feels like you're bending metal. A truly awful plane that creates sloppy pilots.

So when they fly something that actually responds to control inputs, like a Grumman Tiger (et al*) people will say they're unstable, "squirrely", etc. and rumors abound about spins, being "unforgiving" etc. This is also why folks have issues transitioning to really anything else once they've gotten used to flying 172/182
Click to expand...

I own a 182P and love it for what it does. I have to agree with the value of cross-training in different aircraft. The first time I flew a DA40 with only 25 hours of training at that time, I was pleasantly shocked how minor of a control input maneuvered the aircraft over a Cessna.

At cruise speed I had to merely think where the plane should go, and it went. Forearm resting on my thigh and just squeezing the stick would steer the plane. It was wonderful.

As a student pilot at the time, the first handle perspective Tantalum mentioned helped me understand the characteristics of a Cessna training plane.
 
Last edited:
jd21476 said:
Im assuming he is referring to the rumors that swirl around that if you get too slow they fall out of the sky and if you get in to spin it is not recoverable.
Click to expand...
And it's an OWT as to the original "slick-wing" AA-1, as well.

I instructed primary, pre-solo students in several AA-1s when they were new. One of my primary students bought serial number 7 from our used-airplane line.

The original AA-1 does have a higher stall speed and sharper stall than the AA-1A/B/C, but it also cruises faster. It is an excellent trainer for someone intending to move up to high-performance, high-wing-loading types that require attention to airspeed on final.

If the Yankee could not have recovered from a spin it would never have been certified. Contributing to the OWT about the Yankee's spin characteristics is the old video floating around of NASA spin tests of the prototype AA-1 Yankee in the 1970s. What is not often mentioned is that the test airplane was modified to explore the outer edges of spin aerodynamics, not necessarily to evaluate the production Yankee itself. In fact, according to an AOPA Air Safety Foundation article, the NASA study compared spin recovery in the Yankee to the Piper Arrow:

But recovery from a spin is a far different matter, and takes much more altitude, even with skilled pilots. A NASA study done in the late 1970s proved that the average altitude loss in spins done with a Grumman American AA-1 (Yankee) and a Piper PA-28R (Arrow), two popular single-engine aircraft, was nearly 1,200 feet. (It should be noted that neither aircraft is approved for spins, but NASA was testing them for possible improvements in spin handling characteristics.)

In the Yankee, it took an average of 210 feet for entry, 340 feet for stopping the turn, and another 550 feet for recovery, for a total of 1100 feet. In the Arrow, the figures were 140 feet for entry, 400 feet for stopping the rotation, and 620 for recovery, for a total of 1160 feet.​

In 1978 Grumman American advertised a "spin package" option (fuselage strakes and ventral fin, as shown on N1551R in the photo below) for the AA-1C Lynx, but I don't know if any airplanes were delivered to customers with this option.


aa-1b_t-cat.jpg
 
NordicDave said:
I own a 182P and love it for what it does.
Click to expand...
Everything's a compromise. Two doors, good useful load, decent operational flexibility. But the handling is just something that really sticks for me. Flying should be some combination of both fun and utility - although everything is relative to the eye of the beholder
 
Tantalum said:
Everything's a compromise. Two doors, good useful load, decent operational flexibility. But the handling is just something that really sticks for me. Flying should be some combination of both fun and utility - although everything is relative to the eye of the beholder
Click to expand...

It's still is a truck! Nice flying truck, but it is a truck.
 
There is nothing unsafe about flying any Grumman. They teach far better habits than Cessnas and go faster. Just respect the dynamics of flight and don't try and land them at 45 knots or cross the fence fast. An AA1X will burn C150 gas and outrun most 160 HP 172s - think about that for a second.

NordicDave said:
It's still is a truck! Nice flying truck, but it is a truck.
Click to expand...

Yep. I don't get why people buy big trucks for daily use either, but some do.
 
Year ago I ferried an AA1B from Florida up to Maine. I was at max gross as I took along another person and some baggage. Other than using a lot of runway to take off and cruising at around 110kts it was a nice little plane.
 
Building time back in the day (1979) I rented an AA-1B in a large block (can't remember how much). I also had time in AA-5B. The -1B was fun to fly, fast enough and more than safe. If it fits the mission I would not hesitate. Then again, I go everywhere at 90 mph now so 110 kts seems more than 1/3 faster.
 
I learned in the AA1B/C great trainers and IMHO safe. My guess is you are thinking of the AA1 which had a semi semttrical wing so was less stable.
 
The AA-1x airplanes are great airplanes. On a long xc they can be exhausting to fly but they are light on the controls so it isn’t bad. My longest xc was 7.5 hrs down the east coast with 2 fuel stops and an approach in actual. I also had thunderstorms and about an hour in IMC total. All of that to say it is a capable aircraft if you are current and aren’t carrying too much.
 
Ok, that's juvenile. All AA1x airplanes are delights to fly. While aircraft prices are climbing in 2022, this airplane remains a bargain. The big engine version is worth the attention, although the stock engine airplane teaches you good manners. I had both the 108 and 160 hp engines, and the difference is remarkable.
 
samiamPA said:
Any thoughts on the safety of the AA-1B/C? I think this would be an ideal airplane for me but I'm concerned that it might be more risk than is necessary. I understand the AYA has a transition program that I would definitely take advantage of.
Click to expand...
I'm not understanding what your concern is. I have seriously considered picking up a Grumman or even an old Piper Tomahawk just to have a low cost (both purchase and maintenance costs along with insurance costs) to fly as I work through all of my ratings over the next couple of years and from everything I can find they have an extremely good safety record.
 
samiamPA said:
Yeah, I was referring to the higher stall speed and spin issues. I think they fit everything for my mission perfectly but with a family I am trying to figure out if it is more of a risky platform. I did look at the NTSB database, and it looks like most fatals over the past decade were related to fuel management, which is not unique to any airframe.

It helps to hear that actual owners do not find them "squirrelly."
Click to expand...
The A series was actually designed that way on purpose as the other trainers on the market it would compete with were so easy to correct in a spin stall the pilots were not really having to "fly their way out of the problem".

This a plane was produced that required more direct action to recover on the part of the training pilot but they were far from unrecoverable.
 
I'd say the proof is in the insurance pudding. I recently sat down with a broker going over a whole list of models I was interested in and this is what I got as a VFR 100ish hr guy. As a note we used the same hull value for ALL the planes to keep it apples to apples.

AA1 and Tomahawks are somewhat higher than fixed gear 172/PA28's, but not drastically so. Surprisingly the "safest plane ever built" Ercoupes are higher than all of the above.

Pretty much any SLSA will be at least double the above mentioned planes, and anything experimental will be significantly higher as well.

And forget about retracts.

If AA1/5 or PA38 were dangerous or crash prone even just by poor pilotage, the insurance industry would be all over them.

Now the one thing to keep in mind that could make the AA1 "dangerous" is that they're not known as load haulers. As a rather "portly" gentleman I personally steer away from them even though I otherwise like them. I just want to have enough useful load left over to haul more than a quart of oil.
 
Todd82 said:
I'd say the proof is in the insurance pudding. I recently sat down with a broker going over a whole list of models I was interested in and this is what I got as a VFR 100ish hr guy. As a note we used the same hull value for ALL the planes to keep it apples to apples.

AA1 and Tomahawks are somewhat higher than fixed gear 172/PA28's, but not drastically so. Surprisingly the "safest plane ever built" Ercoupes are higher than all of the above.

Pretty much any SLSA will be at least double the above mentioned planes, and anything experimental will be significantly higher as well.

And forget about retracts.

If AA1/5 or PA38 were dangerous or crash prone even just by poor pilotage, the insurance industry would be all over them.

Now the one thing to keep in mind that could make the AA1 "dangerous" is that they're not known as load haulers. As a rather "portly" gentleman I personally steer away from them even though I otherwise like them. I just want to have enough useful load left over to haul more than a quart of oil.
Click to expand...
Personally I'm an Extra shirt, two pairs of shorts and 3 extra pairs of socks guy myself as my minimum traveling load. Both the Tomahawk and Grumman AA1 can handle that load plus myself, a guest or instructor and a full load of fuel so other than long cross country expeditions they'd do fine.
 
I owned an AA-1C with an O-320 for a couple years, bought it in 2019 with 80 hour and a wet PPL. It was a great plane, sometimes I regret selling it. I mostly sold it because of useful load and desire to have a taildragger.

Fly it by the book and it is a safe airplane. I did not do the AYA transition, but I have heard great things about it. If you buy the plane (and maybe before), join AYA. It's a great, relatively easy to maintain plane. Flying wise, pay attention to your speeds and remember your flaps are decorative. Maintenance wise, the A&P needs to think about the glue, and sometimes the rigging can be be interesting (partially because out of rig they fly sportier than a Cessna does in rig).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top