savage@rainbo.DEC (Dennis DTN 282-2614) (08/03/85)
================================================================================ I am just about to finish up the private ticket and go on down for the test and someone has spoken to me about getting a Grumman AA1A. This is sure one jazzy looking plane with a full compliment of instrumentation for a seem- ingly good price but I have a few questions... Being exposed only to a C-172 I am wondering what kind of flying machine the Grumman is in comparison. I realize the low wings should exhibit a more enhanced float due to ground effect, but I can't seem to get anything else except from the seller (who is upgrading to a Mooney), as to how it flies. So if any of you out there have some thing I should know before jumping in I would sure appreciate it. I also think some sort of regular reviews of some of the more popular private aircraft would be a good thing for this news group. Thanks in advance for any help... Dennis Savage - Digital Equipment Corp. ================================================================================
dbp@dataio.UUCP (Dave Pellerin) (08/05/85)
I flew a Grumman AA1C for a little while, and I thought it was great! The sliding semi-bubble canopy is neat, and that coupled with the stubby little wings makes you think you're in a little fighter! The flying qualities are pretty good; much faster roll than the 172, better visibility. Beware of the glide, though; after flying the 172, you will be amazed at how fast the plane will drop on final. Ground handling is another story, however. There is no nosewheel steering on the Grumman, and the rudder is quite ineffective at taxi speeds, so brakes must be used (proverbial 'pig on ice'). - Dave Pellerin -
rl@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Robert Langridge%CGL) (08/05/85)
In article <3421@decwrl.UUCP> savage@rainbo.DEC (Dennis DTN 282-2614) writes: > > I am just about to finish up the private ticket and go on down for the >test and someone has spoken to me about getting a Grumman AA1A. This is sure >one jazzy looking plane with a full compliment of instrumentation for a seem- >ingly good price but I have a few questions... > > Being exposed only to a C-172 I am wondering what kind of flying >machine the Grumman is in comparison. I realize the low wings should exhibit >a more enhanced float due to ground effect, but I can't seem to get anything >else except from the seller (who is upgrading to a Mooney), as to how it flies. > > So if any of you out there have some thing I should know before jumping >in I would sure appreciate it. I was hoping someone with more recent experience with the AA-1 would reply, my 18 hrs in type were 1972-4, but I enjoyed flying the plane so I recommend giving it serious consideration. The low wing, sliding canopy configuration is a lot of fun, and it cruises about 15 kts better than a C-150. It is a slippery beast compared to the C-172, the "flaps" are next to useless, and the castoring nose wheel can be exciting, so a detailed check-out with an instructor well-acquainted with the aircraft is strongly recommended. We had no major squawks, but you should obviously check out the AA-1 maintenance history very carefully. In case you're wondering why I only had 18 hrs in the AA-1 when I liked the plane, our other Princeton University club plane was a Beech A-23 Musketeer. (Four seats and REAL flaps :-) > I also think some sort of regular reviews of some of the more popular >private aircraft would be a good thing for this news group. I agree, and if anyone has experience with any of the RAF plastic canards I'd be interested to read their comments. --|-- *~~~~~~~~\bob/~~~~~~~~* ^ ^ Bob Langridge ...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!rl (UUCP) Computer Graphics Laboratory 926 Medical Sciences rl@berkeley (ARPA) University of California San Francisco CA 94143 Phone: +1 415 666 2630
notes@harpo.UUCP (08/06/85)
I have flown the Grumman Yankee which I believe is the early version of the AA1A. It is a nat airplane and reminds you of a small fighter plane. However on approach if you let the speed get low, it sinks like a rock. Irv McNair
daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (daver) (08/10/85)
>...................................., the "flaps" are next to useless,
Actually, the flaps allow you to make your approach at a lower angle of attack,
allowing you to see the runway over the cowling. While not serving as an air
brake as on the 150 or 172, the flaps greatly simplify landing the AA1, which
can be tricky if you're used to Cessnas.
Dave Rabinowitz
hplabs!hp-pcd!daverbarrett@hpcnof.UUCP (08/21/85)
What is the difference between tha AA1A and the AA1B? Are they similar planes? I really liked the ground steering of the TR-2 with the differential braking. It drives me nuts to try to make a tight ground turn in the Cessna 152. I also liked the fact that no trim correction is needed when flaps are raised or lowered on the TR-2. Also, the plane has nice roll charactoristics and doesn't feel as mushy as the cessna's do in a bank. But, it DOES drop like a rock with idle power, full flaps, and too slow an airspeed. Dave Barrett hplabs!hpfcdc!barrett
cfiaime@ihnp3.UUCP (Jeff Williams) (08/27/85)
Wasn't the difference between an AA-1A and AA-1B in the size of the horizontal stabilizer? If memory serves me correctly, the AA-1B (late Grumman production) used the Cheetah/Tiger stabilizer. Let's see, the AA-1 was the first production Yankee, the AA-1A had the different airfoil. Probably the AA-1B was the tail. Jeff Williams ihnp3!cfiaime