grumman AA 5
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hole somewhere
Age: 47
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grumman AA 5
Hi all
Just wondered if anyone has flown one and whats the experience like?
I did a check out on tatenhills robin and then they sold it!!
Was thinking of doing a check out in the aa5.....
Any thoughts,comments tips appreciated
Just wondered if anyone has flown one and whats the experience like?
I did a check out on tatenhills robin and then they sold it!!
Was thinking of doing a check out in the aa5.....
Any thoughts,comments tips appreciated
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Europe
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got a checkout in a AA-5 Tiger and the Cheetah a very looong time ago and flew the Cheetah several times on longer holiday trips trough Europe and I have very good memories regarding the aircraft.
Fast for only 150HP, good visibility in almost all directions, decent space (ok, for two), straight forward to fly. And you can fly with a partially open canopy, cabriolet style! No nosewheel steering but thats easy to manage and you may turn the aircraft almost on the spot.
Fast for only 150HP, good visibility in almost all directions, decent space (ok, for two), straight forward to fly. And you can fly with a partially open canopy, cabriolet style! No nosewheel steering but thats easy to manage and you may turn the aircraft almost on the spot.
I own a two seat Grumman (AA1B) and have instructed on the 4 seat AA5 series. They are delightful airplanes, IMO, with light responsive controls and noticeably faster (10 + kts) then the equivalent Cessna/Piper spamcan.
A few extra things to look for on the walk around due to the bonded construction (delamination), you need to check the nose wheel "Jesus" nut (one nut holds the whole nosewheel assembly on) and as was already mentioned the brakes have to be in good shape as there is no nosewheel steering.
In the air the aircraft rewards a light touch on the controls. You need to be on speed on the approach and the light elevator means it is easier to get into a PIO in the flare.
Useful load is OK but not overly generous so watch the MGTOW and the aircraft is sensitive to loading. Because it is short coupled it is not an aircraft you ever want to be on the aft C of G limit.
A few extra things to look for on the walk around due to the bonded construction (delamination), you need to check the nose wheel "Jesus" nut (one nut holds the whole nosewheel assembly on) and as was already mentioned the brakes have to be in good shape as there is no nosewheel steering.
In the air the aircraft rewards a light touch on the controls. You need to be on speed on the approach and the light elevator means it is easier to get into a PIO in the flare.
Useful load is OK but not overly generous so watch the MGTOW and the aircraft is sensitive to loading. Because it is short coupled it is not an aircraft you ever want to be on the aft C of G limit.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A delightful aircraft to fly. I would say slightly quicker than a C172 or PA28 with the same engine. Good view compared with the above. It feels sportier probably because the yoke has a small movement and is therefore high geared. Ultra manoeverable on the ground.
I cannot think of anything annoying about it apart for the tendancy for the canopy to leak. Consider it a 3 seater for most purposes.
D.O.
I cannot think of anything annoying about it apart for the tendancy for the canopy to leak. Consider it a 3 seater for most purposes.
D.O.
I used to wash aeroplanes as a post-retirement job/hobby. I do remember doing an AA-5 and thought something was adrift around the nosewheel area. The bolt securing the nosewheel to the fork had come "unwound" and was literally hanging by a thread. It had flown back from Shoreham like that so the pilot had a lucky break as if it had dropped off it might have been an interesting landing. I assume the "purple" glue dramas on the wing skin bonding have long been rectified?
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: spacetime
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The front seat pans are not robust enough for the job. If the seat starts moving on the ground or in flight, get the pans changed. The runners eat through the warped metal.
Also get a longlife halogen lamp for the landing light, the standard one does not last long.
Oh and another good tip- if you have trouble steering on the ground, have a look in the P1 floor well at the chain link that passes through the parking brake tube. If its not greased, it jams. Pathetic design.
Also get a longlife halogen lamp for the landing light, the standard one does not last long.
Oh and another good tip- if you have trouble steering on the ground, have a look in the P1 floor well at the chain link that passes through the parking brake tube. If its not greased, it jams. Pathetic design.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with most of the comments above, particularly BPF's.
The AA5a (150hp) lifts about 150lb payload less than the AA5b (180hp) and they respectively will give a sensible cruise around 105kts and 115kts. Both carry 5++ hours fuel, and they usually in the UK have an excellent instrument fit. The AA5b is a little twitchy in the flare, but apart from that they handle and perform very much the same.
Of the common spamcans, just about my favourite to fly. I particularly like the handling, slide-back canopy, low instrument panel and that people can get in and out both sides. Also the castoring nosewheel makes it very forgiving in crosswinds. A good stable platform in cloud, and a great view out the rest of the time. The light bulbs seem to fail more often than on most other types, and I've yet to fly one with a consistently serviceable autopilot.
P
The AA5a (150hp) lifts about 150lb payload less than the AA5b (180hp) and they respectively will give a sensible cruise around 105kts and 115kts. Both carry 5++ hours fuel, and they usually in the UK have an excellent instrument fit. The AA5b is a little twitchy in the flare, but apart from that they handle and perform very much the same.
Of the common spamcans, just about my favourite to fly. I particularly like the handling, slide-back canopy, low instrument panel and that people can get in and out both sides. Also the castoring nosewheel makes it very forgiving in crosswinds. A good stable platform in cloud, and a great view out the rest of the time. The light bulbs seem to fail more often than on most other types, and I've yet to fly one with a consistently serviceable autopilot.
P
Last edited by Pilotage; 11th Feb 2013 at 16:22.
They're not all the same!
I agree with all the above posts. With 45 hours experience of the AA5s in my log may I add that the original AA5 Traveler was greatly improved by Roy Lopresti who redesigned the cowling and cooling baffles, did a detailed drag cleanup and MOST importantly enlarged the horizontal stabiliser/elevator. Park an AA5 Traveler next to an AA5A Cheetah or AA5B Tiger and you will observe that the horizontal tail is approx one third larger on the AA5A or B. This improved the elevator effectivness - feels quite different (better) than the original AA5 Traveler. The AA5B was my favourite (180hp engine) AA5A Cheetah next (150hp) with the original AA5 Traveler not quite as nice to fly.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Malmesbury
Age: 49
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have owned 2 Tigers. I personaly wont fly anything less than 180hp, mostly beause I fly with 2 or 3 pax and at least 1/2 fuel. The tiger will cruise at 120kts @ 2600RPM and burn ~36ltr/hr.
They are definatley a number plane, especially for landing. If you get the number right they are a dream to land, get them wrong and you either float forever, bonce hard or rip the nosewheel off. With all landings in any AA5 (unless it hasa tail wheel conversion) you want to keep the nosewheel up as long as possible. With all my take offs I treat them as short grass field takes offs just so I can get the nosewheel up as soon as possible.
They are a very responsive machine, easy to get in an out of in all 4 seats. basically go for it if you have a chance to own one.
I am selling 2 shares in mine
They are definatley a number plane, especially for landing. If you get the number right they are a dream to land, get them wrong and you either float forever, bonce hard or rip the nosewheel off. With all landings in any AA5 (unless it hasa tail wheel conversion) you want to keep the nosewheel up as long as possible. With all my take offs I treat them as short grass field takes offs just so I can get the nosewheel up as soon as possible.
They are a very responsive machine, easy to get in an out of in all 4 seats. basically go for it if you have a chance to own one.
I am selling 2 shares in mine
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hole somewhere
Age: 47
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grumman AA 5
Thanks everyone, i knew i would get a thorough response with everyones experience here....
Ill check it out next time the weather and my day off eclipse
Thanks again ill pop back when i have had a go in it
Ill check it out next time the weather and my day off eclipse
Thanks again ill pop back when i have had a go in it
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did 30 or so hours on BBUE about 5years ago before Tatenhill bought it following an engine fire.
Its a nice old thing , being an early '73 AA5 Traveler' without the baggage door.
Contrary to what others have said the smaller tailplane of the AA5 as aposed to the bigger taliplane on the 5A and B, IMHO handles much better.
All AA5's like loads of runway so just don't go short stripping in it and you will be fine.
They handle like a proper aeroplane should, nice and precise. they also sideslip lovely, although if you don't nail the approach speeds it will float and float....
Enjoy
Its a nice old thing , being an early '73 AA5 Traveler' without the baggage door.
Contrary to what others have said the smaller tailplane of the AA5 as aposed to the bigger taliplane on the 5A and B, IMHO handles much better.
All AA5's like loads of runway so just don't go short stripping in it and you will be fine.
They handle like a proper aeroplane should, nice and precise. they also sideslip lovely, although if you don't nail the approach speeds it will float and float....
Enjoy
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: purley
Age: 70
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with all the above having flown, both the later 160hp Cheetah and 180hp Tiger. But if I had hangar to keep it dry, I would rather have a Robin DR400/180 or 160, both of which I have owned. They both have more carrying capacity and are faster than the AA5's. More fun to fly but not a stable or as good a platform in bumpy weather or cloud. But great fun for just poling around the sky with a stick rather than control wheel. Especially good in a dogfight with any Cessna or Piper 
One lovely Tiger I used to fly was written off by a pilot who PIO'd the nosewheel
The usual Tiger accident starts with it's not wanting to settle down on the runway (by a pilot who eschews crunching the nosewheel) followed by a late goaround with insufficient climb to clear obstacles.
Remember that approach speeds are predicated on full gross weight and are simply too fast after a long flight with low tanks. Pull out the calculator and adjust:
root(landing weight)/root(max gross) x book approach speed.
Oh yes, two average males in winter clothing + one hefty male + full tanks > max gross
The usual Tiger accident starts with it's not wanting to settle down on the runway (by a pilot who eschews crunching the nosewheel) followed by a late goaround with insufficient climb to clear obstacles.
Remember that approach speeds are predicated on full gross weight and are simply too fast after a long flight with low tanks. Pull out the calculator and adjust:
root(landing weight)/root(max gross) x book approach speed.
Oh yes, two average males in winter clothing + one hefty male + full tanks > max gross
