Any one ever flown/owned a grumman traveler

[dirk82]

I am looking at buying a share in a grumman traveler to do my cpl in. Any one have any experiances with these aircraft? And good bad or ugly to say about them?

[Alpha Crit]

I flew the Yankee, Traveller, and Tiger many years ago. Great little airplanes, from my recollection. Free castering nose-wheel, so all steering is by differential braking, but you'll get on to that quickly. The stall is more aggressive than typical training planes. Be sure to stop any yaw with rudder before applying any aileron to level the wings, or you'll be on your back.

[Shiny Side Up]

Great little airplanes, should be good for time building. Speedier than your average four seater good for going places. Like all the little Grummans they don't slow down much and the flaps don't do much in that regard either. A few less horseys than the Cheetah so it doesn't climb as well but you only notice the difference if you're heavy or at high d.alt (between the two that is). Not anymore difficult to land than any other fixed gear tricycle four seater. Bit of a pain to manhandle if you don't have the tow-bar.

[cgzro]

Just going from memory but I believe they had a rather high fatal accident rate, at least compared to spam cans. I recall it being attributed to a more aggressive stall/spin but can't find the reference, probably NTSB somewhere. Probably wise to get good stall/spin awareness/recovery training and keep the ball centered on that base to final turn. Lots of folks will skid a plane around that turn to tighten it up rather than increase the bank angle or better yet just go around. You can get away with murder in most spam cans.

[Old Dog Flying]

I've flown them all and own an AA1A Trainer. The Traveller has the same 0-320 as the Cheetah although some have the 160 HP STC and there are no bad habits with the Traveller. They are placarded against intentional spins but the stall is pretty much a non-event with yaw easily controlled with rudder. I've instructed on them as well and they have no bad habits.

Maintenence wise there are few ADs to worry about but you do have to be watchful for delamination. The aircraft is glued together! Parts are available through a few suppliers in the States but mostly tagged used parts with only a limited suppiy of PMA'd or old/new parts available. I can provide you with contacts for parts.

Overall a good time builder that will blow by a Cherokee 140 or C172 with ease.

[Changes in Latitudes]

I've flown them all and own an AA1A Trainer. The Traveller has the same 0-320 as the Cheetah although some have the 160 HP STC and there are no bad habits with the Traveller. They are placarded against intentional spins but the stall is pretty much a non-event with yaw easily controlled with rudder. I've instructed on them as well and they have no bad habits.

Maintenence wise there are few ADs to worry about but you do have to be watchful for delamination. The aircraft is glued together! Parts are available through a few suppliers in the States but mostly tagged used parts with only a limited suppiy of PMA'd or old/new parts available. I can provide you with contacts for parts.

Overall a good time builder that will blow by a Cherokee 140 or C172 with ease.

I'd agree with that for sure. I enjoyed the speed, sliding canopy, and handling of the traveler very much. I didn't find it as comfortable as a 172, but for 2-3 hours, it was tolerable.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Just going from memory but I believe they had a rather high fatal accident rate, at least compared to spam cans. I recall it being attributed to a more aggressive stall/spin but can't find the reference, probably NTSB somewhere. Probably wise to get good stall/spin awareness/recovery training and keep the ball centered on that base to final turn. Lots of folks will skid a plane around that turn to tighten it up rather than increase the bank angle or better yet just go around. You can get away with murder in most spam cans.

An old wives tale relating to the very first 2 place Yankees. Despite the fact there is a big "spins Prohibited" placard some stupid pilots deliberately entered a spin and let the spin go past one turn. The result was the spin went flat and the pilot gene pool was improved. The other issue with the very first 2 place Yankees was the rather unforgiving wing section. The AA1A and all subsequent 2 seaters and ever model of 4 seater had a reprofiled leading edge which softened the stal break I own a AA1B and use it as the family run about. It is exactly like a C 150 except it cruises at an honest 100 kts, has lots of elbow room, outstanding visibilty due to the full canopy, and delightfully light responsive controls. I flown all the 4 seaters , Traveler, Cheetah, and Tiger and all are outstanding aircraft. Incidentally the 4 seaters have the lowest fatal accident rate of any aircraft in their class including the C 172.

For more information go to the type club "American Yankee Association" at aya.org

[Rowdy]

I've flown the tiger and quite enjoyed it. Quite quick, same costs as the 172 and the vis is great! I'm sure the range of grummans are all compareable!

[cgzro]

Well I have never flown or spun one, just going by what's out there in the way of historical information. Here is one example. I will see if I can find the actual NTSB stat somewhere. Anyway here is discussion of the stat and below some stuff on spins and the reason for the spins prohibited placard. etc.

from: http://www.grumman.net/cgrcc/aa1.html

Here's what Yankee buffs don't like to talk about: accidents. The AA-1 series has historically had a very bad safety record. Although the AA-1's accident rate has improved significantly over the years (as has all of general aviation's), the latest news is still bad: an exhaustive Aviation Consumer study of all AA-1 accidents from 1976 through 1984 reveals a total accident rate of 14.6 per 100,000 aircraft hours, and a fatal rate of 3.2. Although this is better than it used to be, it's worse than average for two-seat aircraft. The Cessna 150/152, for example, had a total accident rate of 10.0 and a fatal rate of 1.1 - barely a third of the AA-1's.

And reportedly from the test pilots ...

Buzzing was a major killer of AA-1 pilots; nearly 20 percent of AA-1 fatalities resulted from low-altitude high-jinks gone awry. Obviously, the pilot deserves most of the blame for buzzing accidents, but the AA-1's sporty aura no doubt encourages pilots to try buzz jobs, and the plane's tendency to lose speed rapidly during maneuvers and to stall abruptly (especially the hot-wing airplane) make buzzing far trickier in the AA-1 than in other aircraft. Several fatal AA-1 stalls also occurred after engine failures, and the overall rate of fatal stall accidents was double that of the Skyhawk. In the early days of the AA-1, spins were the number one killer. Through 1973, the Yankee had a spin fatality rate five times higher than any airplane then in production. (The factory prototype AA-1A, in fact, was lost in a spin test.) The FAA launched a special investigation of the Yankee's spin traits, and concluded that, although it barely met the letter of the certification regs, there was a "safety of operation" problem with the airplane. (The final version of the report, by the way, had the reference to a safety problem expunged after the then-president of American Aviation, Russ Meyer - now Cessna chairman - put pressure on FAA higher-ups.) An AD was issued in 1974 requiring a big red "Spins Prohibited" placard, and the word eventually got out to the pilot community that the Yankee could be a killer in a spin. As a result, spin accidents have declined dramatically in recent years Comments one long-time AA-1 instructor, "In the early 1970s, when my ignorance still prevailed, I did three-turn spins and put pre-solo students through one-turn spins. . . however, a long conversation with Grumman test pilots told me that, prudence was the better part of valor, and I stopped doing them."

[Rowdy]

Didnt two mount royal instructors enter a flat spin in one intentionally.. resulting in a rather sizeable splatter on the ground way back in the day?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Since the original poster was asking about the traveler (ie the AA5) I don't really see the point of second hand comments about problems with the original AA1's . IMO as a actual owner of a AA1B and with experience in all models I do not think they have any dangerous flying characteristics. I was incorrect in my earlier post as the fatal accident statistic which was from Aviation Consumer magazine, was actually applicable to the AA5B (ie the Tiger), not the Traveller. This article noted that the Grumman Tiger fatal accident rate was only 13.5 percent of all accidents vs the overall GA average for all types of GA aircract which varied from 25 to 45 percent of all accident. Since the airframes for all the 4 seat varients are very similar I would guess that thsi statistic is also applicable to the Traveler. Bottom line do not believe the old wives tales......

[Old Dog Flying]

I agree with BPF. Having instructed in all of the Grumman American models in cluding the original AA1 with the "fast" wing, I can only surmise that the realignment of the pilot gene pool was not the fault of the a/c type.

As for the two instructors in the Calgary crash, the new guy worked for me at YMJ Flying Club as an instructor and after leaving the CAF wanted to keep his rating current applied to a well known school at Spring Bank..which had an arrogant idiot for a CFI...I knew him well. It was the CFI that put the a/c into a full spin against the wishes of the "new guy"...from which they could not recover as the thing went flat. The CFI did not survive, the "new Guy" did and I got the full story from him about a year later.

The Traveller does not have the same stall/spin characteristics as the AA1 series due to the fuel tank placement. The AA1s have a tubular spar as does the Traveller but in the AA1s, it is also the fuel tank while the 4 place a/c all have standard in-wing tanks as per the Cherokee and others.

The AA5 is a good, safe aircraft...and a hell of a lot more fun to fly than the other brands

[dirk82]

thanks guys, this was exactly what I was looking for. As long as its a good time builder and something I can take on trips thats what Im looking for.

[cgzro]

As I mentioned above, I'm not an expert on these models and just going from past accident statistics. Pilot skill and individual models make a huge difference of course. Hell, there have been many a Pitts spin into the ground with TWO CFI's in them.. and trust me a Pitts will recover from an upright or inverted spin beautifully if you move the stick and rudder properly.

Anyway here is an interesting clue ...

The Traveller does not have the same stall/spin characteristics as the AA1 series due to the fuel tank placement. The AA1s have a tubular spar as does the Traveller but in the AA1s, it is also the fuel tank while the 4 place a/c all have standard in-wing tanks as per the Cherokee and others.

Thats really intersting. That tube spar is what, 8 inches in diameter. That means that fuel can go from one wing to the other fast .. well that is gonna create one hell of a change in angular momentum. Basically thats a machine that wants to stay spinning once a hundred pounds or so shifts from one wing to the other.

[Old Dog Flying]

The fuel tanks in the AA1 series carry 12 US gallons each and they run from the root rib to the tip rib. There is a slip fit larger tubular carry through in the fuselage but there is no fuel carried in it.

There are baffles in the spar/tanks but all it takes is once around with partial fuel load, the fuel goes to the tips uncovering the intake fuel line and with this situation the engine quits at about the time the flat spin developes. The horizontal tail blanks off the rudder and without airflow...well just kiss it all goodbye.

Barney

[N2]

Just make sure you check to see if "purple passion" bonding agent was used during construction and if it was I would have it check over very carefully.

[corroded_camshaft]

I have to post a comment here. I own an AA1 Yankee since 07 and it was the first plane I purchased with about 120TT at the time, coming from the 150/152/172 world. I had absolutely no problems with the plane.

On the accident side of things, I've recently "completed" a thorough listing of all Grummans* (AA1, AA1A, AA1B, AA1C, AA2, AA5, AA5A, AA5B, AG5B, GA7, from American Aviation, Grumman American, Gulfstream American, American General, Tiger Aircraft). The database has about 5250 aircraft. I've gone through the databases for the NTSB, FAA, TC, TSB, CAA, and AAIB during the process and got data from accident reports in the US and Britain mostly (as I recall I didnt find anything in TSB pertaining to Grummans, but the TSB database was also quite primitive).

I havent been around with Grummans since they came out in 1969, for that you'd have to talk with Garner Rice or David Fletcher at Fletchair in Texas, or Ken Blackman at Airmods NW in Washington, but from what I was able to discover, these are the trends in accidents:

1. The majority of all accidents occurred before 1979 (at least, in the USA).
2. Prior to 1979, there was between 4-10 accidents per month in the USA.
3. The majority of all accidents were of type pilot error (I grouped the accidents in four types: pilot error, mechanical failure, other, and undetermined)
4. Accidents seems to be equally spread 1/3 takeoff, 1/3 cruise, and 1/3 landing.
5. Most accidents during takeoff had a probable cause of lifting off too early, or stalling. Either because of pilot error, taking off on an improper field or direction, or improper training (ie: not accelerating in ground effect)
6. Most accidents during cruise had a probable cause of fuel starvation. Of those, most as I recall were of partial fuel starvation (ie: not switching tanks, improper management)
7. Most accidents during landing had a probable cause of bouncing or improper flare.

I cant yet back the above with hard numbers as A) I still have a lot of data to collect, and B) with the data I do have, I have not yet compiled the numbers.

More interesting "facts" (based on what I have found. I hadnt compiled this yet so Im doing it while posting) The numbers:

-BUILT-
AA1: 461
AA1A: 470
AA1B: 680
AA1C: 211
AA2: 2
AA5: 834
AA5A: 900
AA5B: 1323
AA5C: 1
AG5B: 136
GA7: 115

-DESTROYED-
AA1: 23
AA1A: 24
AA1B: 48
AA1C: 10
AA2: n/a
AA5: 19
AA5A: 15
AA5B: 14
AA5C: n/a
AG5B: 3
GA7: 0

Again note, this is not entirely actual, its based off what I was able to discover to this point, Im still researching, so the actual real numbers are likely quite a bit more. Its also worth noting there were at times several discrepancies between the NTSB and FAA databases, on the US side of things.

Im curious, of the people who posted here saying they own a Grumman, who is part of the AYA?

[Big Pistons Forever]

I joined AYA when I got my AA1B in 2000. I would highly recommend joining ($35 US/yr) as it has a wealth of great info on maintaining and operating the AA1/5 series of aircraft.

[Old Dog Flying]

I was a member from 1996 til Sep 2001 and quit over all of the whining and personnal attacks by some of the AYA elite. I first flew the AA1 in 1969 and kept current ever since. The "Alley Cat" is all I fly now and it is a fun machine.

Barney