What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Grumman AA1A vs. RV-12

JDRhodes

Well Known Member
I really like the RV-12 concept. At the local airport yesterday, I found myself looking at a Grumman / American AA1A 2 seat Trainer / Lynx and couldn?t help but compare the two aircraft.

The most obvious difference is that the AA1 does not qualify as an LSA due to its MGTW of 1500 lbs. and it?s stall speed of 51 kts. The RV-12, of course was specifically designed to meet these requirements.

Other comparisons; AA1A vs. RV-12:
Engine: Lyc O-235 (108HP) vs. Rotax 912 (100HP)
Useful Load (typical): 493 vs. 580 lbs.
Wingspan: 25.5 vs. 26.9 feet
Usable Fuel: 24 vs. 20 gal
Full Fuel Payload: 349 vs. 460 lbs
Wing Loading: 12.6 vs. 10.4 lbs/ sq ft
Power Loading: 15 vs. 13.2 lbs /hp
Cabin Width: 41 vs. 43 inches
Cabin height: 45 vs. 41 inches
Baggage area capacity: 100 vs. 50 lbs.
Fuel location: wings vs. fuselage
Canopy Operation: slider (can be opened in flight) vs. tipper
Control System: yoke vs. stick
Cruise Speed: 132 mph vs 131 mph
Range with reserve: 350 miles vs. 458 miles
Fuel Consumption: 5.7 gph vs. 4.7 gph
Rate of Climb: 765 Ft / Min. vs. 900 Ft / Min.
Takeoff Roll: 700 Ft vs. 700 Ft.
Landing Roll: 395 Ft. vs. 525 Ft.

As you can see, the RV-12 is a LITTLE better in most categories. Arguably, a lot better in rate of climb. And ? it?s an LSA and has removable wings. But, where does the little Grumman shine?
Purchase Price: $20,000 vs. $70,000 - $80,000 :rolleyes:
 
Of course, there is also 35+ years old and engine of unknown history and old avionics vs. brand new.
 
I love the sporty handling (for a commercial plane) of the AA1A (have time in them) and the sliding canopy. Should be cheap to maintain, but remember - you can't do the work yourself. And just imagine the bureaucratic headaches if you wanted to replace the instruments with Skyview or something similar.
 
RV12 AA1A
Construction
Riveted / Glued
Designer
VANS / Northrop
Cool
Yes / Not so much

Although..... a 160hp yankme with a tailwheel kit goes pretty darn good.
 
Yankee Take-off

I owned/flew an AA-1 (original, S/N 0038) Yankee for 13 years and 775 hours before building the -12. It's a great, fun airplane to fly; in fact, my primary reason for choosing the -12 was that in the air its control forces are very much like the Yankee.
BUT: whoever told you that it will get off the ground in 700 feet, climb at 765 fpm, and land in 395 feet was smoking something REALLY good. Flying from the same airport, with the same load (me plus fuel) the -12 is off the ground in about 1/3 the space, has 50%-75% better climb rate, and lands a WHOLE lot shorter. The only way you'll stop a Yankee in 395 feet is if there's a BIG hole at 394 feet!
The Yankee's BOOK pattern speeds are 85 mph on downwind and crosswind, slowing to 80 on final and keeping that airspeed until you passed the numbers. If you slowed much below 80, you'd better be real close to the ground. My personal limits in the summer were a minimum paved field length of 2000 feet (2500 with obstacles) and 3000 grass. Like I said, I'm conservative, but I never bent the airplane!
Another point; the O-235 doesn't like 100 LL and running hot. In 775 hours I re-built one cylinder twice and two others once.
But flying with the canopy open an inch or so was nice. Maximum in-flight opening was 13 inches and there was a LOT of buffet (and a lot more drag) at that point. Still, I wish the -12 had a slider option!!
The only comparative negative I've found is that the -12 bounces around in turbulence a lot more. Lower wing loading, higher aspect ratio, and a different airfoil all make for a much sharper-edged gust response..

Wayne 120214/143WM (Ex AA-1 99DR)
 
Gotta go along with Yankee-Flyer!

The Grumman AA1A is a ground lover. The AA1B might be a little better due to the flat bottom airfoil, but still nowhere near the RV-12.
 
angle of climb is important, too. The Yankee's (lower) best rate of climb is probably 10-15 mph faster than the -12's. So you're covering a lot more ground AND not climbing as fast. That makes a big difference when you're trying to get over the trees on the hill that's a mile away. And yes -the AA1 B and C's are a lot better.

Yankee's still cool, though. It's the first airplane my Dad had when I was a kid. He canabalized the engine for his Long EZ project. Which was flown for 20 years and sold for the RV-9 project. So the Grumman is kind of the grandaddy of what we're flying now. :D
 
OOPs! Tha's right its a Bede. Northrop birthed the jerky series (PA28). How could I forget that with a piece of well casing for a spar?
 
23 years and over 2,000 hours of Yankee time for me....

Another big difference is that in the Yankee, if you pull off the power, just throw a brick out and wherever it lands, that's where you're going to go. the -12 is a sailplane by comparison!

Paul
 
I owned an AA1B when I was in college. It was a pretty marginal performer on hot days with the tired 108 HP engine it orignally had, but after I put an O-290-D2 on it was lots of fun. The O-320 powered birds are even more fun but they are pretty much single-seaters due to useful load limitations. Oh, with the bigger engine and only 20 gallons usable, every flight is a short one! But learning how to treat the Grumman nose wheel served me well when I later owned an A-model RV.

The RVs are superior to the Yankee series in almost every respect, but there is one particular area where the Grumman has the edge: You can fly them with the canopy open and locked about four inches, and they fly great that way. Better cockpit ventilation but not really windy, a big plus on hot days. With my Yankee, opening the canopy also did something to the airflow over the tail that resulted in stronger pitch stability, so I used to fly around with the canopy open as my "stability augmentation system" on cross-country trips (canopy secured for takeoff and landing, of course).

These days, I'd probably spend the same money on a nice basic RV-4... they are out there!

mcb
 
AA-1B/0-320

Hi Y'all
My name is David Mojonnier. Our AA-1B is our first airplane and we
love it. My wife and I both fly it. We put on a Lycon built 0-320 with
all the bells and whistles last April and it completely changed the airplane.

It will never be an STOL airplane for sure but it hauls the freight
compared the 0-235 versions.

Single with half fuel (16gal. We have 10gal ox fuel) 80deg. day and
I climb out 1400fpm at 100mph indicated.

No gear clean up or wheel pants and she indicates 150mph/2600rpm
at 4500msl.

Hoping to build an RV-8 or perhaps a -4 after I finish training for my
second career as an A&P.

Really appreciate all the experience that is shared on these forums.

Tailwinds to ya.

Dave
 
AA-1 series

AA-1 Yankee 108 hp 0235 C2C, original laminar flow wing, real ground lover (American Avaition)

AA1-A Grumman bought American Aviation. modified wing with different airfoil, which gave better takeoff and landing performance, more docile stall (Trainer, TR-2) (Grumman American)

AA-1B Same as AA-1A with better canopy latch, stronger gear legs, and 50 lb GW increase to compete with Cessna 150 (TR-2) (Grumman American)

AA-1C 100LL 0235 118 hp engine, dual elevator anti-servo, sliding canopy balance system, flew like a truck by comparison (T-Cat, Lynx) Amereican dropped from name (Grumman)

Best of type AA-1A and AA1-B
 
Last edited:
AA-1 Yankee Original laminar flow wing, real ground lover (American Yankee)

AA1-A First Grumman American. Modified wing with better takeoff and landing performance, more docile stall (Trainer, TR-2)

AA-1B Same as AA-1A with better canopy latch, stronger gear legs and 50 lb GW increase (TR-2)

AA-1C 100LL engine, dual tail anti-servo, sliding canopy balance system, flew like a truck by comparison (T-Cat, Lynx)

AA1B-160....the PERFECT transition into the world of RV's!! :D
 
AA1B-160....the PERFECT transition into the world of RV's!! :D

This makes me feel good! Our first plane was an AA-1B and together my wife logged about 450 hrs in it. I was even so bold as to teach her to fly in it. (It was good marriage counseling!) Ours had a stock O-235 but the Sensenich prop allowed us to turn 115 hp.
 
Grumman AA-1B vs. RV12

Grumman AA-1B vs. RV12

$20K+ vs. $80K+

Most differences have been identified.


Just a thought. Consider:

RV4 vs. RV6
$30K+ vs. $40K+
 
John is right!
The medical is eventually very important to most RV drivers.

It's a bit off topic but not too far I hope. I was looking into the RV-3 as a wonderful single seat LSA. It's light enough, it's nimble and has very low drag, so a 110hp Viking could provide a suitable level of power while keeping the cost low on gas. The only thing I see that would violate the LSA rules is the stall speed. It's close enough though to get tweaked a bit by Vans if they wanted to offer a taildragger alternative for LSA'ers. The single seat is not really a problem as most flights in that category are done solo anyway. While Sonex is now working on a cheap single seat LSA, Vans would already have it if the -3 could get a tiny bit slower stall speed...
 
LSA vs RV3

Vortex generators and wing tips may get your stall speed. A search may find discussion on this prior.

I have read about a RV9 being done as a LSA single seat.
 
I doubt if Vans would be interested, but if you build it EAB and make your own stall speed happen, as well as the rest of the parameters, you got yourself an LSA!.
 
LSA RV3

Someone may have already done a RV3 as LSA. Surely someone has looked into it. For lower stall, VG's. For limiting cruise speed, that new seninich ground adjustable prop may work if it was depitched, as for climb?
 
Years ago I was in a Grumman Lynx fitted with a cruise prop departing a high density altitude airport when the thought occurred to me that I'd just killed myself (and my girlfriend) in the plane! Ah, good times! I learned a valuable lesson about about checking performance charts that day! :eek:
 
Cubcrafters puts and artificial rpm limitation on their 180 HP LSA Cub to keep the speed within LSA limitations and the FAA buys off on it. Could something like that work for the RV-3?
 
Cubcrafters puts and artificial rpm limitation on their 180 HP LSA Cub to keep the speed within LSA limitations and the FAA buys off on it. Could something like that work for the RV-3?

CubCrafters doesn't place this limitation. Their engine manufacturer does.

You CAN do this IF you are listed as the engine manufacturer.

What would happen in court? Your guess!
 
And, in this case, I think Cub Crafters manufactures the engine? Or do they have someone else do it to their specs? Not that it makes any difference in relation to an RV-3 application. Just curious.
 
It's irrigation pipe, not a well casing spar.
The real advantage of Grummans is the honeycomb fuselage box.
I have seen that part go thru a thick stand of spruce and survive intact saving the occupants. In Canada they are eligible for OM category which makes them a real good deal.
 
Apples and oranges...

I really like the RV-12 concept. At the local airport yesterday, I found myself looking at a Grumman / American AA1A 2 seat Trainer / Lynx and couldn’t help but compare the two aircraft.

JD,
A better RV comparison for the AA-1A IMHO is the original design RV9A. When Van unveiled the RV9 prototype, it sported an 0-235 and weighed less than 900lbs. It was designed around the 0-235 to help builders save costs on engines, plus the 0-235 has a 2400 hour TBO. Very few 9's have the little 4-banger out front including Van's current prototype. Sadly, the original 0-235 9A prototype crashed en-route to SNF many years ago.

Compare an 0-235 powered 9A with an AA-1A and you will see Van's engineering prowess personified...of course the wallet comparison as you mentioned is swayed the other direction :)

From Van's website: The RV-9/9A’s efficient airframe does not need a lot of power to perform well. Low overall drag means a smaller engine can pull it along at relatively high top speeds, or, more practically, at useful cruise speeds using little fuel. We demonstrated this when we chose a 118 HP Lycoming (taken from a Cessna 152) to power our prototype. The result was an efficient airplane with respectable short field capability, excellent cruise speed (165 mph on 118 hp!), and good fuel economy.

V/R
Smokey
 
Last edited:
That little Grumman or whatever it is crazy

Today I heard as a pro called me on other frequency "that little Grumman or whatever it is" crazy. In spite of thousands of airworthy RVs general flying public is not educated enough :)
 
Back
Top