February 8th, 2015 - Anne Arundel, Maryland





Sources:http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/maryland/2015/02/08/small-plane-crash-near-tipton-airport/23081791/

Seems the crash occurred shortly after take off and went down into the woods.

Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen said the aircraft was a Grumman American AA-1, and that it went down a half-mile from the runway after departure.

Here is an interesting link about that plane. I always viewed that plane with a bit of caution.
http://www.aviationconsumer.com/sample/AGAC-AA-1.html%20Overview%20of%20AA1

The article notes:

But there's a raft of caveats facing anyone considering the purchase of an AA-1. This is an airplane that, though marketed as a primary trainer, is not well suited for the task when compared to more docile designs like the 152 or Tomahawk. It has handling and performance quirks that make it an airplane to be approached with caution.

also...

A 1971 paper written for the SAE by American's chief engineer, William Seidel, said, "The flight characteristics of the original airplane were, in general, quite bad. The aircraft presented poor stall characteristics which resulted in sharp rolls to the left or right during a stall. Aileron control power was low, resulting in the inability to land the aircraft safely with moderate crosswind components. Static longitudinal stability was low, resulting in low stick forces and high loadings.".

Had a AA-1 screw up on landing at my home airport a few months ago... He tried to power out of it but wound up hitting a tree with the right wing tip... It did a flat cartwheel ripping the right wing off on a sage brush and wound up backwards in the bushes... Rudder, stabilator's and one elevator are the only external parts not bent or beat to hell.... Could only open the canopy about 7 inches because the fuselage is bent.... Guy that owns it is 83.... He squirmed himself right out of that narrow opening... Still have what's left of it moved onto my property trying to part out what we can for the guy..

Brian

I have heard bad things about the Yankee, but never flew one. While getting my teaching certificate at Northern Arizona University, I instructed in the Grumman American AA1-A. It had evolved from the AA-1 and was the two place trainer, at that time, and it flew very well. Like all short wing airplanes, the rate of descent was very high when slow and at low power. The solution was to use considerable power to allowing and approach slow enough not to scare the instructor. Also, it climbed best at a very small pitch up attitude in the Flagstaff area in the spring and summer. It climbed as well as a C-150, but required a much higher speed to do so. It was slick, like a Mooney, so it developed speed well. Like a Cherokee, it mushed down significantly before stalling. Aileron and rudder control were both fine. What I liked about the airplane was that it was a very good airplane to indoctrinate the idea that airplanes will not necessarily climb and that when pulling back results in a very poor rate of climb, pushing forward often gets better results. I didn't like the light, castering nose wheel. The airplane would not handle off airport operations except in smooth dry lake beds.

I'm pretty sure the later models got an updated wing because of the poor stall characteristics of the original.

NASA did some experimenting with semi-span drooped leading edges on an AA-1 wing way back that seemed to make a significant difference. There's a Wikipedia article I found on it that's pretty interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_edge_cuff

CamTom12 wrote:I'm pretty sure the later models got an updated wing because of the poor stall characteristics of the original.

NASA did some experimenting with semi-span drooped leading edges on an AA-1 wing way back that seemed to make a significant difference. There's a Wikipedia article I found on it that's pretty interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_edge_cuff

NASA conducted a whole series of flight tests on several light general aviation aircraft, including a Yankee. A major focus of these tests was to evaluate stall and spin characteristics and modifications that might change those conditions.

The airplanes were equipped with spin chutes, and had moveable ballast weights that could be moved fore and aft in flight to change CG.

In those tests, the Yankee was spun repeatedly, and many of those spins were not recoverable. One thing they tried was to install a small "bat wing" triangular piece, at the wing root on the trailing edge of teh wing, in an attempt to smooth air flow over the tail. Turned out spins with that mod were ALL unrecoverable.

The life of a test pilot.

I highly recommend Rich Stowell's book, "The Light Airplane Pilot's Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness" wherein the NASA test pilot in charge of these flight tests recounts what was learned from them.

You can order a copy of Rich's book at his web site: http://www.richstowell.com/

Which web site, by the way, is a rich source of information in itself on the subject of high angle of attack flight.

I highly recommend flying with Rich if you have the chance....and he now lives in McCall, ID.

MTV

I took my first ever student from 0 to his private license in his own AA1-B. As I remember we were both learning to fly it for the first few hours. I can concur with all that has been mentioned so far. I would also add that this airplane was a great trainer for somebody that planned on moving up to bigger and heavier stuff like jets or an Aerostar or something with a heavy wing loading. It was not very forgiving in terms of improper power and speed management. I think a pilot trained in a Yankee would have a much easier time transitioning to something heavy compared to C-150 or tomahawk. I learned in a C-152 and would have rather trained in the Yankee, looking back from where I am now. After all proper power and speed management makes one a better pilot no matter what they are flying especially in the backcountry.

Mike;

I think he is in Cascade, at least one of the last times I talked with him.

soaringhiggy wrote:Mike;

I think he is in Cascade, at least one of the last times I talked with him.

His plane has been based in Cascade. He's been building a house in (or just outside) McCall, and they moved into it this last November.

MTV