Grumman GA7 question

[pilotmiketx]

If you want to keep $50K in the bank, you could always spring for a nice Apache. You won't have any choice, but to build time.

 

[Steve]

If you want to keep $50K in the bank, you could always spring for a nice Apache. You won't have any choice, but to build time.

I'ts possible that the 50k i save could end up being spent on MX, money that I wont get back when i sell it. At least with the GA7 if i can find a nice one i'll be able to cash out at what I put into it.

btw, from all that ive seen the words nice and apache don't really work well together

 

[pilotmiketx]

I've seen a couple of "nice looking" ones, but really wouldn't wish that plane on my enemies. The one I used to fly tried killing me several times.

A Twin Comanche is probably the best buy in a light twin. Fast and super efficient, which is nice with fuel prices being what they are.

 

[USMCmech]

Thanks for the info bigD. Do you know anything about the airframe? Ive read that it is bonded (glued) together and has almost no rivets, is this correct. I though I read something about an AD on the glue a few years back.

Grumman planes were "bonded" rather than rivited in many areas, the tiger and cheetta are as well. This type of construction offered several trade offs verses rivets. Fewer parts, lower construction costs, suposedly less corosion, and suposedly lower weight. In the end it came out fairly even in light planes with not a real advantage.

Quite a few airliners and jets use this nowadays, the 737 has a lot, the ATR has a ton.


Bonded construction wouldn't worry me by itself, just make sure you take it to a mechanic who has some experiance with Grumman light planes and their unique features.

 

[Jim]

That's weird, I took my instrument check ride in California in a GA7 with a N-number of 7436A in 1987. I just went to the FAA website to see if this plane was still in California and that N-number belongs to a Cessna since 1991. I guess someone bought the plane and changed its N-number, or that Cougar is no more.

Anyway, it was a nice flying plane. I seem to remember we had to put ballast in the cargo compartment with 2 in the pilot seats and a full tank of gas to keep the forward CG within limits.

 

[siucavflight]

I fly one as well, and got me ME in a Duchess BE-76

The GA7 flies better than the Duchess, much more docil during an engine failure, due to that huge rudder. Vmc is actually below Vso. The engines are counter rotating.

I flew it for 3.0 yesterday and put 44 gallons in it. This might be a little conservative though due to the fact that we were practicing engine outs.

 

[bigD]

The engines are counter rotating

You sure about this? The one I flew had two O320-D1D's on it. I don't think Grumman built other GA-7's any differently.

 

[siucavflight]

You sure about this? The one I flew had two O320-D1D's on it. I don't think Grumman built other GA-7's any differently.

You are right, I was thinking about the Duchess, the Cougar is not counter rotating, damn it is too early in the morning, nice catch.

 

[BoilerUP]

Do you fly that GA7 in the Chicago area owned by the flying club? I've seen that one down in LAF a time or two being flown by some Ninety Nines members.

Ron Levy on the AOPA boards has owned a GA7 for years, that might be a good place to look for info if you are an AOPA member.

 

[ms6073]

I know parts are a lot harder to find, making them more expensive. But it didn't seem to be a very troublesome airplane.

Parts may be a problem for the Cougar as to my knowledge, Fletcher Aviation in Houston (http://www.fletchair.com/) is one of only a few companies left with PMA for parts (like engine and flight control linkages) for the Gruman aircraft like the Cougar.