Capitaine wrote:
I’ve just been looking at an AA5A Cheetah for sale with 11,500 hours. From AOPA “The only concern to watch for is a 12,000-hour wing spar AD, but it’s unlikely most aircraft will reach that flight time.” Does anyone know a rough idea of the cost to replace a spar?
Aha, that reminds me of London flats with 5 years remaining on it’s lease 
Capitaine wrote:
Does anyone know a rough idea of the cost to replace a spar?
As far as I know you don’t replace the spar, you replace the wing. There appear to be some outfits in the US who have a supply of wings for this purpose.
The other thing I wonder is if under ELA1 this lifetime limit is actually enforcable. If the airplane is in a great shape, then why. If it’s the one I am thinking of, then having to change the wing would be a shame.
On the other hand, there is a Traveller Project for sale for 11000 in the UK as well. Quite possibly, the wings are compatible, but you would end up with less fuel available. There also is a well known Traveller with a newly repaired engine and brand new prop, the case has been talked about in this forum. It should be fairly trouble free now, but needs a bit of avionic upgrade. The Traveller is about 5-10 kts slower than the Cheetah and has less fuel capacity, otherwise they are pretty much identical. The Cheetah is an upgraded Traveller with LoPresti Mods and 50 USG tanks.
Listen to this :
A bit long but definitely worth your time. Super good information from a smart owner.
I wonder what @Scenic_Flyer did?
I’ve just been looking at an AA5A Cheetah for sale with 11,500 hours. From AOPA “The only concern to watch for is a 12,000-hour wing spar AD, but it’s unlikely most aircraft will reach that flight time.” Does anyone know a rough idea of the cost to replace a spar?
I have flown the AA-1 (not the AA-1A), the AA5A (not the AA5), the AA5B and the AG5B (a technically successfull 1993 revival of the Tiger by another company).
The AA-1 needs attention (not unlike the Tomahawk), whereas the 5’s are both benign and pleasant to fly. In fact it might be one of the best handling aircraft I have flown.
The warnings about field performance are relevant. I compared the book performance of the AG-5B to the AA-5B, and although they are basically identical aircraft, the take-off and landing figures are 25-30% higher in the AG-5B book than in the AA-5B. In reality I have not been able to detect any performance difference. I would presume that the old manuals have optimistic figures, while the AG-5B’s manual is produced under more stringent rules (GAMA rules?).
Still, I routinely used the AA-5B on 550 m grass strips with three people.
One gotcha in the AA-5s: I have twice had to abort a landing in a state of confusion. On both cases the mike cord had pushed the flap switch on the floor slightly, just enough to move it into the follow-up-UP position, so that the flaps retracted during final approach without me having touched it, and both times making me believe that I had for some reason misjudged the approach badly. The switch moves much to easily, and although the flaps are small and not overly effective, raising them during final approach shows that they do work when down.
The AA5 and AA5A are not really airplanes for mountain flying, as they don’t climb very well and have a service ceiling of around 12000 ft
I had a pax flight from Glenforsa in an AA5. I liked it. Scottish mountains don’t reach the altitude of many US airfields, so I wouldn’t worry about the power. Maybe avoid the shorter runway at Max AUW when the Kirkwall temperature is over 35C.
G-BDFY has been at Edinburgh for almost 29 years – and has been handflown quite a lot in solid IMC on an IMCR by at least one pilot. If you GINFO her you might be able to get info from the owners.
I’ve flown and worked on both types a fair amount, and like them both. Certainly the AA5 is a natural progression from flying a Tomahawk.
Before owning an AA5, familiarize yourself with maintenance/repair requirements, replacement parts availability, and insurance costs. The AA5’s are largely glued together. This is okay for production, but complicates repairs which may be required later. The Tomahawk is straight forward to repair, things like a dented leading edge. Make sure you understand what will be involved if you dent a leading edge on the AA5, or a careless passenger punches a hole in the fuselage side climbing in with a “carry on”. There are clubs for AA5 owners (I happened across an Australian one whose website was great). They will put a happy spin on the type, but will also have some real world wisdom on keeping them alive. I have heard unhappy stories of waiting very long periods to find an expensive replacement wing, because relatively minor damage could not be repaired.
No one like to buy a plane thinking about what they will do when it is damaged or needs repair, but this pre planning is a vital part of responsible aircraft ownership. How many planes sit unairworthy at an airport, because the owner cannot arrange/afford repairs? Once you know all of these back stories, and understand how you would manage such situations, you’re ready to make your decision. You’ll no longer just be thinking about how it flies, but how you keep it alive too!
Thanks for all the advice and tips everyone, they will all be considered when making a decision!
Cheers :)
Exchanging a Tomahawk for a AA5 seems like a pretty nice upgrade. The AA5 is a very nice airplane, fairly economical to operate and it has 4 seats as opposed to two.
The Traveller is the first of the AA5 series and therefore the pre- LoPresti airplane. It is about 10 kts slower than the Cheetah and has only 36 USG fuel capacity. It has a more than decent payload for the class with around 260 kgs with full tanks and will travel about 120 kts at 7.5 gph. It can be modified to use Mogas. Range is limited due to the small tanks, so I’d expect about 400 – 430 NM range with reserves. It will be happy to operate from 500 m hard surface or 600 m grass runways. Basically, it will do most of what a C172 or Warrior will but will fly considerably faster.
The AA5 and AA5A are not really airplanes for mountain flying, as they don’t climb very well and have a service ceiling of around 12000 ft.
The main difference between the AA5 Traveller and the AA5A Cheetah is that the latter was optimized by Roy LoPresti. The result was a very similar airplane than the traveller but one which would fly up to 130 kts and have an optional fuel capacity of 51 USG, with which it would gain a respectable range of up to 650 NM or 7 hours.
Compared to the Tomahawk, the AA5 is certainly the better tourer and it does have the option of taking more people or baggage. It is also faster. So if the airplane is all right, engine fine, pre-buy inspection ok and you are happy with what the Traveller can offer, I’d say go for it.
Two observations. The Traveler has a small tailplane and runs out of up elevator in the flare, so you need a trickle of power. This was fixed in the Cheetah which has a bigger tailplane. Other than that, the flaps are failry ineffective and you have to work on speed control as these are slippery aircraft.
