Citabria vs. Super Decathalon

The Citabria is a positive G sport aerobatic airplane as was the Cessna Aerobat. Good for beginner loops, rolls, hammerhead stall turns and immelmans. The Decathalon had a symmetrical airfoil and an inverted oil system. This made it a much more aerobatic airplane. I watched a pilot take off, roll inverted and proceed to do rolls, loops and steep figure

8's and hammerheads all with inverted recovery. Impossible to do in the Citabria.

RC or full scale? mk

| > The Citabria is a positive G sport aerobatic airplane as was the Cessna | > Aerobat. Good for beginner loops, rolls, hammerhead stall turns and | > immelmans. The Decathalon had a symmetrical airfoil and an inverted oil | > system. This made it a much more aerobatic airplane. I watched a pilot | > take off, roll inverted and proceed to do rolls, loops and steep figure | > 8's and hammerheads all with inverted recovery. Impossible to do in the | > Citabria. | >

| > -- | > Jarhead | | RC or full scale? | mk |

Full Scale

The Decathalon has a semi symetrical wing and a larger cowl. I converted a Bud Nosen Giant Scale Citabria into a Decathalon and finished it in the factory colors of the year it was released. It flew well until I got shot down on takeoff roll at the 1996 IMAA ROG. Went over on its back and broke the rudder post and apparently loosened many stick joints in the fuselage. It became SkyPig after that fiasco because the trim would never stay the same. To quote one of my friends...bad juju

- Jim

"Six_O'Clock_High"

"Six_O'Clock_High"

Sorry Jarhead but assuming we're talking about full scale airplanes, you are incorrect. The older Citabria was rated at +5/-4 g (the new ones are only rated at -2 and are no longer called aerobatic trainers). As long as it had inverted systems, it will fly upside down quite nicely for up to two minutes (the limit of the header tank). It also made the Cessna Aerobat look like a log when doing aerobatics. In fact, I believe the only difference between the Aerobat and the standard 150 were stronger struts and a different paint job (but don't take that as gospel, I am not sure).

The older Citabria had the same engine options as the Decathlon (8KCAB), the 115 hp normally aspirated engine (now

118hp), without the fuel/oil inverted systems, or the fuel injected 150 hp engine that does have inverted systems.

They now have the 180 hp version, called the Super Decathlon and no longer offer the 150 or 160 hp version. I have quite a few hours in both of the older planes. The Citabria with the 150 hp engine could do all the same aerobatics the Decathlon could, you just had to work a lot harder at it.

The Decathlon is easier to fly inverted, since it has the symetrical wing while the Citabria has a flat bottomed - and longer by 2' - wing. You can check out the new ones - which they seem to be awfully proud of, considering the current prices! - at the address below. Cheers, jc

2007 8KCAB Super Decathlon $169,835

- at the address below.

"jc" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... | On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:15:19 -0600, "Jarhead" | wrote: | | | >The Citabria is a positive G sport aerobatic airplane as was the Cessna | >Aerobat. Good for beginner loops, rolls, hammerhead stall turns and | >immelmans. The Decathalon had a symmetrical airfoil and an inverted oil | >system. This made it a much more aerobatic airplane. I watched a pilot | >take off, roll inverted and proceed to do rolls, loops and steep figure | >8's and hammerheads all with inverted recovery. Impossible to do in the | >Citabria. | | Sorry Jarhead but assuming we're talking about full scale | airplanes, you are incorrect. The older Citabria was rated | at +5/-4 g (the new ones are only rated at -2 and are no | longer called aerobatic trainers). As long as it had | inverted systems, it will fly upside down quite nicely for | up to two minutes (the limit of the header tank). It also | made the Cessna Aerobat look like a log when doing | aerobatics. In fact, I believe the only difference between | the Aerobat and the standard 150 were stronger struts and a | different paint job (but don't take that as gospel, I am not | sure). | | The older Citabria had the same engine options as the | Decathlon (8KCAB), the 115 hp normally aspirated engine (now | 118hp), without the fuel/oil inverted systems, or the fuel | injected 150 hp engine that does have inverted systems. | | They now have the 180 hp version, called the Super Decathlon | and no longer offer the 150 or 160 hp version. I have quite | a few hours in both of the older planes. The Citabria with | the 150 hp engine could do all the same aerobatics the | Decathlon could, you just had to work a lot harder at it. | | The Decathlon is easier to fly inverted, since it has the | symetrical wing while the Citabria has a flat bottomed - and | longer by 2' - wing. You can check out the new ones - which | they seem to be awfully proud of, considering the current | prices! - at the address below. | Cheers, | jc | |

The 115 hp Citabria that I flew was not as responsive as the Aerobat. Neither had inverted systems. The Aerobat was much more agile in roll and pitch. The Decathlon I mentioned was a 150hp version, with inverted systems, that I did not get a chance to fly. It went in at a bottom of a loop that the NTSB decided that was initiated too low to complete before impacting the ground. Two fatalities and a completely destroyed airplane was the result.

Yeah, for a *trainer*! Cheers, jc

The Decathlon was offered in the 115 hp version, too, although I do not for the life of me know why, it was totally useless. The 115 hp Citabria was easier to fly than the Decathlon because of the extra wing area.

The Citabria is a pretty nice airplane with the 150 hp engine in front, although it will never compare to the Decathon for ease of maneuvering. I thought that going from the Aerobat (which I started out in) to the Citabria was like going from a tired old Ford to a Caddy. The 150 hp in the Citabria probably had a lot to do with that but the Aerobat just picked up way too much speed when the nose was below the horizon. The Citabria and Decathlon both let you know when you got going a bit too fast as the ailerons got heavy quick. But both were more graceful, I thought, when doing aerobatics, than the Aerobat.

The Decathlon I flew in went in as well. All the pilots thought it was shoddy maintenance but as the plane went into

300' of water, there was no way to prove it. The FBO insisted the pilot ran it out of fuel, something I do not believe. 3 months prior to that, the FOB owner and I got into an arguement about that lack of maintenance and I closed my account and went elsewhere. Ok, maybe I'm a little picky, since I'm an A&P, but there are limits and I believe they exceeded them to the point of being unsafe.

A few months later they had a new plane (insurance co. paid off) and I thought, what the heck, what can be wrong with a new plane? So I reactivated my account and started flying there again. On my second flight, the first being a check ride, the left landing gear leg came out from under me - fortunately, I was in the fuel pit when it did so.

My first fear was that I'd hit a taxi light or something while taxiing in. We used to do "expedient" taxi's all the time, just showing off. I hadn't felt anything but there was the left gear leg, angled forward about 30 degrees and the back of the wheel pant nearly touching the ground.

Anyway, examination of the landging gear strut attach bolt (essentially a "U" bolt) showed that it was not just cracked

90% through, the face of it was deeply rusted as well. Considering that it was only 3 hours out of it's first 100 hour inspection, it was pretty obvious the chump that was taking care of the plane missed it. Once again I closed my account and haven't flown aerobatics but only a half a dozen times since then... and that was back in the mid '80's.

Oh well, live and learn or don't live! Cheers, jc

I went on a business trip in a rental once that drove home to me the poor maintenance some FBO's provide their own equipment. The trip started out bad, and almost ended worse.

On run-up the DG tumbled, so I taxied back to the FBO and they replaced it with another that was on someone's workbench. Claimed it was fresh from an overhaul facility. It worked when I tested so I left on a 2 day trip that ended with an IFR return. When in the terminal area and following radar vectors, the DG tumbled again and I asked for an ASR approach and wished for a pastie. Of course they turned me in right behind a heavy and we all know that makes 172's roll, which mine promptly did. Once I got it upright it took a while to get the heading corrected because the natural tendency is to look at the DG which had tumbled. Nicest sight I ever saw was when I broke out on final at minimums for an ASR approach.

A few months later the IRS locked that operation up for non payment of taxes. Guess airplanes weren't the only thing not taken care of...

Jim

"Six_O'Clock_High" you are good enough to do battle, er I mean build it and modifications are

"I ain't skeered"!

I'm looking forward to it, actually. Just need to find the time....

Good flying, desmobob

Sorry bud, I've been down the tubes the last few days... anyway, in regard to the Aerobat, I don't really know - for certain - what mods were done between the stock 150 and the Aerobat. I was told by my instructor that it was just struts but I'd take that with a grain of salt.

The skylights were certainly one mod, I don't remember seeing them before the Aerobat. I believe that any mods done to the tail group were done to all 150's after about

1964, when they went to the swept vert stab and strake. I don't believe they did anything to the fuse but it's possible they did beef up the engine mount.

I never really worked much in the general aviation sector, I spent my time on the heavy iron at the airlines. I did a few years as a mechanic then went to inspection back in '95, where I stayed until my 'forced' retirement, due to a back problem - which is what's kept me off the 'puter for the last few days. One thing I can say for sure, getting old sucks. We won't even begin to talk about the pain involved! Cheers, jc