Citabra Aerobatics?

Good thread.. I just came access a nice looking Eagle which looking for Yak's tonight..

I've had a lot of fun in our RV-6 and am looking to move up to something a little more capable..

I really like the Yak's warbird feel, but something like an Eagle would be nice.. I've only got time in an S2C and the Super D.. I have some Citab time, but it was only tailwheel training..
 
z987k said:
was your rv full ifr? Does that work well with acro?
Click to expand...

Yeh, it's full IFR..

I haven't seen any issues really. The DG will precess rather quickly it seems like of you load it up pretty good..

I'm not too rough on it.. Typical sport aerobatics.. It's a blast to split-S and roll.. It'd be a lot more fun with a C/S prop.. We've only got an O-320 with a fixed prop..

It's a lot of fun to fly and very responsive. My pops says it handles a lot like the A-4.
 
WacoFan said:
Does anyone think it makes sense to do your initial acro in an airplane that requires you to work hard? Power and exceptional flying characteristics can perhaps make it too easy. A Pitts, Extra, etc have power in abundance and amazing roll rates and vertical penetration. A Decathalon even has more power and the symetrical wing. Does learning in a Citabria or something generally create a more accomplished pilot - because they have to work harder to create a decent looking manuever and does that carry over into the better powered and handling planes - or does it simply not matter by that point? I like all the interesting acro planes, but watch John Mohr do his routine in a stock 220hp Stearman and it is an amazing thing to watch. An old friend of my Grandpa named Harold Johnson just passed away last week and fly amazing airshows in his stock 220hp Waco for years. Those guys had to work incredibly hard to get that performance.
Click to expand...

Yes to all the above, but I am slightly biased. Pretty much all the aerobatic airplanes I spend my time in are really good at slowing down & going down. It defiantly helps you appreciate a higher performance machine. There are underpowered acro planes that are simply great flying airplanes. Your clipped wing cubs, Stearman, Bucker Jungmann, Great Lakes, for example. Never flown a Waco so I dunno? Others, not so much.... They get the job done, but with little personality. I'd take a new era Great Lakes over a Super D any day.

John Mohr is the man. That sure takes a pair to want to snap roll a stock Stearman on takeoff.
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
Yes to all the above, but I am slightly biased. Pretty much all the aerobatic airplanes I spend my time in are really good at slowing down & going down. It defiantly helps you appreciate a higher performance machine. There are underpowered acro planes that are simply great flying airplanes. Your clipped wing cubs, Stearman, Bucker Jungmann, Great Lakes, for example. Never flown a Waco so I dunno? Others, not so much.... They get the job done, but with little personality. I'd take a new era Great Lakes over a Super D any day.

John Mohr is the man. That sure takes a pair to want to snap roll a stock Stearman on takeoff.
Click to expand...

A stock Waco is superior to a stock Stearman generally - four ailerons, and on the same power (220 Continental) the Waco UPF-7 is probably 15-20 MPH faster. A 450 Stearman with four ailerons might be neat but I've never flown one. The guy I mentioned that flew the Waco - Harold Johnson - flew a 1934 UMF-3. He would do a snap on take-off as well. The Waco Taperwings were the premier aerobatic ships of the late 20's and 30's.
 
Tram said:
Good thread.. I just came access a nice looking Eagle which looking for Yak's tonight..

I've had a lot of fun in our RV-6 and am looking to move up to something a little more capable..

I really like the Yak's warbird feel, but something like an Eagle would be nice.. I've only got time in an S2C and the Super D.. I have some Citab time, but it was only tailwheel training..
Click to expand...

I'm pretty biased to the round engines. Those radials and such make you feel more connected to the airplane (if that's possible)... turning the prop through, etc.. As you know, take off with the Yak/CJ is more of a long process, where you don't really take off in the Pitts... you just light the fuse and hang on.

Plus you can take your Yak/CJ to airshows for a static display, etc.

Tought choice!
 
Yeh, it is a tough choice.. There is something about an engine coughing, choking and spitting out flames while it's starting that is just cool.. :)

I'm a bigger fella - 6'2" 250, not sure how well I'd fit in the Eagle. I fit fine in the Pitts.. I could snag an S1 but what fun is aerobatics with 1 seat?

If I had my druthers, I'd just buy a T-28 and call it a day, but we can't afford to feed or keep one flying..
 
Tram said:
Yeh, it is a tough choice.. There is something about an engine coughing, choking and spitting out flames while it's starting that is just cool.. :)

I'm a bigger fella - 6'2" 250, not sure how well I'd fit in the Eagle. I fit fine in the Pitts.. I could snag an S1 but what fun is aerobatics with 1 seat?

If I had my druthers, I'd just buy a T-28 and call it a day, but we can't afford to feed or keep one flying..
Click to expand...

I've heard that one of the advantages to the Eagle was that it was more roomy for a big guy than a Pitts. Not sure if this is true or not. Go to Airbum.com to read a Pirep on the Eagle. You can also read the pireps on all the Pitts models and see if you agree with them - if you agree with the Pirep on airplanes you already know, then you can assume that you'd probably agree with the ones on airplanes you don't. I've found that I agree with him on the airplanes he's written about that I've also flown.
 
The Eagle is very roomy inside. Its a fun plane to fly even the 180hp version. Just depends what you want to do with the airplane. I would personally love to have a T-6 Texan but cant afford to.
 
I'm going to have to give the Eagle some thought..

One thing the Yak going for it is the gear.. My pops doesn't have a ton of tailwheel time and I think out of lack of it, winds up being uncomfortable in the RV.. The Eagle would only exasperate the issue..

Yak is up nice and high, trike gear, radial.. Arh, arhhh arrhhhhh!
 
Tram said:
I'm going to have to give the Eagle some thought..

One thing the Yak going for it is the gear.. My pops doesn't have a ton of tailwheel time and I think out of lack of it, winds up being uncomfortable in the RV.. The Eagle would only exasperate the issue..

Yak is up nice and high, trike gear, radial.. Arh, arhhh arrhhhhh!
Click to expand...

The Eagle is supposed to be better behaved than the Pitts, and might be better than the RV. Tricycle gear....I just have strong feelings about that....
 
Oh real planes drag theirvtails, for sure..

Pretty hard to beat the 6 for tailwheel stability, thing is like cheating.. ;)

A Yak 52TW would rock, but it's out of the cards at the moment.. Trying to stay ~$65k..
 
Tram said:
. ;)

A Yak 52TW would rock, but it's out of the cards at the moment.. Trying to stay ~$65k..
Click to expand...

What are the hourly operating costs of a Yak? I am in the market for an aerobatic bird and really like the Yak, but they just look like they would be a maintenance nightmare. Also, with many used as trainers it seems like finding a clean airplane, parts and a mechanic who knows how to work on one might be difficult.
 
While much have been made about the CS prop and higher horse power in the Super D I think one of the biggest differences was the change in the airfoil- going from an asymmetrical wing on the Citabria to a semi-symmetrical and short wing on the Super D. Throw in the inverted fuel system and the Super D actually has inverted capability compared to the Citabria.
Having flown the Great Lakes, Pitts, Sukoi, Citabria, and Super D I'm still a little partial toward the Super D.
 
Bringing it back from the dead.

There are as many variations of the Citabria/ Super D series as there are Duggars.
 
MoMatt said:
I can only speak to my experience, which isn't vast. I have about 20-30 hours of doing aerobatics in a 160 HP Citabria up in Denver (our floor was 7,000MSL). It would *do* maneuvers in that you could get the plane through a loop or a roll just fine, but it was cumbersome. It took some coaxing.

From a teaching standpoint it was great because it really required finesse and a solid understanding of the maneuver since the lack of performance wouldn't allow for any slop.

Is the Super D 180HP? besides the engine and CS prop I believe the aircraft are identical. The lack of a CS prop on the Citabria is annoying at first but you get used to it.
Click to expand...

Aircraft are NOT identical. The biggest difference is the wings on the 7ECA are not symmetric. The 8KCAB has semi-symmetric wings. Makes a huge difference in inverted flight regimes.
 
I've done a few hours of aerobatics in the 160 HP Citabria (7GCAA) To get it up to speed before starting a maneuver, you have to go into a slight dive. That's the only aerobatics I've ever done so I have no comparison, but in the aerobatics book we used to study maneuvers before briefing on a flight, in the intro it said "Aerobatics in a Citabria or similar performing aircraft is not ideal for aerobatics." The 7ECA (118 HP Citabria) you CAN do aerobatics, but it is a very poor performing aircraft to begin with with not really any more excess power than a Cessna 150 or 152 has.

That's really the only info I can give from my limited aerobatic experience, and vast Citabria experience.

A Super Decathlon however, I've heard great things about doing aerobatics in that. Never had the opportunity, but I'd love to fly one of those!
 
aobt14 said:
What are the hourly operating costs of a Yak? I am in the market for an aerobatic bird and really like the Yak, but they just look like they would be a maintenance nightmare. Also, with many used as trainers it seems like finding a clean airplane, parts and a mechanic who knows how to work on one might be difficult.
Click to expand...
Depends where you are. Where are you? I might be able to help with the "mechanic who knows..." part.
 
JustinS said:
I've done a few hours of aerobatics in the 160 HP Citabria (7GCAA) To get it up to speed before starting a maneuver, you have to go into a slight dive. That's the only aerobatics I've ever done so I have no comparison, but in the aerobatics book we used to study maneuvers before briefing on a flight, in the intro it said "Aerobatics in a Citabria or similar performing aircraft is not ideal for aerobatics." The 7ECA (118 HP Citabria) you CAN do aerobatics, but it is a very poor performing aircraft to begin with with not really any more excess power than a Cessna 150 or 152 has.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. A Citabria is a perfectly fine aerobatic platform. You're not going to compete in Sportsman with a 7ECA, but you can do almost all inside maneuvers with perfect adequacy. As far as power, people do aerobatics in gliders, which have even less power than a 150. :p

Super D is fun. Pitts is fun. Great Lakeses are fun. But don't you dare dis da Citabria.

~Foxeh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top