Decathlon or Citabria?

[Tired Soul]

The Boss man is considering an airplane which is a little more purpose built to do spins that your usual normal/utility spam can.
If you exclude the Extra's , YAK's , Zlin's and other "heavy" aerobatic aircraft pretty much the Citabria and Decathlon remain.

Purpose of the aircraft is to offer:

• Tail wheel endorsements
• Spin training for PPL and Initial CFI
• Unusual upset recovery course
• Just-for-the-fun-of-it-how-would-you-like-to-fly-upside-down

So nothing heavy aerobatic.
Which make and model is better then the other?
Maintenance wise which years to avoid?
Fabric wise which types to avoid?
Common pitfalls?
Insurance gotcha's?
Specifics in a pre-buy?

This is where we are sofar:
Decathlon is a slight favorite because of the O-235 Citabria.
I doubt we need a CS prop Decathlon, I think a Fixed Pitch will serve us OK for the purpose.

feel free to educate me please...

 

[mvedepo]

Go with the Decathlon. It's the perfect airplane for a mix of acro and instruction. I have given numerous people their private in mine.

Economical to own
Blast to fly!

 

[Headwind]

The Citabria's have flat bottom wing, 150hp, fixed pitch prop. Most, unless converted, have wood spar with AD for yearly spar inspections.

Decathlons have 150hp, CS prop, and the wing is better for acro.

Super Decathlon same as Decathlon, but has 180hp. That would be my choice since most of your flights will be dual. Buy new enough to avoid the wood spar.

If you like low wing aircraft the (French) Cap 10 will give about the same performance.

 

[btrthn5n5]

Agree with the above posts.

For dual, light acro flying... The Super D, hands down.

You will appreciate the extra 30hp, the CS prop decreases "gotchas" that you can hurt your engine on any downlines, the semi-symetrical wing is a big bonus for turning over. Just like the Citabria, the Super D is a baby to fly, and after about 2 hours in the Citabria you'll wish for the Super D's larger acro capabilites.

If you can be real picky, get the...

Metal spars- less headache, worry, and you get another degree or two of roll rate. (not that well cared for wood spars are bad, just one less thing to watch)

Aluminum gear- The 1950lb gross is handy to have.

Hooker Harness

If you want great paint, try to avoid the 2000-2002 years... American Champion changed the paint process then and I have seen more hairline cracks in the show up on those years earlier than they normally should.

Also, be wary of fuel tank leaks. I can think of only a handful of Super D's that DON'T or HAVEN'T had them. Check them over closely and smell for gas when you take a demo flight. If they have been fixed or replaced then your all set, most 8KCAB's have had leaky tanks in their past.

Jerry did a lot of good to the Decathlons with American Champion.

Have fun!

 

[Tired Soul]

Thanks so far guys appreciate it..

 

[HalinTexas]

Haven't done ab's in a long, long time. Flew the Super and Pitts to get some training in. I'm 6'4" the Super D and lots of room, could also fly low and slow with good vis. The Pitts was a hot rod, loads of fun, not a lot of room, some vis limitations, but not bad. Had to take out the seat pad, and when inverted, by head was grazing the canopy that couldn't be opened in flight. Excess power is always a good thing. Forgiveness of one's imperfections is also very good.

 

[Tired Soul]

We're still looking at the Super D but just realized that for aerobatics the MTOW goes down to 1800lbs iso the regular 1950lbs.
Can somebody elaborate on this?
This pretty much puts a Super D on the no-go-list.
I'm 205 so that leaves only an Italian supermodel if we take 20 gallons o'gas.
So can somebody clarify? Tried to search online but not too much info.

 

[75 Driver]

For the business end of this decision, I would personally go with the lowest fuel burn option. every gal per hr adds 5.00 min to the rental rate.

It really does not seem that you are interested in a hard core acro course. A simple early citabria that is o-235 powered with a metal spar mod recovered in Stitts should do the trick costwise. Probably will not satisfy the ego driven crowd, but makes good common business sense.

In your original post you listed some basic requirements, Spin training and tailwheel endorsements could be done at the same cost per hour as a 152. Simple loops and rolls with a few snap manuevers are well within the range of the non symetrical wing, upset training would actually be more beneficial in terms of the wing being limited in terms of inverted capability.

Give considerable thought to this aircraft being dual only, otherwise be ready for the inevitable ground loop or TDI. Consider going with a Scott 3200 or newer tailwheel.

Make sure brakes, tires, and tailwheel springs are in good working order prior to every flight. These are the assets that your instructor will need to insure recovery from heavy handed and "footed" students.

 

[Tired Soul]

Thanks, what years Citabria (Citabrick?) should I be looking for?
What are usually the gotcha's for this airplane?
Worth going for one that has the 0-360 upgrade or not?
What is the time to climb to let's say 8500' for one of these?

 

[RipCurl]

We're still looking at the Super D but just realized that for aerobatics the MTOW goes down to 1800lbs iso the regular 1950lbs.
Can somebody elaborate on this?
This pretty much puts a Super D on the no-go-list.
I'm 205 so that leaves only an Italian supermodel if we take 20 gallons o'gas.
So can somebody clarify? Tried to search online but not too much info.

With the old gear MTOW is 1800, end of story. The aluminum gear was introduced somewhere around '03-ish if I recall correctly, and it can take the extra 150lbs, but the spar can still only take 1800 lbs x 6Gs. You can fly at 1950 if you limit yourself to +5/-3. It's been a while, but I think we with big students we used to take off somewhere around 1815 lbs and planned to hit the box at altitude at 1800. That meant that I could pull all 6Gs if I needed them. I'm 150 lbs, and I could stick a 250 pounder in the front seat with enough gas to climb 6000' above the airport, do a few stalls, and maybe 5 or 6 spins, and land with 45 mins reserve, no chutes. You can play longer if you drop to a 30 min reserve. The extra fifteen minutes is a long time when you're whacking around in la-la-land at +6/-5. With chutes you'd probably be looking at yourself and a 180 lb student, depending on how far from the airport you have to get before you can start having fun. The chutes we had were 13 lbs each. I loved that airplane.

Give considerable thought to this aircraft being dual only, otherwise be ready for the inevitable ground loop or TDI.

Word.

 

[bubbers44]

Dual only in a Citabria is probably a good idea. I checked a kid out on a 5 hr aerobatics course. On his first flight he took his father up with him to show him his new talent, forgot to fasten his seat belt, did a roll which ended up in a split S when he hit the ceiling ending up overreving the engine and exceeded red line a lot. Scrambled the mags and engine, fuselage stringers were broken and the fun part was when I had to test fly it to see if the spar would stand the certified G loads.

 

[MoreDaysOff]

It's aerobatics not acrobatics

 

[bubbers44]

More, no one on this thread has called it aCrobatics but you???

 

[MoreDaysOff]

Check again. Then second, third and fourth posts use "acro."

 

[bubbers44]

I think aerobatics pilots use acro as a slang term for aerobatics. I have heard it a lot. No aerobatics pilot would call it acrobatics like in a circus. acro to us means aerobatics. More, I didn't want to offend you but I thought you misread my 5 hr aerobatics course as acrobatics course. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[jafo20]

For my two cents, I'd look at 'em on an airframe by airframe basis. A well maintained Citabria is better than a beat-up Decathlon and vice versa.

Citabrias, even with wood spars, are reliable. They're usually 15-20k cheaper to purchase than Decathlons too. That's a lot less for insurance, etc. Decathlons and Citabrias are both easy airplanes to fly with few bad habits.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I've owned 3 Decathlons and a Pitts S2C. My Decathlons were my favorite because I could let anyone, even a flight attendant, fly it from the pilot's seat. Not so with the Pitts. As far as a Citabria (Airbatic spelled backwards) it is a "limited aerobatic" airplane. The Decathlon is fully aerobatic and is 100% better for roll rate and especially because of the inverted fuel/oil system and symmetrical wing, it allows inverted flight for several minutes. The Citabria is so bad that the engine will hesitate on a roll and sometimes even in the top of a loop.

As far as the 1800/1950 weight issue, here is the story. I weigh 230 pounds and with the 1800 MGW Decathlon I owned I was almost always overweight with a passenger. I didn't like this, not for my concern of structural failure during mild acro or the gear breaking on landing, but more for some FAA guy who knows something about the Decathlon and knowing the math just didn't add up to less than 1800 pounds. So I traded that Decathlon in on the 1950 MGW model and then that problem was no longer an issue unless the FAA saw me out doing acro, could somehow see I had a passenger, knew it was me, and could find me. Not too likely. Yes, acro is not allowed in the 1950 MGW model if you're over 1800 pounds, but I know with light acro (loops, cubans, inverted flight, etc.) I would keep the g's to less than 4 or 5 which is a walk in the park for the Decathlon. The only physical difference between the 1800 and the 1950 MGW Decathlon is the landing gear which has passed the FAA required drop test to the 1950 limit. So as far as performance and acro is concerned, the 1800 MGW model is exactly the same airplane and just as safe to fly at 1950 pounds as long as you don't make a really hard landing. Of course, as I've mentioned, you always have the FAA to worry about but fortunately those guys rarely know much about such airplanes.