Decathlon or Citabria?

[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.