Always wondered what the difference was between a Citabria and a Decathlon.
From a distance, they look the same.
Printable View
Always wondered what the difference was between a Citabria and a Decathlon.
From a distance, they look the same.
About thirty horsepower. Basically, the Decathalon is a beefed up and more powerful Citabria - 180hp, where the Citabria was originally 100hp, although probably most are 150hp. The other major difference is that the Decathalon has a different aerofoil for the wings, which is close to symmetrical, so as to improve inverted flight.Quote:
Originally Posted by DBT
The design, originating with Champion Aircraft as the Champ in 1944, has gone through a series of company collapses and is now apparently made by a American Champion Aircraft but no connection to the original company except they bought the designs etc from the receivers of Bellanca Aircraft.
John
My experience found it by far the easiest to fly (more accurately easiest to land and handle on the ground!) but whether this should be the criterion for 'best' when getting a tailwheel endorsement depends what you want to do with the endorsement. If you want to use it for flying one of the more difficult types, perhaps it may give you a false sense of your abilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by BJAS1961
After 70 hours on my Auster, which was nowhere near as easy as the Citabria, I found the C180 much more of a handful, to the extent that I managed to groundloop it simply by relaxing when the groundspeed was down to about 5kts on my first solo in it!
John
The reasoning was; do the initial training / endorsement on the Citabria and then move to more challenging aircraft if you have a need or desire. Apparently the Chipmunk is fairly tame so the Citabria is an appropriate choice for the endorsement.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Never having flown a Chipmunk, I can't comment on it. The major factor for difficulty in ground handling is the position of the centre of gravity relative to the main wheels - wheels well ahead of it, get even a slight turning moment on the ground, especially with the tailwheel off the ground, and things rapidly get out of hand (e.g. C180). On the other hand, wheels too close to the centre of gravity, and it is too easy to nose over (e.g. DH82A, but not a big problem as no brakes).
Reading the logbook on my C180 when I got it, and picking up some local gossip later, it seems that when serving as a workhorse in Wewak, PNG, about five years before I bought it, one of the company's pilots was demonstrating to a new hire that you can land the 180 with the brakes on without doing a noseover. He was wrong, you can if you do it on a bitumen runway. Next logbook entry was a rebuild at Archerfield. But it will stand even very heavy braking even on bitumen.
Other factors include the effectiveness of the rudder at low speed, the effectiveness of the steerable tailwheel, and the effectiveness of the brakes.
John
Chippie is a delight to fly, wide gear makes it pretty good. Most tailwheels are OK as long as your on the ball. The bad reputation of the poor old 180 is undeserved, as is the 185.
I flew hundreds of hours in my C180, and after that first solo in it had no problems, but I have no illusions that it was easy to learn. As you say, you need to be on the ball. I found the 185 was easy in comparison, probably because of the bigger dorsal fin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourgearsticks
John
Starting as the Champ, the uprated version was the Citabria (note: Airbatic spelled backwards !) This then evolved into the more capable Citabria Decathlon. Never flown any of them :(Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
BTW I have a PPL/IR 2300 Hrs mostly in PC6T and C208 :cool:
I need to update my original reply, got myself a helicopter CPL to go with the aeroplane licence just before Christmas:)
... Reckon I'm over the half-way mark... First Solo this morning. :D:D:D
The plan was to stop here...and tick it off the Bucket List (Reach a good enough standard to go up/around alone)
- Never thought I'd have so much pure fun at 60+. :p