 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / March 2007Citabria vs. Super Decathalon
Hi all, What are the differences between the two? I have a bunch of photos of each and I'm starting to believe that perhaps the airfoil is different (i.e. the Citabria wing appears flat bottom and the SD looks to be semi-symmetrical) Is that right? I was considering covering my almost finished SD kit in a paint pattern I saw but then found out the plane I was looking at was a Citabria... Thus the consideration of the differences between the airplanes. For a few days, staring at the pictures of the two I couldn't find any physical differences except for perhaps a slight bulge in the bottom of the cowl area for the SD (which I presumed was to handle the larger motor in the SD). I realize the SD is more aerobatic that the Citabria (the SD is rated for higher negative Gs from what I've seen) but it's hard to tell them apart! At least in photos. Are than any other obvious physical differences that I'm missing??? I like most of the Citabria paint jobs better cause they are simpler and cleaner and therefore easier for me to copy using covering materials without paint and I'm lazy but want my covering job to closely resemble a real bird so I could enter some scale competitions if I wanted to. Thanks for any input/comparison between the two aircraft. Jack | Hi all, | What are the differences between the two? I have a bunch of photos of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] | | Jack 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.  SignatureJarhead > | Hi all, > | What are the differences between the two? I have a bunch of [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > 8's and hammerheads all with inverted recovery. Impossible to do in the > Citabria. RC or full scale? mk | > | Hi all, | > | What are the differences between the two? I have a bunch of [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] | RC or full scale? | mk Full Scale >The Citabria is a positive G sport aerobatic airplane as was the Cessna >Aerobat. Good for beginner loops, rolls, hammerhead stall turns and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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 http://www.americanchampionsales.com/ >>The Citabria is a positive G sport aerobatic airplane as was the Cessna >>Aerobat. Good for beginner loops, rolls, hammerhead stall turns and [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > they seem to be awfully proud of, considering the current > prices! 2007 8KCAB Super Decathlon $169,835 - at the address below. > Cheers, > jc > > http://www.americanchampionsales.com/ | >The Citabria is a positive G sport aerobatic airplane as was the Cessna | >Aerobat. Good for beginner loops, rolls, hammerhead stall turns and [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] | | http://www.americanchampionsales.com/ 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. SignatureJarhead >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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >impacting the ground. Two fatalities and a completely destroyed airplane >was the result. 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP<<<<<<<<<<<< As an A&P do you remember what the mods were on the Aerobat? The Cessna Dealer A&P said that there was more than just the use of 182 struts and the skylights. Some beefing up of the Stab and fin or fuselage? I agree on the 150 picking up speed when the nose was down. It also snapped fast too. At least for me it did. I had a hard time getting it down to just one revolution. The first one was around 2 1/2 revs, then 2 and it took several times at 1 1/2 to 1 1/4 before I was able to get it down to 1 rev. SignatureJarhead >As an A&P do you remember what the mods were on the Aerobat? The Cessna >Dealer A&P said that there was more than just the use of 182 struts and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >and it took several times at 1 1/2 to 1 1/4 before I was able to get it >down to 1 rev. 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 >>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 [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > 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 > Hi all, > What are the differences between the two? I have a bunch of photos of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jack 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fuselage. It became SkyPig after that fiasco because the trim would never > stay the same. To quote one of my friends...bad juju Hi Jim, I have one of those big Nosen Citabria lumberyards err... kits in my shop that I'll get to one of these days. I was thinking it wouldn't be worth building unless I make a Decathlon style wing for it. How did you convert yours... did you cut all new ribs? ...add on to the bottom of the existing ribs? Did you use the top of the ribs as a pattern for the bottom? I've never tried changing a wing's shape before and could use some hints. Thanks very much for any suggestions, desmobob >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Thanks very much for any suggestions, > desmobob I used the tops of the ribs as a pattern for the bottom of the new ribs I cut on a band saw. Just flattened the bottom out a little. There were 4 other modifications to the basic lumberyard, er kit. First was a change out of balsa for spruce on the lower longerons. Second was the wing was changed to a bolt on wing and the tubes discarded. Third was again in the wing...the Citabria kit has dihedral, I took it out. And the fourth change is in the next paragraph. I fought this bird for a month trying to get the incidence right in several different locations. It seems that the struts (which ARE functional so make good ones) changes the incidence. It also seems that as you make adjustments to X, Y Z and W change! In effect there are 4 different wing 'panels' that you must adjust incidence across, in addition to making the wing straight and correct to the fuselage. I finally put a big X in the cabin just behind the final window to keep the darn fuselage from shifting ( parralogarm wise) while I did battle on the incidence front. What a fine challenge that was...took 4 incidence meters and 5 weeks before I was finally satisfied it was right enough to fly. >>> The Decathalon has a semi symetrical wing and a larger cowl. I >>> converted a Bud Nosen Giant Scale Citabria into a Decathalon and [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > front. What a fine challenge that was...took 4 incidence meters and 5 > weeks before I was finally satisfied it was right enough to fly. Thanks very much. For scaring me. ;-) Good flying, desmobob >>>> The Decathalon has a semi symetrical wing and a larger cowl. I >>>> converted a Bud Nosen Giant Scale Citabria into a Decathalon and [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Good flying, > desmobob Gosh, don't let a Nosen lumberyard scare you! Just owning the kit means you are good enough to do battle, er I mean build it and modifications are the realm of a modeler rather than the checkbook flyer. Jim > Gosh, don't let a Nosen lumberyard scare you! Just owning the kit means > you are good enough to do battle, er I mean build it and modifications are > the realm of a modeler rather than the checkbook flyer. "I ain't skeered"! I'm looking forward to it, actually. Just need to find the time.... Good flying, desmobob |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.