experience with Super Decathlon ?
Pegase Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
experience with Super Decathlon ?
Anyone has experience with the Super Decathlon ? minus points especially , handling compared to a PA18 ?
many thanks
(considering one )
many thanks
(considering one )
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I loved it. Reasonably comfortable, good range, aerobatic.
Minus points. Has to be hangared adding to running costs, spring steel undercarriage made some of my interesting landings extremely interesting. I don't think I ever managed a three pointer and found I landed better wheeling it on.
The one I flew was in Denver and the power to weight ratio with 180hp and a C/S prop made hot and high very manageable.
With tundra tyres a really good all rounder. I'd have one if I could get one.
SND
Minus points. Has to be hangared adding to running costs, spring steel undercarriage made some of my interesting landings extremely interesting. I don't think I ever managed a three pointer and found I landed better wheeling it on.
The one I flew was in Denver and the power to weight ratio with 180hp and a C/S prop made hot and high very manageable.
With tundra tyres a really good all rounder. I'd have one if I could get one.
SND
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you about to buy one?
If you want to make a comparison between the Super D and a PA18 you will have to define what you want to do with it. They are essentially built for two different purposes, so to define that will be your starting point.
The Super Decathlon is an aerobatic trainer and the PA18 is built to fly low, slow and land/take-off on short, rough strips. You can do that with a Decathlon as well to some extent, but the lack of flaps, and the positioning of the spring steel undercarriage makes it slightly less efficient and sturdy than the PA18.
The Super Decathlon has a somewhat restricted payload. There is an option to increase the weights by changing the gear, however that only affects the utility category and not the aerobatic category. This is probably the main negative issue with the Super D.
When it comes to pure handling, it doesn't have any minus points. It's a really lovely aircraft and very agile. Comparing it to most common aerobatic trainers it will beat most of them. The 180hp C/S with the inverted oil/fuel system lets you do anything. (Outside loops included). Wing profile is very close to being fully symmetric which makes inverted flying really manageable. It's very light on the controls and has a descent roll rate.
If you want anything more agile you will have to go for a Pitts or similar.
I don't agree with Niall that it's tricky to land it. Neither wheel landings or three pointers are difficult. I do about every second landing as each. I wheel it on the long tarmac runway where I vacate somewhere far at the end. But I always three point it at the short and rough grass strip I regularly visit.
I could say a lot more about the Dec's, so please ask if you like! But define your question a little bit more, and it'll be easier to be more precise.
If you want to make a comparison between the Super D and a PA18 you will have to define what you want to do with it. They are essentially built for two different purposes, so to define that will be your starting point.
The Super Decathlon is an aerobatic trainer and the PA18 is built to fly low, slow and land/take-off on short, rough strips. You can do that with a Decathlon as well to some extent, but the lack of flaps, and the positioning of the spring steel undercarriage makes it slightly less efficient and sturdy than the PA18.
The Super Decathlon has a somewhat restricted payload. There is an option to increase the weights by changing the gear, however that only affects the utility category and not the aerobatic category. This is probably the main negative issue with the Super D.
When it comes to pure handling, it doesn't have any minus points. It's a really lovely aircraft and very agile. Comparing it to most common aerobatic trainers it will beat most of them. The 180hp C/S with the inverted oil/fuel system lets you do anything. (Outside loops included). Wing profile is very close to being fully symmetric which makes inverted flying really manageable. It's very light on the controls and has a descent roll rate.
If you want anything more agile you will have to go for a Pitts or similar.
I don't agree with Niall that it's tricky to land it. Neither wheel landings or three pointers are difficult. I do about every second landing as each. I wheel it on the long tarmac runway where I vacate somewhere far at the end. But I always three point it at the short and rough grass strip I regularly visit.
I could say a lot more about the Dec's, so please ask if you like! But define your question a little bit more, and it'll be easier to be more precise.
Pegase Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks both .
Crankshaft, we're looking at an all rounder, training, aerobatics but aso glider towing. Towing will be its major use, we need 180 HP and speed ( to tow a Fox aerobatic glider) travel will be its least usage.
Any experience with towing with it ?
test flying one tomorrow .
Crankshaft, we're looking at an all rounder, training, aerobatics but aso glider towing. Towing will be its major use, we need 180 HP and speed ( to tow a Fox aerobatic glider) travel will be its least usage.
Any experience with towing with it ?
test flying one tomorrow .
Last edited by ATC Watcher; 1st Oct 2015 at 15:07. Reason: correction
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I currently fly both a Super Cub and a Super Decathlon.
Cub is agricultural and docile but a fantastic STOL machine, Decathlon is an Aerobatic trainer, far more responsive and quite a bit more slippery compared to the Cub with a wobbly prop to play with and I suggest would be a good mid point stepping stone from the Cub to something like a Pitts.
I find speed control is far more critical in the Decathlon especially given the lack of flaps, 5mph too fast and it wont slow down easily, 5mph too slow and it drops like a stone. Lovely machine to aero, just leave it at 25/25 and its perfectly happy.
Cant think of any real vices other than the speed control......
Regards
UA
Cub is agricultural and docile but a fantastic STOL machine, Decathlon is an Aerobatic trainer, far more responsive and quite a bit more slippery compared to the Cub with a wobbly prop to play with and I suggest would be a good mid point stepping stone from the Cub to something like a Pitts.
I find speed control is far more critical in the Decathlon especially given the lack of flaps, 5mph too fast and it wont slow down easily, 5mph too slow and it drops like a stone. Lovely machine to aero, just leave it at 25/25 and its perfectly happy.
Cant think of any real vices other than the speed control......
Regards
UA
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never towed with a Decathlon even though I have lots of towing experience with pretty much everything else. The Decathlons are pretty rare here and only a few of them have the towing equipment still in place. The one I fly had it removed at some stage long time ago.
Based on that I would make an educated guess about the characteristics of towing with it:
The constant speed prop should give a very good acceleration. A cub would probably come of ground earlier (especially on a softer field) if using the flaps for take-off. Therefore I guess the compared take-off distance would be dependent on the actual surface. If it's critical you should try to test fly both the Cub and the Super D at your own or a similar field.
I don't know what climb rates would be if you compared them. The Super D has a spectacular climb rate when flying solo but I would not try to guess what it's like when towing. They have very different wing profiles, however the Decathlon has an advantage in the constant speed prop that can give you a very efficient fine pitch for climbing.
As Unusual Attitude says: Speed control is essential in a Super D. The dive and approach following the tow will have to be much more planned than in a Super Cub. In the cub you can keep pretty high speeds up until approach. If you then pitch up slightly to lose the speed you can extend the flaps and still need power to maintain profile and speed in the end. The Super D is much more critical when it comes to energy management. I'd say that you maybe need to be a little bit more careful in who you select to tow in a Dec. On the other hand if there is only a handful of you, and you are all co-owners and/or fairly experienced pilots there should not be any problem.
I've done quite a lot of training in Super D's (and Cubs as well).
The Super Decathlon is quite easy to learn tail wheel techniques in. Most students get the hang of it fairly quickly. It has less nose up attitude and better forward visibility in three point landings than the Cub and I think that's why they learn quicker. (I don't know if other instructors would agree, but thats my experience).
However, as an instructor I have significantly less forward visibility from the aft seat in the Dec due to the approach attitude. (The lack of flaps makes the approach attitude very much nose-up). I know of at least one landing accident due to this.
It's not an easy choice between both of them, but if you have even the slightest wish for an aerobatic capable aircraft I would definitely recommend the Super Decathlon. However if you're never going to do any aeros, then the Cub would probably marginally beat the Super D on most other aspects.
Just to add also that a constant speed prop is significantly more expensive to maintain than the fixed pitch on the Cub.
Based on that I would make an educated guess about the characteristics of towing with it:
The constant speed prop should give a very good acceleration. A cub would probably come of ground earlier (especially on a softer field) if using the flaps for take-off. Therefore I guess the compared take-off distance would be dependent on the actual surface. If it's critical you should try to test fly both the Cub and the Super D at your own or a similar field.
I don't know what climb rates would be if you compared them. The Super D has a spectacular climb rate when flying solo but I would not try to guess what it's like when towing. They have very different wing profiles, however the Decathlon has an advantage in the constant speed prop that can give you a very efficient fine pitch for climbing.
As Unusual Attitude says: Speed control is essential in a Super D. The dive and approach following the tow will have to be much more planned than in a Super Cub. In the cub you can keep pretty high speeds up until approach. If you then pitch up slightly to lose the speed you can extend the flaps and still need power to maintain profile and speed in the end. The Super D is much more critical when it comes to energy management. I'd say that you maybe need to be a little bit more careful in who you select to tow in a Dec. On the other hand if there is only a handful of you, and you are all co-owners and/or fairly experienced pilots there should not be any problem.
I've done quite a lot of training in Super D's (and Cubs as well).
The Super Decathlon is quite easy to learn tail wheel techniques in. Most students get the hang of it fairly quickly. It has less nose up attitude and better forward visibility in three point landings than the Cub and I think that's why they learn quicker. (I don't know if other instructors would agree, but thats my experience).
However, as an instructor I have significantly less forward visibility from the aft seat in the Dec due to the approach attitude. (The lack of flaps makes the approach attitude very much nose-up). I know of at least one landing accident due to this.
It's not an easy choice between both of them, but if you have even the slightest wish for an aerobatic capable aircraft I would definitely recommend the Super Decathlon. However if you're never going to do any aeros, then the Cub would probably marginally beat the Super D on most other aspects.
Just to add also that a constant speed prop is significantly more expensive to maintain than the fixed pitch on the Cub.
ATC Watcher,
Good observations from Crankshaft and Unusual Attitude. I'll chip in with my view. I have lots of towing time in both flapped and un-flapped Citabrias and in Scouts, which are non-aerobatic, long-winged, 180 HP flapped Citabrias.
I've have flown Super Cubs on wheels and floats, but I have never towed with one. However, I have been towed by Super Cubs and in my experience, the 150 HP Super Cub performs on a par with the 180 HP Scout, presumably due to the lighter weight. Neither of them are as good as a Pawnee, with its extra power.
So I'm guessing that the Decathlon, with its smaller, symmetrical wing, would probably not perform as well as the Super Cub.
In terms of tail-draggers, Citabrias/Decathalons and Super Cubs are both easy to fly with no vices, although as always, fly the aircraft from startup to shutdown. They will bite if you don't pay attention.
Concerning the Decathalon specifically, I think it is the wrong aircraft if your primary mission is glider towing. The wing is going to give you a longer ground run, but the key point against it is the lack of flaps. Flaps on a glider tug allow you to increase drag after release, thus allowing a decent descent rate while maintaining a reasonable amount of power to avoid shock-cooling.
In a Decathalon or an un-flapped Citabria, you either have to take a long time descending or reduce power and run the risk of cracked cylinders. O-360s are notorious for cracked cylinders, even with careful handling.
A general piece of advice for any tow-plane is that constant-speed props are not required. Fit a fine-pitch seaplane prop and save a lot of money on maintenance. The draw back to that is that cross-country speeds are reduced somewhat.
A final thing to look for in Decathalons is the elevator cables. A friend of mine had a share in a Decathalon and one of his partners discovered one day that he had no elevator control. He landed using the trim, which is relatively easy to do and after landing, he discovered that the battery had been leaking during inverted flying and had eaten through the elevator cables!
Good observations from Crankshaft and Unusual Attitude. I'll chip in with my view. I have lots of towing time in both flapped and un-flapped Citabrias and in Scouts, which are non-aerobatic, long-winged, 180 HP flapped Citabrias.
I've have flown Super Cubs on wheels and floats, but I have never towed with one. However, I have been towed by Super Cubs and in my experience, the 150 HP Super Cub performs on a par with the 180 HP Scout, presumably due to the lighter weight. Neither of them are as good as a Pawnee, with its extra power.
So I'm guessing that the Decathlon, with its smaller, symmetrical wing, would probably not perform as well as the Super Cub.
In terms of tail-draggers, Citabrias/Decathalons and Super Cubs are both easy to fly with no vices, although as always, fly the aircraft from startup to shutdown. They will bite if you don't pay attention.
Concerning the Decathalon specifically, I think it is the wrong aircraft if your primary mission is glider towing. The wing is going to give you a longer ground run, but the key point against it is the lack of flaps. Flaps on a glider tug allow you to increase drag after release, thus allowing a decent descent rate while maintaining a reasonable amount of power to avoid shock-cooling.
In a Decathalon or an un-flapped Citabria, you either have to take a long time descending or reduce power and run the risk of cracked cylinders. O-360s are notorious for cracked cylinders, even with careful handling.
A general piece of advice for any tow-plane is that constant-speed props are not required. Fit a fine-pitch seaplane prop and save a lot of money on maintenance. The draw back to that is that cross-country speeds are reduced somewhat.
A final thing to look for in Decathalons is the elevator cables. A friend of mine had a share in a Decathalon and one of his partners discovered one day that he had no elevator control. He landed using the trim, which is relatively easy to do and after landing, he discovered that the battery had been leaking during inverted flying and had eaten through the elevator cables!
Pegase Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys , bit of feedback ;
Got the aircraft last friday, flew nearly 4 hours with it this week end and also made 6 high altitude Glider tows with it.
Everything said here is correct, beautiful handling, easy to fly , forward visibility better than the PA18, wider landing gear , better suspension ( more firm) and tail wheel good performance on basic aerobatics, . But ....
Very thirsty engine and towing performance is not good. Ok you got 80 MPH which was good to tow the Fox with 2 in it . ( heavy aerobatic glider ) but despite a relatively cold weather , it took over 15 min to get to 1200m ( total tow with decent and cable release was always near 20 min per tow , and a consumption of around 60 l/ hour .
The variable pitch prop does not bring anything in towing. OK, maybe adds 10 MPH in cruise but not much more, so does not worth the extra complexity and extra maintenance costs. .
So I returned it yesterday evening and we all agreed in the club that we will look for something else. Difficult to beat the good old Robin Remo 180 with a tow prop., good to train and travel too, but no aerobatics of course.
Thanks everyone for the comments before . they did help !
Got the aircraft last friday, flew nearly 4 hours with it this week end and also made 6 high altitude Glider tows with it.
Everything said here is correct, beautiful handling, easy to fly , forward visibility better than the PA18, wider landing gear , better suspension ( more firm) and tail wheel good performance on basic aerobatics, . But ....
Very thirsty engine and towing performance is not good. Ok you got 80 MPH which was good to tow the Fox with 2 in it . ( heavy aerobatic glider ) but despite a relatively cold weather , it took over 15 min to get to 1200m ( total tow with decent and cable release was always near 20 min per tow , and a consumption of around 60 l/ hour .
The variable pitch prop does not bring anything in towing. OK, maybe adds 10 MPH in cruise but not much more, so does not worth the extra complexity and extra maintenance costs. .
So I returned it yesterday evening and we all agreed in the club that we will look for something else. Difficult to beat the good old Robin Remo 180 with a tow prop., good to train and travel too, but no aerobatics of course.
Thanks everyone for the comments before . they did help !
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Interesting feedback, indeed I tend to find the Super Decathlon doesn't really seem to climb any better than the Super Cub despite quite a bit more power and a CS prop, I would suggest due to the wing configuration.
Thinking back in the mists of time when I used to fly for a VGS out of RAF Kinloss the local gliding club used to operate a Supermunk (Chipmunk modified with an 0-360 to give 180hp)
Don't know how easy they are to find for sale but assuming the conversion did not remove the aerobatic category from the aircraft I wonder if one of those might tick your boxes?
Details from Wiki:
"Supermunk Designed and produced by officers of the British Gliding Association (BGA),Supermunk aircraft were converted from Chipmunks by fitting 180hp Avco Lycoming O-360-A4A engines for use as glider tugs.[19] Operated mainly by the Royal Air Force Gliding & Soaring Association (RAFGSA), the Supermunks are still in service and used at major gliding competitions in the United Kingdom. It is also used by the Portuguese Air Force Academy as basic training aircraft and as glider tug."
Regards
UA
Thinking back in the mists of time when I used to fly for a VGS out of RAF Kinloss the local gliding club used to operate a Supermunk (Chipmunk modified with an 0-360 to give 180hp)
Don't know how easy they are to find for sale but assuming the conversion did not remove the aerobatic category from the aircraft I wonder if one of those might tick your boxes?
Details from Wiki:
"Supermunk Designed and produced by officers of the British Gliding Association (BGA),Supermunk aircraft were converted from Chipmunks by fitting 180hp Avco Lycoming O-360-A4A engines for use as glider tugs.[19] Operated mainly by the Royal Air Force Gliding & Soaring Association (RAFGSA), the Supermunks are still in service and used at major gliding competitions in the United Kingdom. It is also used by the Portuguese Air Force Academy as basic training aircraft and as glider tug."
Regards
UA
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used to have a Supermunk at Cosford Gliding Club when I was there many moons ago. Went very well I remember as a tug. If you can find one you will find it impressive.
Pegase Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, thanks for the advice, but we are not in the UK and I do not like to experiment with "orphans" types. In France there was once a great idea , put the wings of a DR400-180 on a sleeker one person cell to reduce weight and drag, and add the engine and the landing gear of a Rallye 180 , it was built especially for towing , called a MIDOUR .
look here : http://lesgpr.free.fr/volavoile/roma...our/midour.htm
It climbs like a rocket, but it is not certified. And it is only good for towing, nothing else.
We were looking for an all rounder a bit stronger and faster than our PA18 ( which still does an fantastic job at low costs.)
look here : http://lesgpr.free.fr/volavoile/roma...our/midour.htm
It climbs like a rocket, but it is not certified. And it is only good for towing, nothing else.
We were looking for an all rounder a bit stronger and faster than our PA18 ( which still does an fantastic job at low costs.)
Last edited by ATC Watcher; 6th Oct 2015 at 09:02. Reason: add web site
