Aeros in Citabria 7ECA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Devizes
Age: 59
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aeros in Citabria 7ECA
According to the manual this aircraft is cleared for aeros +5-2G. However with a 100hp engine is this capable at auw. Anyone out there with experience of such??
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not the engine HP that counts. It's the energy management that counts. Heck, even gliders do aerobatics.
Just take your time, climb high, dive to the correct speed for your maneuver and do it.
It will probably become a problem in competition aerobatics though, where you've got about 3000 feet to complete your sequence in.
Also take a look at the W&B sheet. A lot of aircraft have tighter limits, and a lower MTOM when performing aerobatics.
(And the usual caution: don't try this without a qualified instructor.)
Just take your time, climb high, dive to the correct speed for your maneuver and do it.
It will probably become a problem in competition aerobatics though, where you've got about 3000 feet to complete your sequence in.
Also take a look at the W&B sheet. A lot of aircraft have tighter limits, and a lower MTOM when performing aerobatics.
(And the usual caution: don't try this without a qualified instructor.)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Citabria can have a 100, 118 160 or 180 engine - At least a new one can. I haven't a clue about earlier variants. Certainly the 7ECA now has a 118 (Lycoming O-235-K2C) as standard.
My initial acro training was in a 115hp Grob. It works fine, but you spend a fair amount of time diving for speed then climbing back up after the manouevre. But when you're starting that's not so bad, it gives you time to think about what went wrong!
After that I moved to a 180hp Decathlon which seemed MUCH better and you spend relatively little time climbing back up again. I've once flown acro in a Citabria, but it was one of the more powerful variants (160hp I think). You work HARD to do acro in a Citabria, that I can tell you... lots of stick force involved and things take a long time to happen. In terms of airframe strength, it's fully aerobatic, but as a serious aerobatic plane it's pretty marginal. But to get started, it'll be fine. Just make sure you're not in a position to transition to a Pitts later on, as that is VERY bad for your wallet.
Recently I've had the chance to fly acro in a T6 (Harvard) and that's not terribly different from a Citabria, both stick forces and time to make things happen. (The bill is rather larger though).
n5296s
After that I moved to a 180hp Decathlon which seemed MUCH better and you spend relatively little time climbing back up again. I've once flown acro in a Citabria, but it was one of the more powerful variants (160hp I think). You work HARD to do acro in a Citabria, that I can tell you... lots of stick force involved and things take a long time to happen. In terms of airframe strength, it's fully aerobatic, but as a serious aerobatic plane it's pretty marginal. But to get started, it'll be fine. Just make sure you're not in a position to transition to a Pitts later on, as that is VERY bad for your wallet.
Recently I've had the chance to fly acro in a T6 (Harvard) and that's not terribly different from a Citabria, both stick forces and time to make things happen. (The bill is rather larger though).
n5296s
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Connecticut USA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good advice from BackPacker & n5296s. Years ago I saw Duane Cole perform in his clipped wing Tcraft. The announcer was making a big point of how Duane had replace the 85 hp engine with a bigger (150 hp I think) one for aerobatics. The first thing Duane did (once at altitude) was to shutdown the engine and stop the prop, then performed his full acro routine and landed dead stick - I always thought the 85 hp would have worked just as well.
I owned a 100hp 7ECA quite a few years and enjoyed it very much. The aircraft is vey capable of mild aerobatics but since it does not have inverted systems it's best to stay positive (unless you like listening to a suddenly quiet engine with an oil pressure gage point to near zero). Loops, barrel rolls, hammerheads, cuban-8, spins were very enjoyable but could take some time between maneuvers to regain altitude. The aircraft didn't seem to like snap (flick?) rolls very much except perhaps on top of a loop (where it's slow and unloaded). I made a few changes which made acro more enjoyable - adding a greenhouse roof (much better vis), adding aerodynamic balance area to the elevator (newer Citabrias all have this but the early ones have straight elevators just like a Champ) and gap seals for the ailerons & elevator. It didn't do things much better but it was less work / more fun.
I did not realize how much easier it could be until I flew a Decathlon and later some biplanes.
In today's world there is nothing wrong with the 5.5 US gal/hour fuel burn - and the slower acro pace will give more time to enjoy the flight.
Hank
I owned a 100hp 7ECA quite a few years and enjoyed it very much. The aircraft is vey capable of mild aerobatics but since it does not have inverted systems it's best to stay positive (unless you like listening to a suddenly quiet engine with an oil pressure gage point to near zero). Loops, barrel rolls, hammerheads, cuban-8, spins were very enjoyable but could take some time between maneuvers to regain altitude. The aircraft didn't seem to like snap (flick?) rolls very much except perhaps on top of a loop (where it's slow and unloaded). I made a few changes which made acro more enjoyable - adding a greenhouse roof (much better vis), adding aerodynamic balance area to the elevator (newer Citabrias all have this but the early ones have straight elevators just like a Champ) and gap seals for the ailerons & elevator. It didn't do things much better but it was less work / more fun.
I did not realize how much easier it could be until I flew a Decathlon and later some biplanes.
In today's world there is nothing wrong with the 5.5 US gal/hour fuel burn - and the slower acro pace will give more time to enjoy the flight.
Hank
