Citabria vs Cessna Aerobat

[chopperpilot1955]

I have often wondered why the Citabria is certified for 5+ and -2 and the Cessna Aerobat made it to +6 and -3. It's hard to believe (just by looking) that the Aerobat is stronger than my beloved Citabria. I would love to know if anybody knows the answer to this.

GRM

 

[jerrymjr]

Certification basis

CAR 4a Normal and Acrobatic Category come out to 'around' 5g and 'around' -2
Part 23 is 3.8 Normal and +6/-3 Acro. Its was a requirement for approval on the Cessna. Thus the Decathlon is +6...-5 is something picked based on maneuvers they wanted to be able to do.

 

[smithp1]

I always wondered when ACA engineres redesigned the new wing, the 5 + and - 2 was more of a way to not incur more liability than by saying +6 and minus 3. Somewhere in the middle is what I guess. I can't imagine them saying Oh lets make sure we don't design this any stronger!

 

[osxuser]

The new wing is much stronger, but why would they go for an increase in wing load factors when instead they could increase the gross weight on and airplane that is VERY payload limited?