Which Citabria Should I Buy?

B

bruinpilot

New member
I have been flying for a job for many years, and recently had to use my cfi for some instruction in a light airplane. I realized how fun it was and have been wanting to get back into it. I have about 10 hours in the 7ECA and it is positively the most fun I have ever had in an airplane. I was going to buy a nice Grumman AA1B, but my buddy is trying to convince me to spend the extra money and get an airplane that I will enjoy more and that fits my mission criteria better. He reccommended a 150 horse fixed pitch prop 7KCAB. (All the codes for these aircraft are a bunch of alphabet soup to me.) Anyways, I would like to state my mission and see if anyone has any recommendations for me. 1) I want a fairly inexpensive toy, meaning I will probably get a used model and would like to spend as little as possible, probably not more than about 50k. 2) I want to be able to sight see locally and not burn a ton of fuel. 3) I want to have fun flying possibly including some very light aerobatics. 4) I live in a mountainous area about 3500 MSL, so climb performance is a bit of a concern in the summer. 5) My buddy noted that alot of the strips around here are unimproved, so ability to land on dirt/grass/short runways is a huge plus. 6) An ocasional 450 mile cross country to visit family is a possibility.

thanks for your input!
 
Sounds like the 7gcaa or 7gcbc would be what you're looking for. The only difference is the 7gcaa does not have flaps (not a big deal). For 50k you should be able to find a nice older one. Probably not anything newer than 1979-80. But if you look on the ACA website under explorer and adventurer these are basically the same airplanes and will give you all the spec's, except the gross wt. of older airplanes is 100# lower. Try to get an airplane with metal spars. If you can find one with new factory wings you'll get a 100# gross wt. increase.
I have an F33A Bonanza and a 7GCaa citabria and use them both for cross country flights. The citabria is just as comfortable, takes longer to get there but great visability for sight seeing and less fuel usage. The citabrias actually do it all!
Ray
 
Dec. 26
Hi Bruin Pilot
And hope you had a Merry Christmas

I purchased a 180HP High Country Exlplorer in 2006 and have never had so much fun in my entire 35-year flying life. I've logged about 320 hours since new, almost as much as my busines aircraft - just to give you an idea.

I'm based at Santa Fe, NM, 6,344 MSL, and with the 180HP and 76" prop I've never had a performance issue, even when circling Blanca Peak just north of Alamosa, CO, at 13,000'.

The plane is certified for limited aerobatics, and contrary to one of the replies I read, I not only like the flaps, I find I need them. Maybe after 500 hours or so I'll feel more confident on windy days with no flaps, but, for now, they are a blessing and open up days for me that I otherwise would shy away from. Still, easily 70% of my flights are from 7a-10a before the winds kicks up here.

As for cross country capabilities, my plane actually was the ACA testbed for the gross weight increase, so I can carry two adults and full fuel. I burn between 8.5-to-10 gph, running perhpas 50 rich of peak. Altitude is usually the difference, as I go as low as 6,000 and as high as 12,000. I always run at full power. I never exceed 325F CHT or 1425 EHT. That gives me a very, very safe leg length of 2.5 hours. That's about all my bladder and back can take, even with my sweet Oregon Aero cushion. [ACA's factory pilot did a 4+ hour leg enroute back to me after the Gross Weight testing, but that's really pushing it, and he's every bit a pro pilot who can land anywhere he has to.

Finally, with a metal belly you can land on any reasonable maintained unimproved strip. For us in NM, it's almost always gravel as opposed to that oh-so forgiving grass of the Midwest. I've never had a problem here on diret or gravel.

I haven't checked The Controller lately, but you're probably looking at $80K used for the 180HP version, less for the 160HP version, as I don't think you'ld have a noticeable performance issue unless you had 2 adults on board. In that case, it would be a bit anemic in the mountains in summer.

So . . . it a buyer's market for all aircraft right now. Shop hard and bargain harder.

Jim Robins
Santa Fe
7GCBC/HC N87VF
 
FYI-

Not sure why you think the flaps help in a crosswind? I ordered and fly a 7GCAA in wind that causes all other light aircraft to be parked.

My personal recommendation to all but those who may need increased lift at a lower deck angle, seaplanes and skiplanes for example, to stick with the simplicity of the non-flapped aircraft. The difference in book takeoff distance between the 7GCAA and 7GCBC is more than offset in all but the most extreme operations by pilot experience and skill.

Tom-
 
cool thanks for all the info. so far. I'm glad to hear that about the flaps. I hate flaps, and retractable gear, and controlable pitch props, and turbos, and junk like that...
 
It doesn't matter....JUST BUY NEW

haha, shameless plug. :lol:

No really, every model has a partial niche and you need to find which is yours.
The splitting of hairs can go on for a while though. We try to have as many options as posible.
 
Bruinpilot,

5 or 6 years ago I was in your shoes, I had been flying for a living for 25 years and due to very generous boss, I had the oportunity to get a weekend seaplane rating. I hadn't flown a small airplane in about 20 years and the 85hp cub on floats was instant nostalgia for the days when that was the only kind of airplane I had ever flown. When I got home from that trip I called my neighbor and friend, a retired TWA guy, and told him we needed to buy a little airplane to play with.
The only thing I wanted was a taildragger and gentlemen aerobatics. After researching the market, the only choice was a Citabria. We looked at several and flew several and came to a bottom line decision. We are in St. Louis(460' msl) so high altitude performance was not a factor, if we did any cross country, it was because we wanted to fly, not because we wanted to get there any faster. We did want as much useful load as we could get.
As you can probably tell from the above, a 7ECA was our choice. We found a '74 115hp 7ECA not to far away and made a deal and flew it home. This was in 2002 I think and we have not regretted the decision. We have had and continue to have loads of fun and so far have not wished for more HP, sure, when I do a loop I have to dive to get the airspeed and climb back up about 500' when it's over but so what? I'm out to have fun, not save 2 or 3 minutes on each loop and it burns about 6 gph and is the perfect airplane for us.

Ron
 
Which plane, sort of reminds me of what kind of woman should I marry. They all are different, I love my 7GCBC but have to say a 7CCM is a great plane because of the weight. I had a great 7EC, but dont like the 7ECAs as much. For airbatic go with the 8kcab. I think all the new planes are way over priced, I would have one rebuit first.

Terry
 
Dear Tom (Century Club)
Re: Flaps

I didn't say "cross winds." I said windy days.
Flaps do 3 things for me as a novice:

1: They enable me to approach at very, very, very slow speeds. If I do crow hop or bounce, it's over almost immediately after it's begun because I'm so incredibly slow. Also, if there is a stiff crosswind and and I'm up on one wheel for a bit to hold the centerline, this daunting posture is also over very quickly becuase I'm moving so slowly.

2: When conducting wheel landings, flaps lower the deck angle and make the wheel landing much more comfortale from a visibility point of view.
In fact, even on a perfectly calm day, I always put in one notch on short final if I'm plannig a wheel landing. If you do this, you'll find there's no need to add even that little bit of power that many good tail-dragger pilots add just before the wheels kiss.

3: Finally, crosswind takeoffs are very challenging for me - much more so than crosswind landings or any other phase of flight. With flaps available, in a brisk crosswind, I use two or even three notches, bring the power up before releasing the brakes and then (yes, Tom, wing down into the wind) really do leap off of the runway before comning close to plowing up the turf or any airport lighting. (I've even learned to use a very, very gentle touch of brake if I still fell like I'm slipping off the line. It works, but I don't like doing it.)

Jim
 
Jim-

I appreciate your viewpoints but think they are more based on the perceptions of an admittedly relatively new conventional gear pilot than quantifiable differences between the flapped and unflapped Citabrias, would love to have the opportunity to spend some time riding in your back seat. In days of old when everyone learned in conventional gear aircraft the burning issue was how to land a tricycle gear aircraft, now we have the opposite concern and a real shortage of experienced conventional gear instructors. It is very unfortunate that conventional gear instruction rarely extends much beyond the basic FAA sign-off, as a result many pilots (not speaking of you, just generalizing) never get the knowledge and experience to fully utilize their aircraft.

While I preach landing with minimum speed and minimum energy I doubt that the 3 mph difference (ACA data for the HC Explorer) between no flap and full flap stall speeds is noticeable. Interesting that the difference in stall speed between your HC Explorer and my 7GCAA is the same 3 mph. In either case we are landing and taking off in very short distances, the biggest variable being pilot experience. Likewise I suspect the factory data for the various models is affected by pilot experience variables given sometimes conflicting data between earlier versions and current production given no, or insignificant, changes, and between models in which one would not expect much (or any) change. One example being landing distances between the current flapless 7 series aircraft are 520", 480", and 400", gross weights are the same, hp should not make a difference in landing distance, the one variable is empty weight which would have a slight effect on minimum landing weight and therefore landing distance...................the problem is that the ACA numbers are higher (by 120") for the lightest aircraft and lower for the heaviest (by 110 lbs) aircraft. My point is that the differences in stall speed and landing distance are so small as to be subjective and difficult to measure.

Jim the Citabria in a three-point attitude has better forward visibility than a 172 sitting level, let alone one landing on the mains with the nosewheel properly held off the runway. In a wheel landing your visibility is even better. Personally I only make wheel landings, my annual allotment is less than a dozen, on long smooth runways with calm winds at all other times I want to land at minimum speed, with minimum energy, and stop in minimum distance. You need to spend a day flying from the back seat, no visibility straight ahead, no view of the instruments, doing endless takeoffs and landings.

With the very effective rudder and properly stiff steering springs no brake should be required for directional control.

The one thing flaps will provide is a bit more drag and smaller speed excursions when bouncing around in gusty conditions, however a slip will provide even more drag. My personal opinion is that many modern pilots like the flaps because every airplane they've flown had flaps and flying without feels like walking out your front door without your pants on. Having soloed in a Cub and spent my first hours instructing in Champs and Cubs I'm (fortunately) just as happy without flaps and hope you will excuse my responding to your post as an opportunity to provide some on-line instruction.

A point can be made that a higher stall speed will allow operations in stronger winds because it increases the spread between wind velocity and stall speed, it is for that very reason that I have elected not to install VG's on my 7GCAA. I regularly operate into the shortest strips in the area 1200-1500" but considered them for an expected slight improvement in roll rate (I have a low level aerobatic waiver) but decided I preferred the ability to operate with a slightly increased margin in strong (30+) winds more important.

How do you like the Vantage engine, any operational or maint. issues?

Tom-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top