Decathlon

etemplet

etemplet

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
141
Display Name
Display name:
etemplet
In my search for a personal aircraft, I seem to be drawn to the Citabria type or the Cessna 150 Aerobat because of my price range of course. They seem to have the possibility of being a FUN to Fly yet capable short cross country aircraft.

I was wondering what should one be concerned with (trouble spots) when considering a Citabria or Decathlon and fabric planes in general? I assume the Decathlon is a much more capable platform for aerobatics... just the fun stuff, not competition.

I am thinking, Sunday day of fun in the sun, fly about 90 miles away and visit family etc... Perhaps an occasional trip of 400 miles. I figure I can rent what I need for Cross country but I mostly fly local.

Input would be appreciated.
 
A 150 hp Citabria would be my choice. A nice one, between 50-60 grand. Decathlon is a great airplane but much more expensive if.....in nice shape. I've flown a Citabria 150 on a 300 mile cross country and enjoyed it. If you want to loop, roll the Citabria is just fine for most non competitive acro. I usually flew it 2000-2500 AGL. Great airplane, not expensive to keep but should be hangared for sure. 3-400 mile trip one way, piece of cake.
 
A taildragger like the Citabria 150 is a lot more fun to fly than a tri gear. Also, be sure someone familiar with tube- fabric helps you with a prebuy. If the airplane has sat out for any length of time, walk away. (There are so called experts who may disagree but your paying for it not them).15 years would be my limit on time since recover, (ceconite, stitts, etc. )5-600 hours on engine or less. No more. If you buy a nice well cared for example, you'll get most of your money back when you sell it. ( I've seen some pretty serious acro done in the Citabria.)
 
What's up with the 600 hour engines. Being a cheapo kinda guy, with an eye on quality of course.... I'm looking at planes with 1500 hours + on the engines. Do these engines suffer a bit more abuse due to the loads and such put on them ? I am more concerned with fabric and structure than engine and since I live in South Louisiana... it is often WET inside hangars.
 
The 7ECA family are WAY more airplane then any C150/2
 
I've owned both. The 7eca I consider underpowered compared to a 150 hp Citabria. Not near as responsive. As for the engine, all of these types are usually not babied but in many cases flown to extremes. If the engine is over 1000 hours, you fly it say 500 hours and go to sell it you may find its lost a lot of its worth. When someone is lucky enough to fly one this length of time they usually want to unload it as a major overhaul might be due very soon. I always worry about the entire airplane, not just the tube and fabric. The engine costs around 25grand to major, maybe more. Buying cheap is always bad in airplanes.pick one you can afford, then buy the best one. Cheapest in the long run. If your "a chepo kinda guy" you may want to look at a taylorcraft or a beat up champ.
 
Last edited:
Wood spar AD can be a concern. I am not saying the wood spars are bad so let's not start that, just that it is something a prospective owner needs to watch for (cracks).

http://www.bellanca-championclub.com/Spar1.html



Snap rolls can cause fuel tank issues, at least in the Super Decathlon. Not sure about the Citabria and Decathlon.
 
How much more capable is a Decathlon than a Citabria ? Would I notice the difference ? What size engine do I need ? Is a 150HP good? I noticed some models have flaps as others do not? What Fer ??

Are there any specific items I should be aware? ADs, expensive fixes, checks I need to do before purchase? What about knowledgeable Pre-Buy resources ?

Hook me up with a good website. :yes:
 
Last edited:
It depends on what you plan on doing with the plane. The Decathlon is way better suited for light to moderate aerobatics. I have time in both and for "me", I would go for the Decathlon. Primarily because I'm into aerobatics. The Citabria will have a little better short field capabilities though. Both are excellent planes but you'll need to think about how much upside down work you want to do. And yes, this is 150hp on both I'm speaking of. I've also flown the 180hp Decathlon but that's another ball game and price range altogether. All are great for cross county too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
PAustin said:
It depends on what you plan on doing with the plane. The Decathlon is way better suited for light to moderate aerobatics. I have time in both and for "me", I would go for the Decathlon. Primarily because I'm into aerobatics. The Citabria will have a little better short field capabilities though. Both are excellent planes but you'll need to think about how much upside down work you want to do. And yes, this is 150hp on both I'm speaking of. I've also flown the 180hp Decathlon but that's another ball game and price range altogether. All are great for cross county too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Is it just the upside down work that makes the difference between the Decathlon and the Citabria ? Is the structural strength the same for each?
 
Because the Decathlon was designed for aerobatics it was giving a +6 -3 g rating. The Citabria was giving a +5 -2 g rating and can do light aerobatics. The Decathlon just has better inverted performance and because of the symmetrical wing will roll a little faster.

You'll not notice anything between the two when it comes to strength. They are both built like tanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
PAustin said:
Because the Decathlon was designed for aerobatics it was giving a +6 -3 g rating. The Citabria was giving a +5 -2 g rating and can do light aerobatics. The Decathlon just has better inverted performance and because of the symmetrical wing will roll a little faster.

You'll not notice anything between the two when it comes to strength. They are both built like tanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

WOW That is some great info right there. I am headed to figure out what all the letters mean in the designations.
 
I have flown the Citabria, Deacthlon and Super Decathlon (as well as a number of other aerobatic airplanes). Personally I think the Super Decathlon is one of the best all around certified airplanes in which you can do aerobatics. The AEIO-360 is a great engine and the improved wing gives you pretty good aerobatic performance. Yet if you want to go on a cross country it is a comfortable airplane a little faster than a 172. I would still own one if a mean lady had not stolen mine.;)

Are there better aerobatic airplanes? Yes. Are there better cross country airplanes? Yes. But the Super D is a very good compromise of aerobatics and cross country capability.

The Citabria and Decathlon are also good airplanes. Just be careful and get a good Prebuy with a mechanic who understands them and knows what to look for especially if you get one with a wooden spar. Last I checked you are looking at about $25k for spar replacement. Same with fuel tanks if there is an issue with them from snap rolls.
 
Blackhawk said:
Wood spar AD can be a concern. I am not saying the wood spars are bad so let's not start that, just that it is something a prospective owner needs to watch for (cracks).

http://www.bellanca-championclub.com/Spar1.html



Snap rolls can cause fuel tank issues, at least in the Super Decathlon. Not sure about the Citabria and Decathlon.
Click to expand...

Yes! Wooden spars can be very expensive to repair or Replace. One can check them pretty carefully but the best way to know for sure is to see them during a wing recover. I was sold a Stearman with a cracked spar. Dangerous, and expensive. Wood spars that have not been subjected to a ground loop , hitting a hangar etc. are very strong and just fine. From the questions you ask, I would think a 150 Citabria would do just fine. If your going to buy a decathlon, IMO the 180 hp is the only way to go. Definitely not el cheepo. Quality and cheap don't go together especially in aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Citabrias tend to have a rough or workmanlike life. They are pressed into service as primary trainers, TW transition, intro acro, banner tow, glider tow, and just fun loop, roll, spin planes. Which means they have a generally higher mx program involved than a Aerobat or other metal plane.

Look at the TW area and see if it's been fitted for a tow hook. If so, it's towed gliders and/or banners. Inspect the tubes inside the empenage carefully for cracks as it puts a fair amount of stress on the tail of the plane.

Inspect the tail spring and wheel for being angled or slanted to one side, or if the tail spring is bent upwards a bit indicating TW training damage.

Move forward and inspect the upper part of the fuselage along the longerons for cracks in the paint running fore and aft. This is a result of the fabric 'vibrating' slightly along the length of the fuselage. Also caused by sun damage and temp extremes.

Move forward and inspect the trailing edge of the wing from inner to outer, looking for any kind of rot, delamination or spooginess of the fabric and paint. Water tends to collect down here on planes that are outside. Particularly the inner part of the wing.

There will be two to five inspection covers on each wing, depending on when it was covered. Remove them all. Get an A&P who knows wood spars, and a high intensity light, and a good large mirror. Pay him to inspect the spar from in to out, and pay attention to the spar attach at the fuselage, and the strut brace. Of course, while he's in there, look at the bellcranks and the fittings for the fuel tanks for twisting or cracks.

Look around the gear attach at the fuselage for any bent, or flexed fabric indicating a ground loop not repaired right. The fabric will bunch, or wave where the gear leg is not fitted perfectly. This is rare, but it happens. Crawl underneath and test the fabric on the center of the belly. You may see some longitudinal streaks from where the rudder cables lay on the belly fabric. This is - kind of normal. The cables aren't that tight, and they run right along the bottom of the enclosure. If you don't see the streaks for the cables, look for punky or soft paint and fabric from oil leaks that settle in the lowest point of the plane.

Move forward and check the area where the windscreen fits around the cowl, and the wing. This is a notorious place for water leaks, and if you fly through rain, it'll drip right on your left and right thigh, or it'll run down the inside of the cabin.

Open both cowls, run your hand flat along the firewall, around the engine mount. Must be not wavy or flexed. Check the engine mount with high intensity light for cracks. Look for chafing around the control cables on planes with a vacuum pump. If no pump, chaffing isn't a problem.

Put the TW on a bench, remove a plug from all cyl and check prop tracking. I don't know why, but I've found a couple with pretty bad prop tracking. Weird.

YMMV
 
Last edited:
Looks like I came to the correct place for info. Thanks so much... everyone !! Good stuff and a lot of it. FWIW I'm not spending over $40K. LOL I don't care if I have a little fixing up to do. I just want a good platform in good shape and I am not afraid of a higher time engine as I am not looking to get my money back out of anything. I just want to get the right plane for me.
 
For that price point, I would get the 7ECA, mid/later 70s has toe brakes, similar useful load, lower fuel burn, and same cruise speed. It'll do the light acro just fine, but of course won't have the vertical penetration that the 7KCAB has. Also you can avoid a tow plane cause most of the 7ECAs didn't have tow equip installed. Also gets a bit wider gear stance.

YMMV
 
By " vertical penetration " I assume you mean as a result of a lack of horsepower. This is true. Compared to a 150 Citabria it's a big disappointment. I only kept mine 6 months.
 
Sorry, I don't build them. My trick was to have the prop tweaked so it would get to the top of the static RPM band. The O-235 has a fifth order harmonic balanced crank and it'll spin 2800 all day no prob. Of course, it is rated at lower HP but if you're looking for vertical penetration, none of the Bellancas are going to suffice. Not even the Super-Deke.

With a little dive for speed, throttle full forward and at redline, I could get it up fine, and do a decent hammerhead.
 
etemplet said:
I am headed to figure out what all the letters mean in the designations.
Click to expand...
They are derived from the Champion models of the '50s and '60s, which all stemmed from the Aeronca Model 7AC (Model 7, first version, Continental engine) Champion of 1946. Over the years, though, the nomenclature has not been consistent.

The Champion models in that era were:

7EC Traveler (1965-64, 90 hp C-90, no flaps);
7FC Tri-Traveler (1957-64, same as 7EC but with tricycle gear);
7GC Sky-Trac (1958-60, 140 hp Lyc. O-290, three seats);
7GCA Sky-Trac (1959, ag version);
7GCB Challenger (1959-64, flaps, 150 hp Lyc. O-320);
7HC DX'er (1960, tri-gear version of the 7GC)
7JC Tri-Con (1960, similar to 7EC but with an oddball "reverse tricycle" landing gear);
7KC Olympia (1961, sporty 150 hp precursor to Citabria, non-acro, only four built).

The first Citabria (1964) was an updated, acro version of the 7EC with a 100 hp Continental O-200, so it was called 7ECA.

In later years, 7ECA has been the base, lower-powered, no-flap Citabria. The 7GCAA is higher-powered and no-flap, while 7GCBC has flaps. 7KCAB has the Citabria wing with inverted fuel and oil systems.

The Model 8 series ("Decathlon") has the symmetrical wing.

Anybody remember the "Citabria Pro"? ;)
 
docmirror said:
Sorry, I don't build them. My trick was to have the prop tweaked so it would get to the top of the static RPM band. The O-235 has a fifth order harmonic balanced crank and it'll spin 2800 all day no prob. Of course, it is rated at lower HP but if you're looking for vertical penetration, none of the Bellancas are going to suffice. Not even the Super-Deke.

With a little dive for speed, throttle full forward and at redline, I could get it up fine, and do a decent hammerhead.
Click to expand...

Mine was a real Ho hummer compared to the 150 Citabria which is a far superior airplane. Glad to have gotten rid of it. Don't be sorry , it's not your fault.
 
150HP... Or more. LOL Is the flap version a must have ? I found a few planes that I am interested in.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
The Champion models in that era were:

;)
Click to expand...

I saw this earlier and I'm Sorry I missed that this was a reply to my post. Thanks so much for taking the time. I was all over the place looking for this. LOL :dunno:
 
No, you don't need flaps... That's what slips are for....
 
etemplet said:
150HP... Or more. LOL Is the flap version a must have ? I found a few planes that I am interested in.
Click to expand...
I would say the flap version is a must NOT have, unless you are looking at back country flying and need the very small improvement they give in short field ops. My 2001 160 hp Citabria was a really fun plane to own. I did a few 500 mile trips in it, but mostly used it for local fun hops.

Just for fun, I also learned to shoot partial panel approaches with only a handheld GPS for nav.
 
Ken Ibold said:
I would say the flap version is a must NOT have, unless you are looking at back country flying and need the very small improvement they give in short field ops. My 2001 160 hp Citabria was a really fun plane to own. I did a few 500 mile trips in it, but mostly used it for local fun hops.

Just for fun, I also learned to shoot partial panel approaches with only a handheld GPS for nav.
Click to expand...

I was wondering if I could set this plane up for some instrument currency work. Then it would be a 3 mission aircraft. I don't see much panel room for additional gauges. I am training for my Instrument Rating and I'd like to be able to do that.
 
Question on flying a tandem seating plane. Is there any loss of the feeling of companionship of being together with this type of seating? I kinda like to see the person I am communicating with otherwise... they are out there in space.... somewhere. LOL I like having a good looking lady I can see when I look to the right. ;)

Do most people that fly Citabrias fly them alone the majority of the time?
 
etemplet said:
Question on flying a tandem seating plane. Is there any loss of the feeling of companionship of being together with this type of seating? I kinda like to see the person I am communicating with otherwise... they are out there in space.... somewhere. LOL I like having a good looking lady I can see when I look to the right. ;)

Do most people that fly Citabrias fly them alone the majority of the time?
Click to expand...


Depends on the couple. Many wife/husband teams like to sit next to each other. However some also like the tandem seating for the amount of space each person has to spread out and do whatever they need...read, knit, play on ipad....sleep the entire way to the Fl Keys.....etc.
 
Yes, a little bit of loss. My wife much prefers sitting next to me in the Bonanza than looking at the back of my head. The Decathlon I was flying had a mirror so we could see each other's face (at least I knew when I was making her sick looping and rolling), it helped but still not the same as sitting next to someone. On a side note: she loves aerobatics so most of the time I would see a big grin in the mirror.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
etemplet said:
I was wondering if I could set this plane up for some instrument currency work. Then it would be a 3 mission aircraft. I don't see much panel room for additional gauges. I am training for my Instrument Rating and I'd like to be able to do that.
Click to expand...
Most of them do not have vac systems, and even if they did aerobatics is not good on gyros. So then you have the issue of having to go glass panel or accept big repairs on gyros.

You can equip them for IFR flight; I have seen a few of them. However, they do not make practical aircraft for real IFR flight because they don't have the range to meet IFR reserves with alternates etc. Furthermore, chart management in a tandem aircraft is a little more difficult because you don't have a seat next to you and the space between the front seat and sidewalls is taken up with the back seat rudder pedals.
 
Ken I was just thinking of practice Instrument approaches and holds for currency requirements. Probably not practical.
 
etemplet said:
Ken I was just thinking of practice Instrument approaches and holds for currency requirements. Probably not practical.
Click to expand...

My Super D (did I mention a mean lady who sometimes frequents this board stole it from me), had a loc/vor with glide slope. Also had a vacuum run attitude indicator and a VFR panel mounted GPS. In order to get one IFR certified it must have metal wing spars and pitot heat must be installed (I know you do not want this).
I flew the Super D a few times under the hood and it was not a bad IFR platform. And yes, you can do an inverted ILS. At least so I've been told.;)
 
On Barnstormers a 1974 BELLANCA DECATHALON • 8KCAB TTSN: 1698.57 is what peaked my interest in these planes. I found cool examples in the $35K range and contacted a few owners. If this plane was closer I'd go have a look.

My choice... don't laugh... is something like the Citabria or an older Bonanza. I think the Citabria would be cheaper to own (I know, that depends) and more FUN to fly given that I have NO MISSION other than frolicking around in the skies. Is there more than one Sky ? :D
 
Ken Ibold said:
Most of them do not have vac systems, and even if they did aerobatics is not good on gyros. So then you have the issue of having to go glass panel or accept big repairs on gyros.

You can equip them for IFR flight; I have seen a few of them. However, they do not make practical aircraft for real IFR flight because they don't have the range to meet IFR reserves with alternates etc. Furthermore, chart management in a tandem aircraft is a little more difficult because you don't have a seat next to you and the space between the front seat and sidewalls is taken up with the back seat rudder pedals.
Click to expand...
But it would work reasonably well for maintaining currency.
 
I have an old Bonanza that's pretty much for sale. 1951 C35 with fresh hydraulic prop.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I've owned a Citabria 7ECA and a 7GCBC.

More on that later.

As to wife/significant other riding in the back of a tandem seat aircraft...

...I'm just lucky, I guess. Karen will ride with be on the back of a motorcycle, in a sidecar, or in the back of the Sky Arrow with zero complaints:

8294451946_156f4dc021.jpg


8707706826_00613f2e8e.jpg


I know for others, its a non-starter, but it has advantages and disadvantages, like everything else.

I think I'll keep her!
 
Last edited:
PM'd back


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top