Yes similar possible problems. I hope the snaps are gentler if the speeds are respected.
I was watching the practice days and mentioned that the diving non aerobatic wing wag is probably putting more stress on the airframe than any other part of the sequence. But yes it's not going to be on the G meter.

If you look on here there is more info that might be helpful for a prebuy.
https://champcitabriadecathlonforums.co ... mx-area.9/

ACA also has a FAQ page and a Forum section with info not in the service letters or ADs. It has been helpful and they are good about responding to questions.

https://www.americanchampionaircraft.com/faqs

https://www.americanchampionaircraft.co ... -questions

There is not, or at least there shouldn't be. In 2006, we converted a 1965 7ECA to an equivalent 7GCAA. You are not able to chance the model number to a GCAA as the same serial number exist with both types. When we did it, the local FSDO wanted to denote the chance, so they created a type, 7ECA/150 which is was is on the Airworthiness Certificate of the one that we owned. At some point, someone obviously screwed up the BOS or Registration paperwork as it now shows as a 7ECA again in the FAA registry.

Look at the paperwork close and see how the conversion was done. For a long time, there wasn't an STC for the conversion. My father and I did ours under a field approval, which was easy to document. There is a significant amount of work, especially FWF for the conversion. FWF, strut springs, fuel lines and battery moving to the tail all come to mine without digging out the 337.

In addition to the items Charles mentions, the three areas to look at closely are:
-Look for bubbles (i.e., rust) in the lower longerons from the strut area to the tailwheel. Bubbles mean the tubes are rusting.
-Check the spars carefully, especially if they are wood. We found someone newly covered the wings with all four spars bad. The but ends of the ribs were the worst. Look close at the AD areas, especially at the outer wing strut attach points. Also, this area cracks with a ground look on both the front and the rear spar. We fabricated new spars for both aircraft and one other wing for a fairly reasonable cost. IIRC, we put a dab of super glue on the nails when we installed them as we found they work out over time.
-Look at the wood in the aft fuselage. Stand back and look at the airplane. If the lines are not straight, i.e., wavey, odd shaped, etc. there is something going on.


-If you end up with an oleo strut model, replace the bolts in the upper and lower gear leg fittings at each annual. They do wear and fail. The $5 in parts at an annual is cheap insurance.
-Also with the oleo strut models, look and see if the airplane is sitting level when on a flat surface. The inner arms often get bent with a firm landing. Jerry at the factory told us to heat them and bend back to shape. At the time, we had a jig and adjusted as needed.

The skylights are nice, but you will cook on a hot day. We also removed and capped the heat duct at the firewall in the summertime.

The original 7ECA's with the O-200 are a dog. I never flew a O-235 model, but IMO, the 320 should be the minimum size engine for the airframe. It's not a sleek airframe, but it is comfortable. I called it a cabin class Cub.

The upgraded front seat was nice because it was adjustable.

Fabric work is labor intensive, so unless you want a project, I'd find one that had good fabric. If you see cracks in the paint, run, don't walk away... As much as I hated the look of the Poly-Tone paint that we used on one airplane, it was flexible, wouldn't crack, and was very easy to repair. Everyone wants a shiny paint job. We did the second one in Aero-Thane paint.

The buyer of our last one flipped it over on landing about 10 years ago. I just looked and see it was sold about a month ago and is now flying in in the SLC area. We wished we kept it!

Drifting into Decathlons and competition flying, there's a pretty strong body of opinion that even snapping the Decathlon by the book numbers causes damage over time, and many owners simply won't do snap rolls in them. I would not snap roll one of these airplanes, but I flew a Super D pretty hard in Sportsman competition without any issues. We didn't fly any acro with more than half fuel.

Back in the '70s, I was in a shop rebuilding Pitts wings for some performer, can't remember who now. Anyway, they said they uncover and repair those wings after every season. Showed us some loose ribs on the spar. Said it was from multiple snaps. (2-3 continuous)

Yep. I remember when first getting into aerobatics I heard somebody say "you can't break a Pitts". Turns out they were wrong. Crazy how the wing flexes in snap rolls and the nose ribs are surprisingly flimsy.

I was instructing at a local field and the FBO purchased a 7KCAB for tailwheel and light acro training.

When we looked at it a number of nails were missing for the ribs to spar. So FBO owner decided (in connection with a Pitts builder/flyer/A&P) to remove the fabric and glue all the nails.

We pulled the fabric off the wings and one of the main spars was stamped REJECTED. Hmmmmm.

Not sure what happened as I left that FBO.

Current FBO at the same field has a 7GCBC. They do mainly tailwheel checkouts, but some CFI spin training.

I've got nothing meaningful to add other than I love my Citabria.

2006 7GCBC "High Country Edition" - 180hp, 8.50 tires, and 1950lbs max gross weight. IFR certifiable (it was in the past, but I haven't kept it up) and sorta aerobatic capable, but a ton of fun.

Remember the Citabria is a 5 G+ airplane not 6.

But yes for something capable of light gentleman easy aerobatics, good enough to go places, good enough for reasonable short field work on established grass strips.
More Comfortable than a Cub. Good visibility,
easy to maintain, Parts fairly reasonable and available. In production engine.
Easy to handle on the ground. Warm heat in the winter, Good ventilation in the summer

Toe brakes, Baggage room, Starter, lights, radios. Insurable. etc.

It is one of the best compromise for a "Do most things" airplane. Easy and fun. If you could have only one it is hard to beat. In the low altitudes eastern states I would take the 150hp Citabria with or without flaps over a Scout or Decathlon.

+1

I'd add to say I prefer no flaps, wide back seat, baggage door mod, long sticks, and a big rudder.

I am surprised by the comments in this thread. I've recently done some tailwheel training in Citabria, and honestly, I hated that thing. After 1000+ hours of flying a Bonanza that handles like a Ferrari, Citabria feels like a lumbering old truck. It climbs like a pig, controls are heavy and imprecise, seating uncomfortable, visibility awful. Are there any better aircraft for tailwheel training?

If you think the visibility from a Citabria is awful, tailwheel airplanes may not be for you.

Like everything it is a compromise. for similar cockpit room You give up the better short field and handling of a 150hp modified PA-12 and gain limited aerobatic capability and a newer airframe that is faster with less STCs.

It's funny because the newer LSA and S-LSA experimentals I have flown are really awful handling compared to the Citabria but yes the Citabria is much worse than a Bonanza or others.

Remember this is still an Aeronaca Champs in disguise. A Cub is much more precise with much less adverse yaw weirdness but has other limitations.

Really old airplanes are always accused of such terrible adverse yaw but it is really only the Champ family that had it. Stearman, Stinson, most fabric Pipers do not have much adverse yaw. The Aeronca family has a lot of pitch coupling with power when solo and slow. Lots of elevator tab deflection so any power change you really feel it in the stick on approach. I think the VGs make this worse.



Then you move to the rudder and tailwheel. They need strong springs centering the rudder in the cockpit and also the correct long steering springs to the tailwheel in the back. It is a problem with newer ABI 3200 tailwheels and some Scott 3200 if all the friction springs are installed. They stop the tailwheel shimmy but that also make too much friction so the rudder does not return to center. Try changing to the zigzag tread tire and check the tailwheel leaf springs are not bent and the tailwheel pivot axis is laid back beyond 90 degrees. This is very common in the rental and training airplanes. Once fixed you can also grease the tailwheel head with a lighter Aeroshell 6 and check friction disks are in good shape. Then try the ABI brand compression springs in the tailwheel head vs the Scott. Or 3 vs 5 compression springs. They might be a little lighter. Tune the tailwheel to get the rudder to return all the way to center in flight when pressure is released. Otherwise there is residual yaw of about 1/2 a ball depending on which direction the last turn was. It's a trial and error balance between shimmy and good flight performance.

The other issue is they stayed with the Aeronca C-3 horizontal tail incidence angles so if you are in cruise with a high power Scout and look back the elevators are noticeably down compared to the horizontal tail. I believe they fixed this with the newer airfoil tail Denali but I have not had them side by side to compare angles.

The other changes are seat cushion angles and heights. You can reduce the cushion height to get your eye line under the wing root and also wedge the seat a bit so when nose down in cruise you are not sliding forward into the stick.

The 70s airplanes had lower sitting height than the later airplanes. It makes a huge difference in comfort and visibility.

Last is washout. The manual wants the wings rigged flat but I usually give just a bit of washout to each wing. Trailing edge up with the struts. Just enough to keep the stall tame at the break and I was not doing spins more just for short field with the VGs. It is much less than a Cub or Pacer 2 1/2 degrees. Too much and the airplane is much more likely to hit tailwheel first on a 3 point.
(The smooth Desser 8.50 4 ply tires also help a lot with this but were never approved)

They really should make the VG kits with a tighter spacing outboard or slightly forward on the outboard VGs to make the stall progress root to tip. similar to Carbon Cub placement. The stall break is abrupt. The 4412 airfoil is thinner and sharper than what Piper used.

I have flown a couple that were accidentally rigged with Wash-In at the tips. Trailing edge down. That is not good.

A Citabria is a GREAT TW plane. I have ~800 hours TW and the Citabria is an amazingly simple TW plane. You can see over the nose so if you think visibility in a Citabria sucks... Uh, don't fly a J3 or god forbid a Pitts, T6, Stearman, Extra...etc. And comfort? A Citabria is loads more comfortable than a Cessna 140 with two people. And if you think a Bonanza handles like a Ferrari... Don't fly a Pitts or an Extra.

I have owned both. If I were just going to shoot landings for fun, the Citabria would win easily.

If you’re flying one without aileron spades, agreed, very heavy controls.
Also, fly one with the 160HP and you’ll have a different experience.

That said, doesn’t sound like the tandem arrangement agrees with you.
Typically a tandem TW doesn’t pamper the pilot.
The Citabria/Decathlons offer some of the best visibility and comfort you’ll find in a tandem TW

I learned to fly in a Citabria at the Santa Paula Airport with Mike Dewey Aviation. I was in high school at the time and still have a vivid memory of my first solo. We trained all the usual stuff plus light aerobatics including spins. I think it was a good teacher as I haven’t balled one up yet. Fond memories for me!