Good question and we never figured it out.

But this comes from 40 years of intensive operations, many chief pilots, hundreds of hired pilots. All agreed.

It might just be that the Cub is too slow for skills to be transferable. Or maybe the way the airplane bounces landing too fast if you let it.

I have never thought about the Cub vs. Citabria for prep to the 180/185. I have instructed extensively in both. Though I personally think the Cub is superior for teaching basic stick and rudder skills, the Citabria's flying characteristics are definitely more in line with the 180.

To me, the difficulty of the 180 is its tendency to skip at touch down. Unless heavily loaded, which is not the training scenario, the damn thing dances when it touches down. If the pilot lets that become a distraction, he will ground loop. The trick is to ignore it. When it skips just keep "landing attitude" and let her lose the excess energy.

To me, the 195 is far easier to land smoother. Her ground loop tendencies are unusual as they come at much lower airspeeds when the pilot thinks he is in taxi mode.

Jg

I might have to come out to MS and get two BFRs.

Where do you guys think the C140 fits between the citabria and cub in terms of skills development? I have a bit of time in the 140 and citabria and my takeaway was that the 140 would take a fair bit more skill to master and be a great developer of tailwheel skills.

The C140 would bounce just by thinking about it and the citabria I could not screw up bad enough to make it bounce on landing.

It almost sounds like a criticism, it's not. I love the Citabiras, Decathlons.

They are almost too easy to fly.

Jg

I must admit that pilots of a certain age understand that the true meaning of "conventional gear" is the little wheel goes in the aft portion of the airframe... I am among the endangered species of pilots who think people should get a "nose wheel endorsement" versus the other way around.
I also found it surprising how the experience of landing a loaded or light DC-3 is similar to the Skywagon's technique. All wheel landings, of course.
An old master with the Jungle Aviation and Radio Service taught me to cheat the 180 out of 50% of its "boing-o-matic" feature by easing it onto the upwind MLG just a tad before the other. All wheel landings, of course, as per the JAARS and MAF operating style.
The pleasure derived from a well-executed Skywagon landing is reinforced with a sip of Macallan on an ice ball, once in the hangar.
The thrill derived from a well-executed landing in the Pitts Special (mostly three-point) is akin to an orgasm combined with a near-death experience. That is better celebrated with a sip of Patrón, neat.
Best regards,

TN

The wing on the 140 needs more speed before it will “bite”. The Cub and 7 series airplanes have a better seat of the pants wing that will fly in a tail low attitude. You can finesse these airplanes in the air by accelerating in both horizontal and vertical direction with the tips of your fingers..... gives me chills thinking about it.
I think I’ll go dig it out of the hangar.

Tom, you remain one of my heroes.

regret the day I sold my 185 for sure.

Tom,

I agree with Stan. It just makes a guy/pilot smile when you hear those little hidden truths of pilotage.

You got the Pitts landing covered: orgasmic, near death experience.

Jg

Mark, the first bit of good news is you can always come to Arkansas and fly my 180 again.
The second bit of good news is I have a friend at Hidden Valley that has a 195. He would be a good candidate for an adventure as he suffers from an affliction called FOMO, you know, Fear Of Missing Out.

Mark, the first bit of good news is you can always come to Arkansas and fly my 180 again.
The second bit of good news is I have a friend at Hidden Valley that has a 195. He would be a good candidate for an adventure as he suffers from an affliction called FOMO, you know, Fear Of Missing Out.

Whether a Citabria is better than a Cub to transition to a 180 has more to do with the landing gear than the flight characteristics (imho). Except for the early Citabrias with oleo gear, the spring gear on the Citabria probably better prepares you for the spring gear on a 180.

As JGG said above, it is the spring gear dance that causes problems, Oleo and rubber shock cords are way more forgiving.


I instructed about 500 hours in Citabrias... my 180 time is about 1500+ in C188s.

I often hear of 180s and 185s being "skittish" or similar on landing. The landing gear is springy, but there is often another reason.

Many of these airplanes have been "upgraded" with bigger tailwheels, 10" wheels or even the Alaska "fat boy" tires and wheels. With the smaller, 600 tires on the mains, this changes the pitch angle of the airplane when it is on 3 wheels. The result is that on initial touchdown in the 3-point, the wing is not stalled, and only looses lift gradually as it slows down. This causes some extra skittishness.

If you have a plane with a larger tailwheel, it will be better behaved if you stick with 8.50s or bigger on the mains, so that the wing is stalled upon touchdown.