Citabria vs Piper Cub

[Rob]

" Try stuffing an elk in either and you will need a Maule or a Cessna 180. "

You not stuffing a elk into a little maule, if you are actually doing that type of flying look at what the people making a living (kind of lol) doing that fly, a C180, beaver, otter, only thing I've seen a cub used for was camp checks

My experience has been vastly different... I susp
ect more MOOSE get hauled out in cubs than you are aware of .... not shiras moose BTW.... they make elk look petty....
Beyond moose, though, come sheep. I would hazard to say that more sheep fly out in cubs than all other brands combined....
Ditto for wolf and coyote kills....
There are good reasons all else are compared to cubs, and price tags ain't it......

[74gcbc/76185]

Yes , maybe cubs have hauled more sheep out. Probably equal on moose. But probably wrong on the wolves. That is all I can say about this
Both will fly with a whole moose. (So I've heard)
There is more room inside a citabria.
Both are wonderful airplanes..

[NineThreeKilo]

" Try stuffing an elk in either and you will need a Maule or a Cessna 180. "
My experience has been vastly different... I susp
ect more MOOSE get hauled out in cubs than you are aware of .... not shiras moose BTW.... they make elk look petty....
Beyond moose, though, come sheep. I would hazard to say that more sheep fly out in cubs than all other brands combined....
Ditto for wolf and coyote kills....
There are good reasons all else are compared to cubs, and price tags ain't it......

When I lived in northern ON Canada, you would hear of plenty of Beavers, Otters and C180s flying hunters in and out with their meat (not putting the 206 etc in as they are not t/w aircraft), the cubs tended to be used for camp checks, didn't see a maule used for anything, though I'm sure someone is using one somewhere. Also a good chunk of these planes didn't have big tundras, just a little over original tires.

In my experience the cub or maule on monster truck tires has become the SUV of aviation.

[Zzz]

Hey PilotRPI, will you be hauling moose meat?

[58Skylane]

Hey PilotRPI, will you be hauling moose meat?

How about Bear and Elk??

Poor guy, this thread sure went side ways.

[OregonMaule]

I know these aren't really comperable planes, but I after getting my tailwheel endorsement last Spring in a Cub, I finally had the chance at a Citabria last weekend.

They both fly nice and light and are very balanced. When in the Citabria I missed being able to fly with the door open.

Now for the real differences. Taxiing in the Citabria was much less responsive than in the cub. I never really touched the brakes in the cub as the tailwheel was quite effective, but I had to use differential braking in the Citabria to get it to turn at all. The benefit of the Citabria was sitting in the front seat and actually being able to see what was in front of me without having to do S-turns!

Takeoff in the Citabria was much less exciting than the Cub (a good thing). Whereas the Cub rudder is extremely sensitive and easy to overcontrol for a newbie tailwheel pilot, the Citabria rudder was less responsive. The Citabria also seemed less willing to dart to the side if not perfectly aligned with the runway. The cub wheels on pavement seemed to have a lot more grip and any angle off center had much more effect.

We did a three point and a wheel landing. The three point was made easy by the fact that you can see the runway in front of you which helps give perspective for proper attitude. On my first shot I had the tailwheel touch slightly just before the mains got down. After touchdown, the Citabria seemed to keep rolling for a while and needed brakes to slow her down before the intersecting runway. I never had to use the brakes in the Cub after landing to get her slowed. There was probably a good 10mph difference in touchdown speed, and I wonder if that was the factor. It was a tad weird using brakes after touchdown, as that was discouraged in the cub. This was all done on the verge of being sick as it was after my first aerobatic lesson!

For a slow summer flight, I would pick the Cub hands down. Nothing like flying with the door open seeing everything below, with nothing more than a stick, rudder, and throttle to worry about. I would consider a Citabria for my first plane as it can actually cruise with the bigger engine and the ground manners are a bit more benign.

Happy Flying!

I think the Citabria has aerobatic capabilities. I would like that. Does the CC have aerobatic capabilties? I don't know. I like the resale of CC. If money is no issue I vote Carbon Cub with glass panel. Carbon Cub will fit LSA also.

I like this paint scheme.

[ernstmfg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mx2aqDf4C0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkSdIAkp9hU

Citabria's do ok. This ones for sale on Barnstormers
Ray

[74gcbc/76185]

citabria is airbatic spelled backwards

[PilotRPI]

Wasn't planning on moving too much Moose meat, especially here in NJ. Maybe a squirrel as a stow-away? I think either could probably handle that.

Meant it more that both were a lot of fun, but very different, even as a new TW pilot!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

[stearmann4]

RPI,

I had the unique experience to compare a stock J-3 with a 1969 7ECA daily as I owned the J-3 and leased the Citabria for tailwheel instruction. I believe the Cub had far more control harmony and was obviously lighter. The Cub would also take off and land shorter but this is due largely to the wing design and lighter weight.

That said, I was always physically more comfortable instructing in the back seat of the Citabria than in the J-3, and whenever I wanted to travel for more than 30 miles I hopped in the Citabria. Especially in the Northwest, you can't beat a starter, ample baggage, transponder and a hardwired radio. I also got 90+ mph on the108hp O-235C1 engine at about 5.5 gph, it was a pretty decent cross country machine, and that engine is bullet proof!

I had students that trained in both the Citabria and J-3. Most of them found the Citabria easier to learn to land. Some of it due to wing loading, some just never grasped the back seat flying of the J-3. The spring gear did take a little time for most to master though. On that note, don't overlook the Aeronca 7DC (85hp) planes which are a great value right now. I just ferried one from Olympia to Wenatchee at 7,000' and had a great time.

Aside from being a taildragger, the Citabria line doesn't have much nostalgic apeal, but it certainly is more practical for the money. Lately I've seen some pretty nice 7ECAs for what a 65hp stock J-3 can be had for.

If our J-3 hadn't had so much family legacy tied up in it, I would've sold it and bought a nice Citabria and will still probably be on the lookout for another one in the future.

Mike-

[porterjet]

I may be wrong here but I believe the Citabria's with flaps have a lower "G" force capacity so are not much for aerobatics. I don't think I've ever seen a new light sport airplane being advertised as aerobatic.

[74gcbc/76185]

The 7GCBC is rated for +5 and -2 g's
The 8KCAB (Decathelon) is rated +6 and -5 g's

[PilotRPI]

Stearmann 4,

Thanks for the info! The Citabria is definitely on my short list. Was wondering about the lower hp versions. As beautiful as the Cub is to fly, 65mph is just a bit too slow for me and that price would let me get a decent Citabria, Pacer, etc.

[OregonMaule]

Stearmann 4,

Thanks for the info! The Citabria is definitely on my short list. Was wondering about the lower hp versions. As beautiful as the Cub is to fly, 65mph is just a bit too slow for me and that price would let me get a decent Citabria, Pacer, etc.

OK then. I say a Highcountry with 180 HP
Cheers

[Tyler]

I like the Carbon Cub, hope to test fly one this summer...but if we are talking about just a J3 or a Citabria then I would have to go with the Citabria. It's faster, can fly farther and has a better useful load.

[A1Skinner]

I may be wrong here but I believe the Citabria's with flaps have a lower "G" force capacity so are not much for aerobatics. I don't think I've ever seen a new light sport airplane being advertised as aerobatic.

The 7GCBC (with flaps), the 7GCAA, and the 7ECA (both without flaps) are all rated for +5/-2 G's, so they should be no different for aerobatics. I have heard however, that the GCBC is not as good inverted due to the flap retracting springs allowing the flaps to hang when inverted. With out fuel injection none of these can be inverted for long, so I dont think its a big deal.

Personally, I fly a '76 7GCBC with a climb prop and VG's. I love the plane. Handles great, and is pretty good for short field. I have read a lot of other forums and lots of cub lovers say that Citabrias have a high final approach speed. Ive had mine down below 40 mph over the threshold, and 50 on short final. I may be wrong, but that seems pretty slow to me and allows for about 250-300 feet of ground run. And I can be off again in 250 or less with fuel fuel and a passenger. I am hardly ever landing/taking off anywhere lower then 2000 feet ASL.

My 2 cents. Ive never flown a cub, but I absolutely love my GCBC. With 31s and VG's on it, its a pretty darned good plane. And having the airbatic capabilities are kinda cool.

[Zzz]

citabria is airbatic spelled backwards

I always wondered who at Aeronca or Bellanca came up with this and what they were thinking.

Have you ever used the word "airbatic?"

I think was happened was that someone thought it would be clever to name this newly beefed up aer-o-batic Champ thusly, but decided that "Citaborea" sounded like an microbial intestinal affliction.