"acrophile" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<MuU78.6278$jO5.1826543@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
> "Dave Russell" <pullinggs@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:49785d7a.0202041951.3a3576db@posting.google.com...
> > I don't really know how the G-limits/max load/etc. change between the
> > models, but some of it does depend on the type of wing spar installed
> > (wood vs metal).
>
> G limits are the same on all of them. Max useful load is higher on airplanes
> with metal spars. The 7ECA and the 7GCAA go from 1650 to 1750 with the metal
> spar. The 7GCBC goes from 1650 to 1800. Don't know what happens to the
> useful load of the 7KCAB.


The older (wood spar) 7ECA's are +5, -2 G airplanes compared to +6, -5
in the Decathlon series.

While the Citabria is a good "teacher" for aerobatic maneuvers, the
"Airbatic" in "Citabria" is really an afterthought -- the Decathlon
was the truly full-time aerobatic model. 1,000 hours of aerobatics on
a Citabria frame will put far more mileage on the bird than 1,000
hours of akro on a Decathlon airframe.

Oh, and did you know that the FRONT strut on the Citabria was
relegated literally to the REAR strut on the Decathlon? The Decathlon
is a noticeably beefier airplane.

Rich
http://www.richstowell.com

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Aerobatic Training, George Mitten
Next message: Re: Citabria 7ECA, John R. Prince
Next message in thread: Re: Citabria 7ECA, John R. Prince
Previous message in thread: Re: Citabria 7ECA, acrophile