For many of us, flying means getting from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible without breaking the bank. Thoughts of the owners next airplane typically involve such things as bigger engines, retractable gear, turbocharging and the like.
But there’s a whole different flying experience, one where its enough just to get aloft and enjoy a fine day, perhaps throwing in a few lazy loops and rolls along the way – true recreational flying. The explosion of the homebuilt and ultralight industry in recent years is testament to the demand for simple, inexpensive airplanes suited to this relaxed mode of flight. But for those who don’t fancy experimentals, choices are few and far between, especially if aerobatics are part of the mix.
The American Champion Citabria is right up at the top of the list for those looking for a simple, fun flying machine capable of limited aerobatics (Citabria is airbatic spelled backwards. Apparently Citaborea just didnt sound right). Available in several distinct versions, with varying powerplants and equipment, the Citabria has a great deal to recommend it to the recreational flyer: Simplicity, economy, few vices and-not insignificantly-support by a viable manufacturer.
The Citabria, which remains in production, is based on the American Champion 7-series airframe. The similar, though more rugged, 8 series is used for the Scout bushplane and fully aerobatic Decathlon, which are not covered here.
There are a few things to watch for when looking for a Citabria, most notably the wooden wing spars found in pre-1990s models. There’s also the possibility of a strut corrosion , similar to what Piper owners have been finding for some years. The good news is that American Champion can retrofit new, all-metal wings onto older airplanes for owners who prefer them, and many Citabrias have undergone the upgrade. In addition, a recent gross weight boost for the metal-spar versions adds utility to the fleet.
History
The Citabria traces its roots back to the Aeronca Champ, one of the crowd of postwar taildragger trainers that included the original Piper Cub, Cessna 120 and Taylorcraft. The postwar production boom resulted in tens of thousands of these airplanes, but by the time the 1950s rolled around the market was saturated and there was a production slump that took with it several designs, including the Champ.
In the mid-1950s the line was revived and the 7EC Champ began rolling out the factory doors again, remaining in production through the 1962 model year.
In 1959, the first airplanes that would eventually become Citabrias appeared, dubbed 7GC. In the years that followed, a fistful of airplanes was rolled out, all called Citabria.
For whatever reason, certain manufacturers choose to name their airplanes in a very confusing way, making it quite an exercise to figure out exactly which model is being talked about. Maule, Mooney and Bellanca (which built the Citabria before American Champion came along) have all done this.
In the case of the Citabria, there are six variants, all bearing the same name. In some cases, the differences between models are minor, in others more significant:
7GC-Produced only in the 1959 model year, it had flaps and a 140-HP Lycoming O-290.
7GCB-Essentially the same as the 7GC, but with a 150-HP Lycoming O-320; produced from 1960-64.
7GCA -Aerobatic, with the same Lycoming as the 7GCB. No flaps. Introduced in 1967 and in production today as the 7GCAA Citabria Adventure.
7GCBC-Aerobatic, same as the 7GCAA, but with slightly longer wings and flaps. Also introduced in 1967 and in production as the 7GCBC Citabria Explorer.
7KCAB-Introduced in 1967 as a more capable aerobatic ship, with a fuel-injected 150-HP Lycoming and inverted fuel and oil systems. It was produced through the 1977 model year.
7ECA-Introduced in 1964 as an aerobatic follow-on to the Champ. Originally, it had a 100-HP Continental O-200, soon replaced by the 115-HP Lycoming O-235. It is in production as the 7ECA Citabria Aurora.Most of these airplanes were built by Bellanca, which went under in 1980 at the beginning of the GA slump. Bellanca has returned and is building Vikings. The line of taildraggers was sold to American Champion, which made a brief attempt to revive the line in 1984; the timing wasnt right, though, and production ceased again.
With the revival of interest in new general aviation aircraft in the 1990s, however, the conditions for a restart of production were more favorable. In 1992 American Champion started delivering Decathlons, followed a year later by the Scout. 1994 saw the reintroduction of the 7GCBC Citabria, followed by the 7ECA in 1996 and most recently the 7GCAA.
The GCBC model has proven the most popular, followed by the KCAB. The latter, built as a low-end aerobatic airplane capable of inverted flight, did not last largely due to competition from the Decathlon. The Decathlon, with its shorter wings and semi-symmetrical airfoil, was a better buy for aerobatics, though the KCAB is still a fine airplane.
Todays Citabrias are essentially the same airplanes introduced decades ago, with one very significant difference: the wing structure. The Bellanca airplanes had wooden wing spars, which sometimes suffered cracks and in the Decathlon were the subject of ADs. American Champion came up with an all-metal structure and incorporated it into all new aircraft. Owners of earlier models can also have the new wings retrofitted. The cost is steep at $11,000 per set plus $600 installation and $500 to 900 for paint (7ECA, 7GCAA and 7KCAB; the 7GCBC is $1500 more), but the new wings boost the gross weight, are free of repetitive inspection requirements and certainly increase the resale value of the airplane.
Given the nature of our litigious society, its clearly in American Champions interest to get as many of the old wings out of circulation as possible. This is reflected by a core charge of $2000 per wing, refunded on return of the original wings-even those with cracked spars.
The factory can also supply new, improved front struts for $990 a set and install aileron spades for $500. All of these are worthwhile improvements to older aircraft. When shopping for a Citabria, extra consideration should be given to upgraded airplanes.
Offering the upgrades has proven a shrewd business move, affording the factory a source of cash flow that is not dependent on the sale of new airplanes while simultaneously reducing its liability exposure.
Handling
For a taildragger, the Citabria has benign handling characteristics. Pilots with little or no taildragger experience must bear in mind the fundamental differences between conventional and trigear airplanes, however.
On the ground, taildraggers want to swap ends, due to the location of the center of gravity aft of the landing gear. This is not a problem as long as the pilot stays alert to side loading of the landing gear (Tracking the centerline is everything, one pilot told us), which requires extra attention be paid to the rudder whenever the airplane is on the ground.
Once aloft, the Citabria is delightful, though once again its markedly different from the average trigear airplane. The typical Cessna or Piper is not terribly dependent on properly coordinated flight: Not so with the Citabria, which is definitely a rudder airplane. Failure to keep the ball centered results in a mushy, uncomfortable ride. This characteristic is due to a propensity for adverse yaw, which becomes more important when performing aerobatics.
Though capable of loops and rolls, the Citabria is far from a competition-level machine. Its ideal as an introduction to the experience and for casual use, however. As noted above, only the 7KCAB is suitable for negative-G maneuvers. The other variants are limited to positive-G or G-neutral maneuvers like inside loops, barrel rolls and the like.
Stalls are straightforward, with plenty of aerodynamic warning. Older models have no stall warning horn. The stall speed is quite low, particularly in the flap-equipped 7GCBC, which has a Vso down around 40 knots according to the factory.
One potential handling trouble spot is PIO (pilot-induced oscillation) during landings. Though certainly not unique to Champion aircraft, the spring-steel main gear can bounce the airplane back up into the air if the pilot dumps it too hard. If he or she fails to go around, another bounce, groundloop and/or nose-over and/or prop strike can result.
Performance
Unsurprisingly, the cruising speed of the Citabria is pretty sedate: 100 to 110 knots or so, depending on model.
The extra power afforded by the larger Lycoming shows up mostly in considerably greater climb rates. The longer wings of the 7GCBC help here also; according to American Champion, the 7ECA climbs at 845 FPM (not bad for an airplane with an O-235), while the 7GCAA moves up at 1,280 FPM and the 7GCBC climbs at 1,345 FPM.
Takeoff and landing performance are impressive, particularly for the 7GCBC. According to the Aircraft Bluebook, takeoff ground roll is only 296 feet, and a 50-foot obstacle can be cleared in 457 feet. Landing distance over a 50-foot obstacle is 690 feet, with a 310-foot ground roll.
Loading
An important thing to note about the new metal wing structure is that it gives the 7GCBC Citabria a gross weight of 1800 pounds, compared to 1650 for the older models. Gross for the 7GCAA and 7ECA was upped in early 2001 to 1750 pounds for metal-spar versions.
The Citabrias are not known for their load carrying capacity, unlike some legendary taildraggers. While the lifting ability varies according to model and equipment, in general its not possible to fill the seats and tanks at the same time, never mind the baggage bin. But once again, thats not really much of an issue with the Citabria; its not built to be a cross-country machine.
Owners report that staying within the CG envelope is generally not a problem.
Cockpit
Taildraggers usually have old fashioned controls, which we feel are in many ways superior to the typical control yoke arrangement. An hour in the cockpit of a Citabria may we’ll convince you that control yokes are for the birds. Using a stick is easy and intuitive and, more importantly, it stays out of the way. There’s actually room to fiddle with charts and flight logs without having a yoke blocking your lap.
The throttle quadrant is where it should be for a right-handed person, under the left hand. Same for carb heat.
The rudder pedals and brakes, however, are another matter. The rudder pedals are at the front corners of the cockpit, so the pilots feet are splayed far apart. Earlier models of the airplane have heel brakes, which (while they do work well) are tough to get used to.
On top of that, seat adjustability is limited, so those who are short find that their legs are straight out, spread wide apart, and the stick is too close to the crotch. Pilots who are very tall might have trouble, too.
The seats are comfortable, though, and there’s sufficient head and shoulder room for most. Visibility is reasonably good, considering all the struts and so forth that are in the way. One notable feature is the Citabrias relatively high roofline; tall pilots wont be stuck looking at the wing root, unlike some other high-wing designs. The panel is low, affording good forward visibility.
The noise level is about on par with the proverbial boiler factory. Headsets are mandatory if you wish to maintain your sanity or understand a single word said on the radio. This is particularly important in training situations: The instructor is not sitting next to the student, and it can be hard to hear any shouted commands.
Panel space is, not surprisingly, pretty limited. Nevertheless, its possible to fit some gyros and enough electronics for IFR flight in todays ATC environment, though nobody will ever mistake the Citabria for an instrument platform.
The fuel system is utter simplicity, with three sump drains, one direct-reading mechanical gauge in each wing root and a simple fuel selector. Fuel supply is by gravity feed, of course, but there’s also a boost pump.
Maintenance, ADs
Though maintenance is simple and low-cost, it pays to seek out a mechanic whos familiar with tube-and-fabric airplanes and, if looking at an airplane with the older wing, who has experience with wood.
The covering is Dacron, which is quite durable, though not good for a lifetime. Owners suggest keeping the airplane out of the sun if possible, though, since a re-cover job can be costly and time consuming.
Carl Petersen, president of the Citabria Owners Group, says that aside from making certain the ADs are complied with, a good look at the fuselage tubes and proper inspection of the wooden spars, there are no particular trouble spots to watch for when shopping for a used Citabria. He did point out that early model struts had thinner, .035 wall thickness struts, as compared to the more recent .049 wall thickness; AD 77-22-5 called for replacement of the old struts, and most if not all airframes should have the heavier struts installed; the presence of a placard limiting speed to 153 MPH is proof of the thinner struts.
One reader from Australia pointed out the possibility of corrosion in the elevators. After purchasing his Citabria, he spent an additional 10 percent of the purchase price correcting corrosion problems. Amongst these was corrosion in the forward part of the elevator, caused by water collecting due to a lack of drain holes (the airplane had been kept outside, with the stick tied back to prevent movement of the controls). The same owner reported corrosion in the window frames and nails working loose in the wooden wing spars.
Based on current and past reader feedback and examination of SDRs, other maintenance points of particular interest are corrosion in the tubing, particularly in the vicinity of the tailwheel and aft of the baggage compartment. Also watch for cracked seat backs (there have been accidents in which the pilots seat back failed, planting his torso on the aft stick with disastrous results, and the area has been the subject of AD 89-18-6).
The landing gear U-bolts can become cracked after a while, especially in airplanes subjected to rough-field or training operations.
Beware of any airplane thats had any sort of wing damage; Carl Petersen notes that most spar compression cracks can be traced to some sort of abuse such as a wing tip strike during a groundloop. Speaking of wings, there’s a recent AD covering the wing rib nails. A full set of service bulletins should be a part of any owners (or prospective owners) library, since they can point out areas of weakness.
As noted above, the new wing structure was developed as the result of cracks in Decathlon wing spars, not those of the Citabrias, so the presence of wood is not necessarily a deal-killer. Nevertheless, an AD came out in late 2000 mandating repetitive inspections.
Another notable AD surfaced in 1998; 98-2-8 calls for inspection of the inner bore of the crankshaft for corrosion pits or cracks. If nothing is found, thats good news; all that needs to be done is an anticorrosion treatment. If cracks are found, the crank gets replaced. But if pits are found, the inspection needs to be repeated every 100 hours until overhaul, when the crank gets replaced.
Other type-specific ADs include 96-18-2, which deals with inspection of the front strut attach fittings.