Hello. Im new to this site and was hoping for some input. I fly a '76 7GCBC on 31" ABW's. I have Micro VG's on it, but I was looking into a STOL kit. I have no problem getting off the ground short, but was hoping to slow it down a bit for landing. The only STOL kit I seem to be able to find is the Crosswinds STOL. Does anyone have experience with Crosswinds, or for that matter does anyone have experience with a Citabria with a STOL kit? I am open to suggestions.
Thank you in advance.

I have a 1960 Citabria GCB with O-320, flaps and crosswind stol kit. I bought it that way, so don't know what it was like before. The cross wind STOL kit has leading edge cuff full length of wing, stall fences in middle of wing and at wing tip, Inboard flap extensions, flap seals, aileron seals not sure if there is more to the kit or not?? I am very happy with how it flys and handles. I call it a poor mans Super Cub, I paid much less then a Super Cub would of costs and I have just as much fun if not more with it. No VG's on mine might be fun to add on and see what the difference is. I run 600 tires in the winter and 850's in the summer for off airport stuff.

I get to fly a 160 hp Citabria now and then. I've flown it stock and now with Goodyear 26 inch tires, Micro VG's and a seaplane/power prop. It made a completely different animal out of the airplane. Getting the nose up higher and adding the VG's let me get in pretty short.

I found the VG's made a huge difference, as well as the increased angle of attack with the big tires. I have been thinking about a longer seaplane prop. I was curious about the leading cuff though. I may give it a try. As for the flap extensions, do they just make the flaps deeper? I cant see them being extended wider because my stock flaps run from the aileron to within 4" of the fuselage.

The flaps are extended to almost mate with the fuselage.

I wouldn't do it if it were me. You are adding a LOT of weight to the airplane, and these are airplanes that don't have a generous useful load to start with. Ever plan to carry a passenger and full fuel?

I've flown Super Cubs with the cuffs and I would never go there if it were me.

Get a long prop and spend the money on avgas. Find an instructor that KNOWS the type and spend a good bit of time learning to land it. I think you'll find it's a great airplane just the way it is....

MTV

I have a '75 GCBC on 31" Bushwheels and a long prop. I've been thinking about VGs but don't have them. The long prop was the best investment I have made in getting off shorter and slowing down on landing. I definitely notice it helping to slow the plane when I pull the throttle back on landing.

ZIM - I had the taller scout gear and a long prop on a 7KCAB and liked that.

I had VG's on my first scout and I really never got what all the rage is about them. There was maybe a slight improvement on aileron control at almost stall? I never thought it went any slower.

The gas guys tore the ones near the fuel tanks off with their hoses and it was a pain to wash off bugs and frost. Because of all that I never put them on my current scout. I might be a little better pilot now and would notice improvement, but I rate them as more of a pain then positive.

I wonder if the new airfoil tail on the new scouts would work on the citabrias?? I would try that before VG's. And while you are doing the tail, might as well go for the 210 hp too.

Thanks for the advice guys. I really appreciate it. I never even thought of the weight issue with adding the cuffs. Id have to agree, its looking like the longer prop is just the way to go. I already burn avgas, unless I'm in a real pinch. Most mogas these days has ethanol in it, and ethanol is kind of frowned upon when it comes to airplanes. Or so my AME has told me.
The plane already had the VG's on it when I bought it, but my good buddy has the near identical plane and he noticed quite a difference when he put VG's on his. I also put VG's on the 150 I owned and it made a noticeable difference. But I do know what you mean about cleaning bugs and frost off of the leading edge being a pain...
As far as 210 HP goes... I think I'll keep flying her the way she is, maybe do the top end and get 160hp out of her. If I need 210 then I'll buy a Maule or 180, that way I get some carrying capacity out of it as well.

Maybe dumb question . But what's the difference between a Citabria (160hp/fixed prop?) and a Scout (180hp/CSP?)? Is it the engine and prop? How about the fuselage and wings?

Five Eight, The scout has a taller/bigger vertical, longer wings, and taller gear. Most scouts also have 70 gallon tanks instead of 36. Otherwise they are very similar.

patrol guy wrote:Five Eight, The scout has a taller/bigger vertical, longer wings, and taller gear. Most scouts also have 70 gallon tanks instead of 36. Otherwise they are very similar.

Thanks John. So now the Citabria (7GCBC) is now called Explorer?

Thanks John. So now the Citabria (7GCBC) is now called Explorer?[/quote]


Yes, you are correct. The older ones had 150 HP and were just 7GCBC's. When American champion started building them they gave it higher compression to give it 160 HP and called it the Explorer. They also have the High Country Explorer that has 180 HP and choice of CS or FP prop.
The Scout also has a higher gross weight and is structurally stronger, especially around the gear mounts.

They're making a "Denali Scout" now also with a 210hp IO-390 and a 80'' MT prop. Sounds like a fun plane.

I only have about 15 hours in Citabrias, so I'm speaking from general experience and not make/model experience. Much of the time, the real restriction on aircraft performance is the pilot, not the airplane. Adding doodads to an airplane can be a benefit, but often they add a benefit in one area but cause a detriment in others. For instance, my former hangar neighbor had VGs on his 172 and bragged about how it improved his control at "slow" approach speeds--which he did at 70 knots. My reaction was that 70 knots is not "slow" for a 172. His was a 172M model, with Cessna's slightly cuffed leading edge and curved wingtips, giving a 44 knot/50 mph stall speed; 1.3 Vso = 57 knot/65 mph--at gross weight. My 63 P172D has the stock leading edge (no cuff) but really droopy tips, which add control at slow airspeeds but don't lower the stall speed perceptibly. The book says mine should stall at 52 mph, but I routinely do my approaches at 55-60 mph when lightly loaded and 65-70 mph at gross. Your actual flying weight affects your stall speed and your approach speed considerably.

The downside to VGs has been mentioned--harder to clear off frost, snagging on fuel hoses, etc. The real downside is their cost, if you don't actually use them. Spending $1500 on something that you don't really use is pretty wasteful.

You might consider going out and see what your actual stall speed is per your airspeed indicator at the weights you normally use, and then practice at 1.3 x your indicated stall speed. Good guess that you will find that you've been using a higher than necessary approach speed, which makes a huge difference in how short your airplane can land. Similarly, Vx and Vy are affected a bunch by your airplane's actual weight as well as by density altitude. But the only way to know what your airplane is capable of doing is to find out, perhaps with instruction, perhaps with just some definitive practice.

Cary

Zim wrote:I have a '75 GCBC on 31" Bushwheels and a long prop. I've been thinking about VGs but don't have them. The long prop was the best investment I have made in getting off shorter and slowing down on landing. I definitely notice it helping to slow the plane when I pull the throttle back on landing.

Zim, I've spent a bit of time looking for a prop. Just wonder what kind/model # yours is. Is it a climb or cruise?
Thanks

David

I with they'd build a wide-body Scout configured side-by-side. Still 2-seat but with a huge baggage area. Seems like it'd be about the same dimensions as a Pacer.

I love the Champ lineage, and would likely consider a Scout, but the wife just doesn't dig the tandem seating.

Zane, buy a Maule and be done with it!

To bad your wife doesn't dig that the tandem seating Zane. Most people I've flown with love it because there is so much shoulder room. Your not rubbing shoulders with the guy/gal next to you. But I do wish there was a bit more room for the fishing rod and tent...

Zim wrote:I have a '75 GCBC on 31" Bushwheels and a long prop....

I'm curious as to what "long prop" you run also. is it a GM8241 "borer" as approved for supercubs? Did you have to get a field approval, or is there an STC for the citabria?

Little John wrote:Zane buy a muale and be done with it.

Hahahaha. That might be the most sensible course of action, but then I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror. The horror.