Curious how a 150hp citabria with flaps does in the backcountry, gravel bars, sand , on skis etc?

Seems like a good budget combo aside from the low useful.

I have a old 172 I was thinking to sell or trade and see if I could talk myself into a two seat taildragger. I have a 170 so the 172 just isn't as fun or useful.

The Citabria is a very capable airplane but so is the 170 you already have. So maybe just "spice" it up a bit, one stop shopping and put the savings into more dinosaur juice and further adventures with it.

I used to run a 7GCBC on 31s. Fantastic airplane IMO. Very capable. Can't go everywhere a cub can, but can go most places most pilots can take a cub. Great heaters, faster cruise, more comfortable rear seat. My prop was pitched back to 53 which pulled hard. I ran straight Aeroski 2000s on mine and it performed well on them.

Citabrias are fine aircraft, and can work for backcountry flying just fine. You’re in Fairbanks, look up Gary Pearse there. Gary flies a Taylorcraft now, but he owned and flew a Citabria 7GCBC for many years.

The single biggest issue with the Citabrias as you noted, is lack of useful load. Especially on floats, but even on wheels, they’re generally not a two “normal people” and full fuel airplane.

But, as noted by Mapleflight, I’d probably use the money from the 172 to make that 170 a better ride. Go to Chena Marina Air Service and visit with Mark Hasner about that course of action.

Since FAI is at 430 feet msl, and most places you’ll go around there are relatively low, even a stock 170 can be a very capable back country/off airport machine.

MTV

I loved my 150hp no flap Citabria (big engine 7ECA). With some practice I found I could cut the book values for takeoff and landing distances in half. It was also a fun enough airplane to fly that I could go to the airport after work and fly a half dozen laps of the pattern just for grins. If I owned a C172 that would never happen.

When I first saw this thread pop up I didn't see that you owned a C170 already, so I have to respectfully agree that you may be well served by sticking with that plane. Unless of course you just want another plane, which is all the justification I need.

The useful load of the Citabria is the big deal. It stems from sharing the same type certificate as the Champ, which had a good useful load. But then you add fancy stuff like a battery, starter, alternator and useful load suffers quickly. Mine was pretty light and gave me about 490 lbs of useful load. My plane had the small tanks (26 gallons total) which I never found to be a huge deal for my use.

"According to a friend" the Citabria flies well heavy. I'll just say it is a +5/-2 airplane that jumps off the ground, climbs very well fully loaded and leave it at that. I never wanted to come out on the short end of a ramp check so I avoided flying over gross.

One word of caution about the Citabria (confirmed over a few hundred hours): The great takeoff and climb performance I refer to is down near sea level. The performance suffers badly at high DA. A grass runway takeoff at 6000' DA is not impressive and climb performance above 9,000' is dismal.

If you go on supercub.org there is a 3page discussion entitled “sc vs 7gcbc” that may answer some of your questions . It is a 2006 + or - thread in the “Hangar” section and sub sectioned in the “Everything else “ heading .

A1Skinner wrote:I used to run a 7GCBC on 31s. Fantastic airplane IMO. Very capable. Can't go everywhere a cub can, but can go most places most pilots can take a cub. Great heaters, faster cruise, more comfortable rear seat. My prop was pitched back to 53 which pulled hard. I ran straight Aeroski 2000s on mine and it performed well on them.

Nice.

I’ve started looking around. Wish my 172 had manual flaps it’s a M model so it has the slow electric ones. Posted on a local classified will see what happens.

Lots of flight schools trying to find 172's. Should be an easy sell.

Here's a video of two SuperCubs and a 160hp GCBC taking off from the same 5000' "strip". Compare.

I never sweat the paper limitation of gross weight. I like the way it performs when light (<1500 lbs), but handles 1800 reasonably for airport operations.

https://youtu.be/iv78EIRkVDc

Karmutzen wrote:Here's a video of two SuperCubs and a 160hp GCBC taking off from the same 5000' "strip". Compare.

I never sweat the paper limitation of gross weight. I like the way it performs when light (<1500 lbs), but handles 1800 reasonably for airport operations.

https://youtu.be/iv78EIRkVDc

I can't acurately tell from the clip, is your Citabria a straight wing or flapped ?

Where legal weight counts is when flight instruction is involved, as in initial checkout, flight review, etc. Any CFI who is dumb enough to offer the “authorities” written and signed evidence that he/she violated regulations SHOULD lose their certificates.

If a pilot chooses to do so, with passengers aboard, they are also looking for major issues if ANYthing bad happens.

I sold my Super Cub on floats and bought a 180 hp 170 then had to find a set of floats for it, so I could legally offer flight instruction.

Do what you like, but be careful, and try not to be stupid out there.

MTV

. I can't acurately tell from the clip, is your Citabria a straight wing or flapped ?

GCBC, flapped, using the Alaska technique of starting the run with flaps up and then pulling them at the right time.

Good article by Jonny Seccombe in PilotWeb
https://pilotweb.aero/flying/adventures/bush-flying-in-alaska-6240656/

Looking at a PA-12. It has nice fabric but a O290. Pa-18 tail feathers by the looks of it and flaps. What’s the take off performance like. Improved much with a 320 or 360? Or just too draggy

alaskan9974 wrote:Looking at a PA-12. It has nice fabric but a O290. Pa-18 tail feathers by the looks of it and flaps. What’s the take off performance like. Improved much with a 320 or 360? Or just too draggy

All of the "long wing" Pipers offer great performance but the Citabria is a serious contender. In the right hands and with a bit of practice it will give 90-95% of the Piper performance in the take-off and landing phases of flight. A Citabria offers good performance value, better seating, more cabin space and a higher cruise speed for the same given configuration (engine, flaps etc.). If the budget allows streching to a Scout is a bonus.

I would shy away from an 0-290 powered PA-12, parts for the 0-290 are becoming a rare thing. The Lycoming 0-320/0-360 line of engines are well supported with a good supply of bits & pieces available.

Ended up trading for my old 172.

About 100 since top overhaul and fuselage and fabric redone about 10 years ago. Pretty much stock but still feels lot funner then my old 172.

alaskan9974 wrote:Ended up trading for my old 172.

About 100 since top overhaul and fuselage and fabric redone about 10 years ago. Pretty much stock but still feels lot funner then my old 172.

Nice looking machine! Congratulations, now burn some gas!

And let us know how it’s working for you.

MTV