SC vs. 7GCBC ?

The 7GCBC is a Real "GOOD" airplane, notice I didn't say Great, I had a old timer tell me the are every bit as good as a SC, Well that depends.

The Big, Flapped Champ does pretty good but just add 100+ feet to everything, take offs, & landings. Guys like Kase and Wilber, And all the Pro pilots up north, Could put one in & out where most average pilots couldn't do with a hot rod SC.

If short IN & Outs don't really give you a woody like me, Then they are a great plane. Cruise is A lot Better, Way more comfortable, and easier to get in and out.

The first Taledragger I owned was a 74 7GCBC, with 750TT, Great plane to learn to Stick and Rudder in, only because you are on the ground longer to Learn!!! I Traded it for a SC Have'nt missed that bird since, except on a Long Flight.

Thanks Matt

mvivion said:

I don't know what the increase in empty weight is on a wood wing Citabria, but I know when I was told what it was, I was pretty surprised. Thirty pounds or so seems to be what I heard, but that's guessing.

In any case, if I were rebuilding a Citabria, I'd go with the metal wings.

In fact, the local mechanic told me that AC has a wing exchange program that is, according to him, a LOT cheaper than rebuilding a wood wing yourself. He said he almost cant' afford to rebuild a wood wing for the price that the factory will sell a brand new metal spar wing, covered and painted white.

MTV

Click to expand...

Mike to follow up, I posted a question about this on the Bellanca/champion forum. I'm interested because I'm rebuilding a citabria at the moment and I'm considering replacing the spars with aluminum. Anyway, according to the responses I got, the milman replacement spars add about 10 lb, and the new Champion wings add about 15 lbs, and you get the full 100 lb max gross weight increase that the new citabrias have. (150 lb for GCBC) One of the guys who responded was an owner of American Champion. He said that the reported large weight increases were because many airplanes had never been on a scale, and they were much heavier than the w&b showed, so when they weighed hte plane after re-winging, it *seemed* like they gained a great deal of weight. After they figured out what was going on, they started weighing the airplanes before the conversion (the ones why converted at the factory) and after, and it was found that the conversion typically added 15 lbs. The reported large weight increases were due to old fat airplanes with inaccurate weight and balance sheets.

regards.

Never weigh one of these things. If my wife (110 lbs) and I (195) and full fuel are over gross at computed weight, think of how bad it will be if I weigh the thing!

Heres my 2 cents!! I have owned a 7kcab and have probably 1800 hours in that plane. I have had it to Canada several time on fishing trips and have flown it all over the place in the states. It flew great and was a real pleasure to fly with or without the wife or kids.
I would crawl over all the Citabrias ever made to get to my supercub. It has all the right STCs and can be used with great utility for everything I need. And I got tired of doing acrobatics.

Have one of each, like me. I never get tired of going fast, upside down. But I sure prefer the Cub in the pattern.

OK--so now that we have heard about the Citabria's good and bad points--who would like to talk me out of owning my 7GCAA 150 HP Citabria. (no flaps)

Bill i'll talk to you about owning one... It all depends on two things money and use. What you going to pay for it and what is the use. My motto is that "you can't put and price on fun"
Flaps are or should be optional-who needs flaps on any plane with 150hp my 7kcab didn't have flaps and I never needed them a slip is just as good as flaps.

This old thread cracks me up, as with any comparison of airplanes one needs to be fair, first of all anyone reading this is most probably a dyed in the wool cub guy, so of course 85% of the comments are based on "their" favorite airplane. The fellow asked how they compare,
Well to compare them lets keep everything the same, I am guessing most of the comparisons are being based like this, the cubs are striped
Down , ext landing gear and big tires, borer props the airplanes they are usually refering to as Citabrias are for the most part basic factory
Airplanes with a landing gear that provides no where near the correct AOA so your instantly comparing apples to oranges, so unless you have flown a Citabria on 30" tires where it gets the same aoa as the cub that their comparing it to, your down the wrong road already.
Atlee told me 30 years ago, a borer prop is the single one thing that will enhance a cubs performance more than anything else, of course he was right, 99% of folks comparing them are likely comparing cubs with long props? Comparing a cub with a flat borer prop to a citabria with a standard landplane prop is of course, not fair as to how they actually compare in anyway what so ever. I dont know
How long its been since anyone flew a PA18/ 150 on 6:00x6" tires, with a standard 74" /56 pitch prop but upon refreshing my memory , I remember running down to MT to pick up a cub in that configuration, and I distinctly remember thinking , I could be in the air with my cub , before i could get the tail up on that one! A standard cub unmodified in anyway, is a far cry from what folks are usually comparing em to............. I had a friend with a striped down GCBC that he installed Scout gear legs on it at Mel Wicks, with a 80/41 prop ,it also had wings squared off with Scout wingtips and VGs, he did some flying out in interior Alaska
With us one winter chasing wolves around . We both had Landes 2500 skiis, but in this case HE had the AoA advantage, and he seamed to be very capable ,of doing anything the rest of us did in our cubs, the airplane did a hell of a good job. I was very impressed with how it worked, the gear was amazing in drifted snow that was knocking the fillings out of my teeth on cub gear! Now had he had the low gear and short prop, no extended wings and tips , then
That would be a different story..........just sayin.....

I have some time in a 180hp 7gcbc. That was a performing airplane. And would cruse at 135-140mph indicated. They are great all around tail wheels, roomy and comfortable with a great heater. Would probably do everything most of us need them to do..

Took aerobatic training in the '70s in a citabria, since I was still young and dumb I then tried all the maneuvers in a cherokee 140..(no snap rolls, however)....I came out of that (alive) with the opinion that the cherokee did better aerobatics than the citabria...the citabria had so much factory built-in headwind to make it relatively safe for training, that it would barely do maneuvers at all.....just my humble opinion...

TurboBeaver said:

This old thread cracks me up, as with any comparison of airplanes one needs to be fair, first of all anyone reading this is most probably a dyed in the wool cub guy, so of course 85% of the comments are based on "their" favorite airplane. The fellow asked how they compare,
Well to compare them lets keep everything the same, I am guessing most of the comparisons are being based like this, the cubs are striped
Down , ext landing gear and big tires, borer props the airplanes they are usually refering to as Citabrias are for the most part basic factory
Airplanes with a landing gear that provides no where near the correct AOA so your instantly comparing apples to oranges, so unless you have flown a Citabria on 30" tires where it gets the same aoa as the cub that their comparing it to, your down the wrong road already.
Atlee told me 30 years ago, a borer prop is the single one thing that will enhance a cubs performance more than anything else, of course he was right, 99% of folks comparing them are likely comparing cubs with long props? Comparing a cub with a flat borer prop to a citabria with a standard landplane prop is of course, not fair as to how they actually compare in anyway what so ever. I dont know
How long its been since anyone flew a PA18/ 150 on 6:00x6" tires, with a standard 74" /56 pitch prop but upon refreshing my memory , I remember running down to MT to pick up a cub in that configuration, and I distinctly remember thinking , I could be in the air with my cub , before i could get the tail up on that one! A standard cub unmodified in anyway, is a far cry from what folks are usually comparing em to............. I had a friend with a striped down GCBC that he installed Scout gear legs on it at Mel Wicks, with a 80/41 prop ,it also had wings squared off with Scout wingtips and VGs, he did some flying out in interior Alaska
With us one winter chasing wolves around . We both had Landes 2500 skiis, but in this case HE had the AoA advantage, and he seamed to be very capable ,of doing anything the rest of us did in our cubs, the airplane did a hell of a good job. I was very impressed with how it worked, the gear was amazing in drifted snow that was knocking the fillings out of my teeth on cub gear! Now had he had the low gear and short prop, no extended wings and tips , then
That would be a different story..........just sayin.....

Click to expand...

Turbo Beaver, you're right on the money with that. Thanks

TurboBeaver - there is validity to your post but just for arguments sake, I'm going to offer another consideration.

The Scout will never be a SC because of the airfoil. It does not matter what size landing gear, tires, prop, etc you have or use. If an airfoil will "cruise" fast it will not "lift" slow. If it will lift slow it will not cruise fast. Everything is a compromise in aerodynamics.
Look at a Beaver and a Caravan. One cruises at 100 knots, the other at 145 knots. Look at the airfoil. Beaver is about a foot thick. Caravan about 6" thick. One develops lots of lift at slow speed but develops lots of drag at higher speeds. The other develops less drag at higher speeds but develops less lift at slow speeds.

AIRFOIL IS EVERYTHING!!!

Ya can't have your cake and eat it too with aerodynamics. It's all a trade off.

Bill

Bill,
I agree with you about the cub airfoil producing higher lift at lower speed, that is a fact
However, this has been highly exgerated for years by cub guys ( me included), the bottom line
On all this is grab a cub rib, then grab a champ rib, hold them up and look em over
Lay one ontop of the other ? NOw the actual true difference is right in your
Face, you will most likely be surprised how little difference there actually is! If the planes weigh the
Same and same horsepower proping etc, there is no where near the difference folks are always
Crowing about, say you are landing a Cub at 40, and can stop in 250 ft( Valdez. Shows us thats a streach
For alot of guys) Now say your flying a Citabria at 42 mph and can operate in 300ft, what is that actually worth to ya?
I mentioned take offs because that is what guys live to compare, the Champ wing benifits from AOA more than
A cub wing does to begin with however 99% of the Champs or Citabrias I see are sitting so low it is impossible
To know what its capable of................. added Scout gear and a long prop turns them into a completely
Diferent airplane, I am not saying they will get off quite as fast as a SC, but the true difference is no where near
What lots of guys claim because they dont understand the airplane
Case and point here 35 years ago in Greenville there were many takeoff contest on floats between
Cubs and Champs , and of course this AOA advantage was gone involving the short gear of a champ.
Same engines same props , Level playing field.
I had a PA11 /90 in those days with a 74/40 prop on 1320 floats , if there was no wind 7-8 secs
Were common times with the 11 if every thing went right, there was lots of Champs with 90hp
Engines on 1320s so really the only thing that was different was the two "WINGS" themselves,
I remember lots of times watching some of those champs getting off in 8-9 secs all day long...this
Huge difference just wasnt there? If the cub guy messed up he
Could get beat, if his engine wasnt as strong or his prop not
As long or flat they got beat, so that certainly wasnt much difference?
So my only point is, this thread does crack me up ,as its loaded with poor information, nothing will
Beat a cub but another cub , we all realize that. However it gives up everything else, to have the highest lift. That was a huge
Issue as a guide ,for flying off the side of mountain, but like someone else said on this thread there are hundreds
Of guys flying cubs, that have no idea what the airplane will really do.......... I think the Champ wing does a great
Job if given a fair chance, guys that love Colts, often feel a S&W is junk, I dont subscribe to that one either!

RBM said:

Contemplating purchase of near new 7GCBC,would be great to hear some real world opinions based on experience in both types...are they similar enough to even make inteligent comparison? My understanding so far: the Citabria will not be near the short field performer that the SC is, the SC is not aerobatic (nor is it intended to be).Depending on mission profile, is one as much fun as the other? Thanks in advance for the education I'm about to recieve!

Click to expand...

This is the original post. From the O.P.'s post, his question is "depending on mission profile." I gotta go with Turbobeaver here. I dont know about anyone else, but I have had just as much fun in a GCBC as I have in a cub. Yanking a SC off in 200 feet is a blast, but doing slow rolls and loops in a Citabria is a blast too. Boils down to mission profile.

I also agree with Turbo on this one. Once upon a time I had a 7GCB (round tailed version of the 7GCBC) with the early Aeronca type landing gear. A friend had a stock PA-18 both had the same 0-320 powerplant. He could always beat me out and in as far as distance went. I modified the Champ with Ferguson drooped wing tips at the outboard rib (did not cut back the spar in accordance with the instructions), 9:00-6 tires and an 80" prop. Then there was very little difference between the two. The Champ was much more comfortable and easier to get in and out of.

ps. I love my Cub but if I had to choose and circumstances dictated I would not reject the 7GCBC. There are things that can be done to it that will do wonders for the performance.

That sounds about right Skywagon, the actual differences when your on a level playing field is certainly NOT what a lot of folks think it is ,
Just for fun here is a copy of a 1959 brochure I found the other nite pawing around in some old junk................. of course factory figures can often be liberal, and these figures are for a NON electric version of the then 7GC or 140hp version of a 7 EC, note empty weight of the plane, then check out these published figures ???? Pretty impressive by anyones standards. Especially when you consider you can probably buy the GC plus a modest home for he cost of a cute little PA 18!!!!! lol........................ must keep this all in good fun as I realize how proud all pilots are of their favorite aiplanes! Sorry about the old faded tape in the seam of this old brochure!

Try as you might, you still cant make a silk purse out of a sows arse!!! the gcbc may be more comfortable and it may get off close to as short or land close to as short, but it doesn't have the cub wing and there is no way you are going to be able to work it alongside a SC.

Well very few people could "work" their Super Cub; beside legends like Bill Ellis, or Denny Thompson, but that certainly wouldn't imeadiately qualify theirs as a "sows arse" would it??? Actually I though that was sows ear..... .

TurboBeaver said:

Well very few people could "work" their Super Cub; beside legends like Bill Ellis, or Denny Thompson, but that certainly wouldn't imeadiately qualify theirs as a "sows arse" would it??? Actually I though that was sows ear..... .

Click to expand...

Looks are deceiving sometimes....but these Montana boys know a thing or two about "working" Cubs, too.

TurboBeaver said:

Click to expand...

Notice the wing span. It is two feet less than a Cub. It is very likely that this is a major reason for the performance difference.

You should fly both and the decide. Ive flown a Citabria's alot and I don't like the control harmony. To light in pitch and to heavy in roll. Over all good airplane with factory support. However for what a newer one cost I would be more interested in a Husky of the same value.

kase said:

However for what a newer one cost I would be more interested in a Husky of the same value.

Click to expand...

You would not say this if you were a mechanic. There are way too many screws which need to be turned to look at anything. Read that as $$$$ if you have to pay the bill.

skywagon8a said:

You would not say this if you were a mechanic. There are way too many screws which need to be turned to look at anything. Read that as $$$$ if you have to pay the bill.

Click to expand...

Actually I am and still would take a husky over a citabria.

Here is my .02 cents on the subject:
as some of you know, I built a replica pa11 with flaps and a c90 with c85 pistons. It's empty wt was 750. A rancher in WY now owns it, and I miss it a lot.
To replace it, I bought an experimental 7ac champ with the following mods: extended cub style gear with die springs shocks. 0320 a2b 150 hp and Vetterman exhaust. Catto prop, 18 gallon wing tanks, which eliminated the nose tank, swing up entry door, and VG's. The fuselage was beefed up in the same way that the citabrias are to handle the heavier engine, and the empty weight of the plane is 950.
Now of course I thought that this was going to have near super cub performance, but for much less $$$$. Boy was I wrong! While it will cruise at 110 real easy, it simply won't slow down the way a cub will. Flaps would help a lot, but the airfoil just doesn't cut it IMO. You just can't "horse it around" at the slow airspeeds the way you can with a cub.
I tried a Catto 86X37 prop, and that did improve the takeoff, probably close to what a stock supercub would do, but then the top speed suffered, so I went back to the 74X54.
As others have said, define you mission, a champ or citabrias isn't a bad plane, but it ain't the same. It's for sale by the way!

Nice looking unit 11XP A lot of time and money goes into a project like that. Well done.

I think TurboBeaver has it about right, the differences in wing performance probably wouldn't make a noticeable difference for the average pilot or average mission. There are however more noticeable differences in utility for the off airport crowd such as gear strength, legal useful load, and the previously mentioned angle of attack (or lack there of) that make the 7gcbc less desirable. Without scout gear on the 7gcbc there's just not enough clearance to safely run long props for wheel/ski planes, and my understanding is that getting field approvals for scout gear or a borer prop for that matter, are all but impossible at the moment. Given the lack of STCs available for these aircraft you just don't have as many options to tailor them to your mission profile and for me that weakens their appeal for backcountry flying.

As for handling qualities I would say the super cub wing and control harmony allow lower time or less practiced pilots more comfort, control, and feedback in the low speed end of the envelop but given time and a bit of practice the same comfort level can be achieved with the champ wing.

It's worth noting that the scout is a different beast than a 7gcbc, although the two are often spoken of as being same or similar. Scouts typically have a much higher empty weight (and gross weight ), have more horse power, longer gear, longer wings, and I believe the airfoil is that of the decathlon (semi symmetrical) not the citabria lines flat bottom wing.

Perhaps the closest comparison would be between a 7gcbc and a super cub on edo 2000s with identical props, but I have zero experience with these two planes in that configuration.

My 2c worth
I talked to Charles W. Lasher quite some time ago. He relayed to me that crop dusters preferred the Cubs because the Champs loaded did not have "good tight turning characteristics". I have little experience in this so cannot verify. I believe Charlie was employed by Aeronca as an aeronautical engineer.
I also heard that flying the Champs in turbulence was like swimming the English Channel. This I can verify.
Because of the noticeable adverse aileron yaw, you cannot sit there flat footed and jockey the stick, nor can you hold a newspaper and fly with just your feet. You learn quickly to apply coordinated controls or skid all over the place. For this reason, they make good primary trainers.
Early in the morning, they are a delight to fly. In mid-afternoon thermals, you climb to 10,000 feet to keep from getting hammered. If you are trying to go somewhere.
jw

WAL16, good post and great obsevations, I do think if you look closer the Scout wing does have the basic Citabria rib though, (with larger openings for thicker spars)and not the Decathlon that you mentioned, both are good airplanes, great comments! The citabria I had mentioned with scout gear, also had the end of the wing modified like we do on cubs where they square the spars up to the very end, that is done on that wood spar, with filler blocks to make the spar full all the way out, you can then
Add full ribs outboard of the last rib and put a buttrib out on the end to accept a scout wingtip, that added
Something like 20" per side of lifting surface, so of course that and his vgs made that plane fly noticeably slower
Than a normal one, as perceived from the ground watching him land vs a normal cub they looked very
Simalar so he was down in that 38/40 range .
I am pretty sure Buzz Wagner held an stc or multiple field approval for doing all that to Champs so folks could
Install his drooping wingtips, so I think that paperwork was handy to get approved for adding Scout tips, on a Citabria............

JW,
As far as lateral stability of aircraft is concerned you may have that backwards, airplanes with more
Dihedral generally speaking tend to fly straighter than airplanes that have less, just for trivia we put
SCOUT struts on a Citabria once to get rid of the dihedral (they are shorter) and I imeadeatly noticed the
Airplane started acting more Cubish, or hunting for a different place to fly in rough air? So not to be agrumentive
But I found dihedral to enhance a smoother ,straighter ride in rough air , jm2cw
Good descriptive video linked below check it out!
Cheers
E

http://youtu.be/m4fnZwSYpmQ

Super11XP,
If the only reason for which you want to sell your Champ is because of the performance, there are a few things which you can easily do to correct this.

1/ Improve the pitch control by cutting off the stabilizer just outboard of the outboard hinge and weld the parts onto the elevator.

2/ Improve the directional stability by adding the Aeronca fin leading edge extension. This is a bolt on part and a little fabric work.

3/ Increase the wing span as Turbobeaver has suggested. I've done this on a certified 7GCB with a field approval. This also greatly improves aileron response.

4/ Install larger diameter tires. They don't need to be large "bush" tires.

5/ Install a Citabria seaplane prop 80-46. More diameter than 80" will reduce cruise speed with minimal take off/climb improvement. I've tried this.

6/ This is a little more work but would definitely be the ticket. Install flaps. These would be my preference: http://www.performancestol.com/products.htm At the very least a 7GCB or 7GCBC (they are the same) installation would do.

After you complete steps 1 thru 6 you will be removing the "For Sale" sign.

In recent times I have looked at some of the fields which I have flown in and out of with my modified 7GCB. I can't believe that even a Cub would be able to use those fields. I miss that plane, what a joy to fly.

Super11,
Check you pm's!
E