Citarbria v RV 9

[Hornet2008]

I've got about 80 hours in a 7GCBC Citarbria. How does the RV 9 compare to the citarbria in landings?

[grubbat]

The RV-9 tailwheel model is easier to land than the Citarbria, the Cub, the Taylorcraft, the RV-3, and the Cessna 140. It is a non-event. Van got the balance right.

[RV6_flyer]

I had 35 to 40 hours in a Citabria with a total of 50-hours tailwheel time when i made first flight in my RV-6 over 21-years ago. I did go get Transition Training two months earlier in an RV-6 before flying my own.

The tailwheel RVs are much easier ground handling than the Catabria but I do recommend getting some transition training or at least a little time with a friend in his RV.

[luddite42]

Every time the Citabria comparision comes up here, folks say the RV is "much" easier - which I don't understand. I think lots of folks compare their few hours of initial tailwheel endorsement training in a Citabria to their current level of comfort and ability in their RV. So it would be natural to think of the Citabria as more "difficult" in retrospect. I have a fair amount of time in both and don't understand how any airplane can be "much" easier than a plane (Citabria) that is already so easy that tailwheel skills are barely required. IMO the Citabria is virtually the easiest most forgiving tailwheel airplane ever. You can land them with sinful slop that the airplane just shrugs and soaks up. You can practically take your feet off the rudder on rollout. Unless there is something wrong with it, any pedal pumping dancing on the rudders in a Citabria is just pointless hyperactivity on the part of the pilot. The RV is about as easy and stable as they come as well, just more responsive and with lighter rudder pressures on the ground compared to the Citabria. They are both very easy as TW airplanes go. I cannot say one is easier than the other. They are just a little different.

If you have Citabria experience, you will probably overshoot some power off landings initially in the RV-9 because the airplane is so clean with a low descent rate and doesn't slip nearly as well as the Citabria. The RV is much more floaty on landing if you carry a few un-needed KTS on approach. Some folks may find these qualities more "difficult" at first.

[scsmith]

Originally Posted by luddite42

Every time the Citabria comparision comes up here, folks say the RV is "much" easier - which I don't understand. I think lots of folks compare their few hours of initial tailwheel endorsement training in a Citabria to their current level of comfort and ability in their RV. So it would be natural to think of the Citabria as more "difficult" in retrospect. I have a fair amount of time in both and don't understand how any airplane can be "much" easier than a plane (Citabria) that is already so easy that tailwheel skills are barely required. IMO the Citabria is virtually the easiest most forgiving tailwheel airplane ever. You can land them with sinful slop that the airplane just shrugs and soaks up. You can practically take your feet off the rudder on rollout. Unless there is something wrong with it, any pedal pumping dancing on the rudders in a Citabria is just pointless hyperactivity on the part of the pilot. The RV is about as easy and stable as they come as well, just more responsive and with lighter rudder pressures on the ground compared to the Citabria. They are both very easy as TW airplanes go. I cannot say one is easier than the other. They are just a little different.

If you have Citabria experience, you will probably overshoot some power off landings initially in the RV-9 because the airplane is so clean with a low descent rate and doesn't slip nearly as well as the Citabria. The RV is much more floaty on landing if you carry a few un-needed KTS on approach. Some folks may find these qualities more "difficult" at first.

I agree!

When I had a Citabria, lots of my tailwheel friends would kind of scoff and say that it almost didn't count as tailwheel.

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by grubbat

The RV-9 tailwheel model is easier to land than the Citarbria, the Cub, the Taylorcraft, the RV-3, and the Cessna 140. It is a non-event. Van got the balance right.

Craig covers it pretty good.

If your -9 has a CS prop, approach speed is critical; keeping it slow and steady!

With time in the planes Craig listed above, and a few others, I can honestly say it is much easier to fly. One of the reasons is that the rudder is not blanketed by the wings and you need much less rudder for take off or landings and being an RV, it goes where you tell it to go without being twitchy.

[smokyray]

Originally Posted by Hornet2008

I've got about 80 hours in a 7GCBC Citarbria. How does the RV 9 compare to the citarbria in landings?

Gday Pete,
Have to agree as well. Having a couple of grand in the Scout myself, the RV is a pussycat tail dragger.
The Pitts S1A in a crosswind on pavement however, is a salsa dance partner...

V/R
Smokey

Wheels landings my friend, that's the ticket...
Frank Price

[scard]

Oh, boy, that water is looking nice and warm .

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by scard

Oh, boy, that water is looking nice and warm .

Come on Scott, convert you -9A to a -9. You will enjoy swimming in the deep end much better!