im looking to get into aerobatics but yet i dont want to get something to twitchy

im looking at the sig or midwest citabria or the goldberg decathalon - oops but thats an arf i think, anyone make a kit of the decathalon - i had the one put out by gp years ago and didnt much care for it, man it could really tip stall if not carefull

any advice would be great
thanks

There's really not much difference between the Citabria and the Decathlon. In the Full Scale versions, the biggest difference is in the engine used. As far as the Sig vs. Midwest, the sig is a much smaller plane (.35 size) while the Midwest is a 60 2 stroke or 90 4 stroke.

Personally, I'd go with the Midwest just for the size.

If your not totally against ARFs, what about the .40 size Lanier Citabria? Just a thought

Luke[8D]

Actually the Sig Citabria has a 69" wingspan, and would probably handle a 90 fourstroke. Mine will probably have a 70 fourstroke. That .35 designation must have been made years ago when the .35 was one of the larger engines available. Even now, they list the 2stroke range as ".35 to .50", but I think a sixty twostroke would be appropriate.

Good luck,
Dave Olson

There is another significant difference though Mike, the Citabria had a flat bottom wing while the SD had a semi-symmetrical wing for better aerobatics.

the midwest citabria is semi symetrical - according to there page

here http://www.midwestproducts.com/citabria.htm

My mistake, When I looked it up, sig's website was down, so I got the info from another.

True, and the Sig has a flat bottom wing, while the Midwest has a Semi-Symmetrical wing.

Another reason to go with the Midwest.

Plus (and I am just guessing here) the Sig is one of their older kits. Many of their older kits are "Builder's kits" which, in my book, is another reason to avoid this one (unless you LIKE builder's kits)

Dynaflite makes a Decathalon, but its quite a bit bigger than the Sig or C.G.

The Sig kit is mainly sticks and blocks and is a more managable size for transport. The midwest assembles more like a CG kit and flys very well if built right. You won't have to apologize for either. My Sigs fly great the Midwest is a beautiful sight in the air. I don't know what the Dynaflite, Great Planes, or Lanier fly like But I would choose the Sig, Midwest or the Carl Goldberg versions.

I am building a Balsa USA Citabria Pro. I flew one many years ago, and it was the funnest plane I flew, and was actually easier to fly than my trainert. But, when you wanted to, you could let the stops out and really have some fun with it.

Patriot

I have a 9' Bud Nosen Citabria... it's definitely not a flatbottom wing. You can get the kit's on ebay for anywhere from $80 + depending on bidding.

Ranchpig,
The Nosen Citabria isn't scale. I built one some 15 years ago and had to make a number of mods to get closer to scale.

I'm building the Sig...still It is not an easy project. You'll spend much time fitting parts and sanding, sanding, sanding. It looks good though. I think the shape is better than most for scale realism. If you want a high-wing sport plane, I'd try something else.

Traditional Sig kits require some different building methods than the new laser cuts that we are used to. Sig planes fly great while being very durable because of those very construction methods.
A Citabria and Decatholon kit can be no different than the name on the box. Some Citabria kits use semi symetrical wings while some Decatholon kits use flat bottoms. All the models of these planes that I have flown are excellent fliers. They are aerobatic while flying on the wing rather than the engine. Althought not quite as asthetically perfect I've seen some do every manuever that the Caps at our field can. I find it especially pleasing that after all that wild activity they can imitate the docile flight and slow landings of a Cub.
I have (2) 1/2a (1) .15 (2) .25 (2) .40-.60 size Citabrias. Most of these are capable of outside loops and sustained knife edge flight all dependant on power to weight ratio.