Hornet2008
Well Known Member
I've got about 80 hours in a 7GCBC Citarbria. How does the RV 9 compare to the citarbria in landings?
Last edited:
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.
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.
I've got about 80 hours in a 7GCBC Citarbria. How does the RV 9 compare to the citarbria in landings?
Oh, boy, that water is looking nice and warm .