7ECA vs 7GCAA

[dillardrg]

7ECA vs 7GCAA

I, with partners, own a 1974 7ECA 115hp and a friend and her husband have recently purchased a 2002 7GCAA 160hp.
I had the opportunity this weekend to fly each of these aircraft and have some observations;

7GCAA leaps off the runway much quicker and climbs at around 1200fpm initially.
The 7ECA takes probably 3 times the runway to get off and climbs at about 7-800 fpm initially.
40 degrees F and me and 3/4 fuel.

7GCAA cruises at 2,000ft at 2400 rpm at 120 mph indicated.
7ECA cruises at 2,000ft at 2500 rpm at 105 mph indicated.
They both land the same.

When doing a loop, I have to dive to get 140 mph entry speed and the 7GCAA takes less altitude to do this so it ends up using about 200ft less altitude to do a loop and the extra power makes a difference over the top.

I am not a test pilot and am a self taught aerobatic pilot so my observations are just that. Your mileage may vary.

I still like my 7ECA even though it takes about 3 times as long to get back to altitude after a maneuver. The 7GCAA is a reeeealy nice airplane

.

Ron
advancedtailwheeltraining.com

 

[bbchien]

sometimes, there is no substitute for power......

 

[dillardrg]

Bruce,

Good web site, it looks like you perform a needed service in working on special FAA medical problems.

In this particular instance(or my situation) there are 3 substitutes for power;
Patience, it just takes longer to get some things done.
Energy management, working harder to get everything out of the available power.
Less cost, my airplane is older and burns less gas so acquisition cost and operating costs are lower.
In a perfect world I would buy a brand new 7GCAA, but in my case, it is far from perfect.

 

[somorris]

I wondered about the 115hp. A friend had one and said the 150 was needed.

 

[wabower]

And with age, the number of things that take longer increase geometrically. Whippersnapper.

Bruce,

Good web site, it looks like you perform a needed service in working on special FAA medical problems.

In this particular instance(or my situation) there are 3 substitutes for power;
Patience, it just takes longer to get some things done.
Energy management, working harder to get everything out of the available power.
Less cost, my airplane is older and burns less gas so acquisition cost and operating costs are lower.
In a perfect world I would buy a brand new 7GCAA, but in my case, it is far from perfect.

 

[dillardrg]

I guess it depends on the mission. What I do, tailwheel checkouts and spin training, I think the 115hp is perfect. You learn to fly the airfoil more and not rely on the power to make things easier. I can also charge a little less which always helps.

Wayne, I'm sure I don't know to what you are refering.

 

[dmccormack]

I guess it depends on the mission. What I do, tailwheel checkouts and spin training, I think the 115hp is perfect. You learn to fly the airfoil more and not rely on the power to make things easier. I can also charge a little less which always helps.

My 65 hp means I won't be doing spin training in the Chief -- it will take a half hour to get to altitude!!

 

[dillardrg]

Dan,

It takes a while for me also. I have to go about 20 miles west to get to where the STL class B floor is high enough to do the training so I have a lot of time to climb.

 

[dmccormack]

Dan,

It takes a while for me also. I have to go about 20 miles west to get to where the STL class B floor is high enough to do the training so I have a lot of time to climb.

What is you AGL target for initial spin training?

I don't feel comfortable less than 2000' AGL. I'm no aerobatic pilot, though.

 

[dillardrg]

I start the spins at 4,500agl and work for a floor of 3,500agl. That allows for at least 2 turns and some bobbles in the recovery.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I wondered about the 115hp. A friend had one and said the 150 was needed.

65 hp used to be enough when those airframes were light. But then we had to have starters and generators and batteries and radios, so we ended up with 85 or 90 hp and a lot more weight and speed so the airframe had to get beefed up, which added more weight, so more power was added...

And then the dowdy landing gear oleos had to get replaced with "modern" steel leaf gear that weighs about five times as much. Progress, see?

We have a 118 hp 7ECA and a 150 hp 7GCBC. The 7ECA's POH is full of lies about takeoff distances, and even the landing distance is pretty long (it has no flaps). The same wing is used on a 1750 lb gross airplane as was used on a 1220 lb airplane, so landing and takeoff speeds are going to get much higher.

The GCBC's 150 hp and flaps make a huge difference.

When it comes down to it, the only substitute for cubic inches is more cubic inches, as the hotrodders say.

Dan

 

[schmookeeg]

I am in bewildered awe of the concept of a self-taught aerobatic pilot.

One day, I aspire to have such a set.

 

[Clark1961]

Dan,

It takes a while for me also. I have to go about 20 miles west to get to where the STL class B floor is high enough to do the training so I have a lot of time to climb.

You do spins under the Bravo?

 

[Diana]

I wondered about the 115hp. A friend had one and said the 150 was needed.

Stacey, I really like having the 150HP. Especially when taking off at the farm going uphill on a hot day over the wires near gross.

Bruce, do you remember the gentleman who flew the pretty red and white Citabria into the farm for my birthday party? He has the 115 HP 7ECA and has been looking for ways to convert it to 150 HP, but it just involves too much hassle to accomplish that. He flew my Citabria home from OSH for me a few years ago and just loved the extra HP. But, when we fly along next to each other, I can't keep up with him. We decided that he has a cruise prop. And I may have a climb prop, plus the bigger tires and no wheel pants make a small difference in my speed.

 

[dmccormack]

65 hp used to be enough when those airframes were light. But then we had to have starters and generators and batteries and radios, so we ended up with 85 or 90 hp and a lot more weight and speed so the airframe had to get beefed up, which added more weight, so more power was added...
Dan

People were lighter, too...

My 65hp has no extras -- no starter, no nuttin.

It does have an aluminum prop, which will be replaced with wood someday...

 

[David]

65 hp used to be enough when those airframes were light. But then we had to have starters and generators and batteries and radios, so we ended up with 85 or 90 hp and a lot more weight and speed so the airframe had to get beefed up, which added more weight, so more power was added...

And then the dowdy landing gear oleos had to get replaced with "modern" steel leaf gear that weighs about five times as much. Progress, see?

We have a 118 hp 7ECA and a 150 hp 7GCBC. The 7ECA's POH is full of lies about takeoff distances, and even the landing distance is pretty long (it has no flaps). The same wing is used on a 1750 lb gross airplane as was used on a 1220 lb airplane, so landing and takeoff speeds are going to get much higher.

The GCBC's 150 hp and flaps make a huge difference.

When it comes down to it, the only substitute for cubic inches is more cubic inches, as the hotrodders say.

Dan

Dan,
I used to own a 1968 7ECA with the 115HP O-235 Lycoming. I don't remember any significant difference between the published numbers and the actual performance. My plane was probably lighter than the newer ones. I thought the performance was remarkable in that you could cruise at about 115 mph on 115hp. My normal cruise was about 105 mph. You can change the gear to aluminum and save some weight but I doubt it'd be worth the trouble.

 

[dillardrg]

I am in bewildered awe of the concept of a self-taught aerobatic pilot.

One day, I aspire to have such a set.

Mike,

Over the years I have had extensive unusual attiltude training. My company would have us do it fairly regularly in a real airplane, 2 years in a Pitts, 2 years in an extra 300, and 2 years in a T-34. I also did UA training twice a year in a simulator for about 24 years as part of my recurrent training.
I felt that if I messed up a maneuver I would recover from the resulting unusual attitude. My first objective was not to exceed any of the aircraft limitations. It was a lot of fun and I did use the training quite a bit early on.
I, of course, would not reccomend using this method to learn aerobatics without the UA training.

I don't do spins under the bravo, although that is legal, but I do do them within the 30 mile veil.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Dan,
I used to own a 1968 7ECA with the 115HP O-235 Lycoming. I don't remember any significant difference between the published numbers and the actual performance. My plane was probably lighter than the newer ones. I thought the performance was remarkable in that you could cruise at about 115 mph on 115hp. My normal cruise was about 105 mph. You can change the gear to aluminum and save some weight but I doubt it'd be worth the trouble.

Even the 100-hp 7EC cruised easily at 110 mph, on the same engine that the Cessna 150 used, and outclimbed the 150, too. Performance was better all the way around.

The aluminum gear saves something like 11 pounds and costs more than $5000 to retrofit. Not worth it.

Dan

 

[whifferdill]

I am in bewildered awe of the concept of a self-taught aerobatic pilot.

One day, I aspire to have such a set.

Mike,

Over the years I have had extensive unusual attiltude training. My company would have us do it fairly regularly in a real airplane, 2 years in a Pitts, 2 years in an extra 300, and 2 years in a T-34. I also did UA training twice a year in a simulator for about 24 years as part of my recurrent training.
I felt that if I messed up a maneuver I would recover from the resulting unusual attitude. My first objective was not to exceed any of the aircraft limitations. It was a lot of fun and I did use the training quite a bit early on.
I, of course, would not reccomend using this method to learn aerobatics without the UA training.

I don't do spins under the bravo, although that is legal, but I do do them within the 30 mile veil.

For everyone else, please understand that unusual attitude experience alone does NOT fully prepare you for doing aerobatics safely on your own. It's unlikely unusual attitude training will help you recover from an inverted flat spin. In general, the self-taught aerobat has a fool for an instructor.

You need spin training as well...and not just the plain vanilla upright CFI certification type spin training. That doesn't cut it. Ever done a crossover spin? From upright AND inverted? If not, you need this eye-opening experience. Acro newbies are very creative in finding ways to accidentally spin airplanes every which way. Please find a reputable aerobatic instructor. IAC maintains a list here:

www.iacusn.org/schools/index.php

Eric

 

[somorris]

Stacey, I really like having the 150HP. Especially when taking off at the farm going uphill on a hot day over the wires near gross.

Diana: The guys I was referring to had both a 115HP at one time and a 150HP later. He told me if a person was looking for one, not to bother with the 115HP but go ahead and get the 150HP. Probably for the same reason you cited. He was flying off a paved strip but only about 2500' with a road and wires at the end. Plus, he isn't exactly a lightweight!

 

[bbchien]

Bruce, do you remember the gentleman who flew the pretty red and white Citabria into the farm for my birthday party? He has the 115 HP 7ECA and has been looking for ways to convert it to 150 HP, but it just involves too much hassle to accomplish that.

I do recall, and it was a beauty....