aerobatic C172?

[gt]

I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
well-executed barrel roll.

Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172?

[Jay B]

On May 1, 9:52 pm, gt > wrote:
> I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
> rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
> it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
> well-executed barrel roll.
>
> Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172?

Maybe once...

<eg>

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Ron Natalie]

gt wrote:
> I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
> rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
> it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
> well-executed barrel roll.
>
And what happens if you poorly execute one?

>

[John[_9_]]

On May 2, 12:52 am, gt > wrote:
> I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
> rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
> it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
> well-executed barrel roll.
>
> Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172?


Almost any aircraft can be rolled whether barrel or aileron. The main
concern is to have enough energy (speed) to complete the manuever
without falling out of the top of it. The next concern is to have the
training and experience to perform the maneuver. I have no doubt that
the 172 has been rolled many times by many thousands of pilots. I
know one pilot that told me he had rolled everything he flew including
the Shorts 360 and the 172. I know another pilot who fell out of the
top of a barrel roll in a Vampire jet fighter/trainer and almost
crashed. The first pilot had trained in Decathlons and Pitts the
second one hadn't.

John Dupre'

[Roy Smith]

John > wrote:
> Almost any aircraft can be rolled whether barrel or aileron.

Well, any fixed-wing aircraft (including, I would guess, most gliders). I
suspect you're going to have a hard time rolling an airship or a hot air
baloon, however.

One of the coolest things I've seen is a helicopter do a roll (at Farnboro
airshow). That was amazing. I had always though helicopters were not
capable of doing anything like that.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> John > wrote:
>> Almost any aircraft can be rolled whether barrel or aileron.
>
> Well, any fixed-wing aircraft (including, I would guess, most gliders). I
> suspect you're going to have a hard time rolling an airship or a hot air
> baloon, however.
>
> One of the coolest things I've seen is a helicopter do a roll (at Farnboro
> airshow). That was amazing. I had always though helicopters were not
> capable of doing anything like that.

AH-64?

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-01 21:52:46 -0700, gt > said:

> I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
> rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
> it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
> well-executed barrel roll.
>
> Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172?

Of course. However, that does not mean it is legal or smart.

The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.
A barrel roll should not be a problem, executed properly, but if you
screw it up then you might have some trouble. The 172 is allowed to do
spins, but it can be hard on the instruments, knocking them back and
forth from stop to stop. For that reason some FBOs insist that spin
training be done in other airplanes.

I suspect, however, that the real reasons the 172 is not certified for
aerobatics is Cessna didn't want the liability, the 172 has a
not-very-much-fun roll rate, and sooner or later some pilot would be
bound to do them with passengers and no parachutes.

Finally, if you are the sort of person who goes out and abuses other
people's property and tries to conceal it, I suspect that most of us
would not want you renting our planes.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:

> One of the coolest things I've seen is a helicopter do a roll (at Farnboro
> airshow). That was amazing. I had always though helicopters were not
> capable of doing anything like that.

Rigid rotar system.
From aging memory...
Back in the 1960's, Lockheed built the Cheyenne prototypes, predecessor
of today's Apache. It had a rigid rotor system and could fly loops and
rolls. The program was cancelled in favor of the cheaper Huey Cobra.
The first commercially built helicopter with the rigid rotor system
approved for aerobatics is the BO-105, followed by the BK-117, now part
of Eurocopter.
Those helos have been performing at the big Eurpean airshows since the
1980's.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article . com>,
gt > wrote:

> I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
> rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
> it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
> well-executed barrel roll.
> Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172?

Not enough "energy" to be performed in level flight.
It can be done in a dive by a competent aerobatic pilot, maintaining
airspeed and 1-G loading throughout the maneuver.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 2, 7:18 am, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2007-05-01 21:52:46 -0700, gt > said:
> The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
> limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.
> A barrel roll should not be a problem, executed properly, but if you
> screw it up then you might have some trouble. The 172 is allowed to do
> spins, but it can be hard on the instruments, knocking them back and
> forth from stop to stop. For that reason some FBOs insist that spin
> training be done in other airplanes.

The main reason most FBO's won't allow us to spin students is because
they invest a lot of money in gyros. I think in the "old guy days"
instrument rates were not as common and an FBO maybe had one plane for
instrument training. Today FBOs want all airplanes available for
instrument training (the IR is great money for FBOs, lots of dual and
lots of accessories to buy)

> Finally, if you are the sort of person who goes out and abuses other
> people's property and tries to conceal it, I suspect that most of us
> would not want you renting our planes.

When gave instruction in the Decathlon the FBO broke off the "reset"
knob on the G meter so you can always see what the top and bottom G
load had been for the day on the plane.

-robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 2, 7:18 am, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
> limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.

Is that true? I can understand that the float would run out of gas
after a bit but I don't see how the carb itself would care about the
G's. In the Aeronca we were able to maintain inverted flight for more
than a couple of seconds before the engine would stop. The carb is
already on the bottom of the engine and the fuel/air mixture travels
up the intake via the massive suction of the intake stroke.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

Rolling Airplanes

You too could make the hit parade.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070221X00205&key=1''

Probably had enough energy. No Tex Johnson.

Bill Hale


On May 2, 8:58 am, john smith > wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
> gt > wrote:
> > I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
> > rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
> > it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
> > well-executed barrel roll.
> > Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172?
>
> Not enough "energy" to be performed in level flight.
> It can be done in a dive by a competent aerobatic pilot, maintaining
> airspeed and 1-G loading throughout the maneuver.

[[email protected]]

On 1-May-2007, gt > wrote:

> I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
> rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
> it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
> well-executed barrel roll.
>
> Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172?




This one might illustrate what could happen to someone (like yourself maybe)
trying aerobatics in a Cessna 172. The pilot was a US Air Force instructor
pilot at Laughlin AFB, Del Rio, Texas. I guess he thought he was a good
enough stick to get away with it, but...


NTSB Identification: FTW86FA051 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 31025.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, March 30, 1986 in DEL RIO, TX
Aircraft: CESSNA 172N, registration: N8423E
Injuries: 4 Fatal.
THE PILOT WAS DOING AEROBATIC MANEUVERS IN THE CESSNA 172 AIRPLANE WITH
THREE PASSENGERS AND A HEAVY LOAD OF FUEL ABOARD. THE MANEUVERS CONSISTED OF
BUZZING BOATS ON THE LAKE AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, AT LEAST ONE COMPLETE
AILERON ROLL, SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT PULL-UPS, SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT LEVEL-OFFS
AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, AND SEVERAL HAMMERHEAD TYPE TURNS. THE LAST MANEUVER,
WHICH TERMINATED WITH THE ACCIDENT, WAS A STEEP PULLUP AND CLIMB FOLLOWED BY
A HAMMERHEAD TURN AND A DELAYED PULLOUT AT THE BOTTOM WHICH RESULTED IN
IMPACT WITH THE TERRAIN. THE AIRCRAFT WAS OPERATING IN THE UTILITY CATAGORY
OF AIRWORTHINESS ON THE ACCIDENT FLIGHT. FOR THIS CATAGORY, AT THE TIME OF
THE ACCIDENT THE AIRCRAFT WAS 323 POUNDS OVER IT'S MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS
WEIGHT AND 3.1 INCHES BEYOND IT'S ALLOWABLE AFT C.G. LIMIT.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:
ALTITUDE..MISJUDGED..PILOT IN COMMAND
LEVEL OFF..DELAYED..PILOT IN COMMAND
Contributing Factors:
AEROBATICS..PERFORMED..PILOT IN COMMAND

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
>The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
>limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.

If you maintain around one G throughout the manuever, the carb will
continue to work just fine.

As others have posted, it's not whether or not the plane can take the
forces generated in a properly executed manuever (which it can). It's more
whether the airplane can take the stresses of a botched manuever.

I've botched some manuevers in a fully aerobatic aircraft that would have
been pretty ugly in a non-aerobatic plane.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[nobody]

Have you ever spin the Cherokee 180?

flynrider via AviationKB.com wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>> The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
>> limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.
>
> If you maintain around one G throughout the manuever, the carb will
> continue to work just fine.
>
> As others have posted, it's not whether or not the plane can take the
> forces generated in a properly executed manuever (which it can). It's more
> whether the airplane can take the stresses of a botched manuever.
>
> I've botched some manuevers in a fully aerobatic aircraft that would have
> been pretty ugly in a non-aerobatic plane.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-02 14:47:53 -0700, "flynrider via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>> The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
>> limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.
>
> If you maintain around one G throughout the manuever, the carb will
> continue to work just fine.

Yeah. I assumed that others had read the rest of the thread.

>


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

nobody wrote:
>Have you ever spin the Cherokee 180?
>

Yes. I spin my Cherokee on a fairly regular basis. It takes a bit of
planning ahead to make sure it's in the Utility Category envelope, but it's
worth it.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

The NTSB said :

> THE AIRCRAFT WAS OPERATING IN THE UTILITY CATAGORY
>OF AIRWORTHINESS ON THE ACCIDENT FLIGHT. FOR THIS CATAGORY, AT THE TIME OF
>THE ACCIDENT THE AIRCRAFT WAS 323 POUNDS OVER IT'S MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS
>WEIGHT AND 3.1 INCHES BEYOND IT'S ALLOWABLE AFT C.G. LIMIT.

I think it could more accurately be said that the aircraft was NOT
operating in the Utility Category on the accident flight.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[gt]

On May 2, 7:18 am, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2007-05-01 21:52:46 -0700, gt > said:
>
> > I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
> > rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
> > it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
> > well-executed barrel roll.
>
> > Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172?
>
> Of course. However, that does not mean it is legal or smart.
>
> The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
> limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.
> A barrel roll should not be a problem, executed properly, but if you
> screw it up then you might have some trouble. The 172 is allowed to do
> spins, but it can be hard on the instruments, knocking them back and
> forth from stop to stop. For that reason some FBOs insist that spin
> training be done in other airplanes.
>
> I suspect, however, that the real reasons the 172 is not certified for
> aerobatics is Cessna didn't want the liability, the 172 has a
> not-very-much-fun roll rate, and sooner or later some pilot would be
> bound to do them with passengers and no parachutes.
>
> Finally, if you are the sort of person who goes out and abuses other
> people's property and tries to conceal it, I suspect that most of us
> would not want you renting our planes.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor


As I wrote, I own the plane. I do not and have not gone out and
abused other people's property. If I did, I wouldn't try to conceal
it, but thanks for the response.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-02 19:49:12 -0700, gt > said:

> On May 2, 7:18 am, C J Campbell >
> wrote:
>> On 2007-05-01 21:52:46 -0700, gt > said:
>>
>>> I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
>>> rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
>>> it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
>>> well-executed barrel roll.
>>
>>> Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172?
>>
>> Of course. However, that does not mean it is legal or smart.
>>
>> The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
>> limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.
>> A barrel roll should not be a problem, executed properly, but if you
>> screw it up then you might have some trouble. The 172 is allowed to do
>> spins, but it can be hard on the instruments, knocking them back and
>> forth from stop to stop. For that reason some FBOs insist that spin
>> training be done in other airplanes.
>>
>> I suspect, however, that the real reasons the 172 is not certified for
>> aerobatics is Cessna didn't want the liability, the 172 has a
>> not-very-much-fun roll rate, and sooner or later some pilot would be
>> bound to do them with passengers and no parachutes.
>>
>> Finally, if you are the sort of person who goes out and abuses other
>> people's property and tries to conceal it, I suspect that most of us
>> would not want you renting our planes.
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
>
> As I wrote, I own the plane. I do not and have not gone out and
> abused other people's property. If I did, I wouldn't try to conceal
> it, but thanks for the response.

I am very sorry. I did not mean to imply that you would do this. I was
speaking generally, not about you personally. I am embarrassed that I
said that.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[The Visitor]

C J Campbell wrote:


> The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
> limitation.ould not want you renting our planes.

Engine mount?

[[email protected]]

On May 3, 12:42 pm, The Visitor >
wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
> > limitation.ould not want you renting our planes.
>
> Engine mount?

Engine mounts are good for 9 Gs. Somewhere in FAR 23, I think.

Dan

[[email protected]]

>SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT PULL-UPS, SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT LEVEL-OFFS
> AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, AND SEVERAL HAMMERHEAD TYPE TURNS. THE LAST MANEUVER,
> WHICH TERMINATED WITH THE ACCIDENT, WAS A STEEP PULLUP AND CLIMB FOLLOWED BY
> A HAMMERHEAD TURN AND A DELAYED PULLOUT AT THE BOTTOM WHICH RESULTED IN
> IMPACT WITH THE TERRAIN.

Look at that again. "Several abrupt pull-ups", and "delayed
pullout at the bottom." The guy was not familiar with accelerated
stalls, or, in other words, the effect of G loading on stall speed. He
pulled hard enough to stall the thing and it wouldn't level off.
I see some guys showing off after takeoff, buzzing low along
the runway then pulling up hard. You read accident reports again and
again that quote witnesses saying that "the airplane pulled up and
rolled right and dived into the ground." Same goes for guys that buzz
their friends: pull up and roll over into the ground. One wing often
stalls a little earlier than the other, especially if the airplane
isn't coordinated, and an unexpected snap roll is the result.
And their friends say, "I don't understand. He was such a good
pilot! Must have been something wrong with the airplane..."

Dan

[[email protected]]

On May 2, 10:39 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On May 2, 7:18 am, C J Campbell >
> wrote:
>
> > The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
> > limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.
>
> Is that true? I can understand that the float would run out of gas
> after a bit but I don't see how the carb itself would care about the
> G's. In the Aeronca we were able to maintain inverted flight for more
> than a couple of seconds before the engine would stop. The carb is
> already on the bottom of the engine and the fuel/air mixture travels
> up the intake via the massive suction of the intake stroke.
>
> -Robert

Got to understand the carburetor. The gasoline is in a chamber,
its level kept constant by the float valve. The fuel leaves the
chamber by a small hole ("jet") in the bottom of that chamber,
travelling through the nozzle to be sprayed into the airflow. Turn the
carb over and the gasoline goes to the top of the chamber and the jet
gets nothing but fumes. The engine will quit. If the pilot is able to
maintain at least some fraction of positive G loading in the maneuver,
the fuel will stay in the bottom of the chamber and the engine will
run.

Dan

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 3 May 2007 13:03:07 -0700, wrote:

>On May 3, 12:42 pm, The Visitor >
>wrote:
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>> > The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
>> > limitation.ould not want you renting our planes.
>>
>> Engine mount?
>
> Engine mounts are good for 9 Gs. Somewhere in FAR 23, I think.

FAR 23 might not apply to a 172...it's old enough.

Ron Wanttaja

[The Visitor]

I only asked about that because somewhere I read that that was a
difference on some kind of aircraft, between the aerobatic and
non-aerobatic version. So that it could better withstand the tourquing
created when rolling with a high power setting. I think it was a Richard
Collins article.

John

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On 3 May 2007 13:03:07 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>On May 3, 12:42 pm, The Visitor >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>C J Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>>>The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
>>>>limitation.ould not want you renting our planes.
>>>
>>>Engine mount?
>>
>> Engine mounts are good for 9 Gs. Somewhere in FAR 23, I think.
>
>
> FAR 23 might not apply to a 172...it's old enough.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-05 08:01:56 -0700, The Visitor
> said:

> I only asked about that because somewhere I read that that was a
> difference on some kind of aircraft, between the aerobatic and
> non-aerobatic version. So that it could better withstand the tourquing
> created when rolling with a high power setting. I think it was a
> Richard Collins article.
>
> John
>
> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>> On 3 May 2007 13:03:07 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On May 3, 12:42 pm, The Visitor >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
>>>>> limitation.ould not want you renting our planes.
>>>>
>>>> Engine mount?
>>>
>>> Engine mounts are good for 9 Gs. Somewhere in FAR 23, I think.
>>
>>
>> FAR 23 might not apply to a 172...it's old enough.
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja

Certainly the 1960 model is old enough. I don't remember, but didn't
Cessna bring the new ones up to FAR 23 standards?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:41:04 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>>>> Engine mounts are good for 9 Gs. Somewhere in FAR 23, I think.
>>>
>>> FAR 23 might not apply to a 172...it's old enough.
>>>
>
>Certainly the 1960 model is old enough. I don't remember, but didn't
>Cessna bring the new ones up to FAR 23 standards?

They may have, and it's quite possible they brought stuff like the seats to
FAR-23 to lessen liability risks. But if they were manufacturing on the old TC
they certainly didn't have to....

Ron Wanttaja

[gt]

On May 2, 2:30 pm, wrote:
> On 1-May-2007, gt > wrote:
>
> > I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
> > rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
> > it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
> > well-executed barrel roll.
>
> > Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172?
>
>
> trying aerobatics in a Cessna 172. The pilot was a US Air Force instructor
> pilot at Laughlin AFB, Del Rio, Texas. I guess he thought he was a good
> enough stick to get away with it, but...
>
> NTSB Identification: FTW86FA051 .
> The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 31025.
> 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
> Accident occurred Sunday, March 30, 1986 in DEL RIO, TX
> Aircraft: CESSNA 172N, registration: N8423E
> Injuries: 4 Fatal.
> THE PILOT WAS DOING AEROBATIC MANEUVERS IN THE CESSNA 172 AIRPLANE WITH
> THREE PASSENGERS AND A HEAVY LOAD OF FUEL ABOARD. THE MANEUVERS CONSISTED OF
> BUZZING BOATS ON THE LAKE AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, AT LEAST ONE COMPLETE
> AILERON ROLL, SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT PULL-UPS, SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT LEVEL-OFFS
> AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, AND SEVERAL HAMMERHEAD TYPE TURNS. THE LAST MANEUVER,
> WHICH TERMINATED WITH THE ACCIDENT, WAS A STEEP PULLUP AND CLIMB FOLLOWED BY
> A HAMMERHEAD TURN AND A DELAYED PULLOUT AT THE BOTTOM WHICH RESULTED IN
> IMPACT WITH THE TERRAIN. THE AIRCRAFT WAS OPERATING IN THE UTILITY CATAGORY
> OF AIRWORTHINESS ON THE ACCIDENT FLIGHT. FOR THIS CATAGORY, AT THE TIME OF
> THE ACCIDENT THE AIRCRAFT WAS 323 POUNDS OVER IT'S MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS
> WEIGHT AND 3.1 INCHES BEYOND IT'S ALLOWABLE AFT C.G. LIMIT.
> The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
> this accident as follows:
> ALTITUDE..MISJUDGED..PILOT IN COMMAND
> LEVEL OFF..DELAYED..PILOT IN COMMAND
> Contributing Factors:
> AEROBATICS..PERFORMED..PILOT IN COMMAND

This one might illustrate what could happen to someone (like yourself
maybe)


Most probably it wouldn't. I asked a simple question about the
performance of a 1960 Cessna 172. You outlined what amounted to a
suicide flight (as a result of stupidity, bravado, enormous ego or a
combination of all three) with innocent passengers...big difference my
friend. I fail to see the similarities.

[[email protected]]

On May 6, 3:36 am, gt > wrote:
> On May 2, 2:30 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1-May-2007, gt > wrote:
>
> > > I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
> > > rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
> > > it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
> > > well-executed barrel roll.
>
> > > Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172?
>
> > trying aerobatics in a Cessna 172. The pilot was a US Air Force instructor
> > pilot at Laughlin AFB, Del Rio, Texas. I guess he thought he was a good
> > enough stick to get away with it, but...
>
> > NTSB Identification: FTW86FA051 .
> > The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 31025.
> > 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
> > Accident occurred Sunday, March 30, 1986 in DEL RIO, TX
> > Aircraft: CESSNA 172N, registration: N8423E
> > Injuries: 4 Fatal.
> > THE PILOT WAS DOING AEROBATIC MANEUVERS IN THE CESSNA 172 AIRPLANE WITH
> > THREE PASSENGERS AND A HEAVY LOAD OF FUEL ABOARD. THE MANEUVERS CONSISTED OF
> > BUZZING BOATS ON THE LAKE AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, AT LEAST ONE COMPLETE
> > AILERON ROLL, SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT PULL-UPS, SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT LEVEL-OFFS
> > AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, AND SEVERAL HAMMERHEAD TYPE TURNS. THE LAST MANEUVER,
> > WHICH TERMINATED WITH THE ACCIDENT, WAS A STEEP PULLUP AND CLIMB FOLLOWED BY
> > A HAMMERHEAD TURN AND A DELAYED PULLOUT AT THE BOTTOM WHICH RESULTED IN
> > IMPACT WITH THE TERRAIN. THE AIRCRAFT WAS OPERATING IN THE UTILITY CATAGORY
> > OF AIRWORTHINESS ON THE ACCIDENT FLIGHT. FOR THIS CATAGORY, AT THE TIME OF
> > THE ACCIDENT THE AIRCRAFT WAS 323 POUNDS OVER IT'S MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS
> > WEIGHT AND 3.1 INCHES BEYOND IT'S ALLOWABLE AFT C.G. LIMIT.
> > The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
> > this accident as follows:
> > ALTITUDE..MISJUDGED..PILOT IN COMMAND
> > LEVEL OFF..DELAYED..PILOT IN COMMAND
> > Contributing Factors:
> > AEROBATICS..PERFORMED..PILOT IN COMMAND
>
> This one might illustrate what could happen to someone (like yourself
> maybe)
>
> Most probably it wouldn't. I asked a simple question about the
> performance of a 1960 Cessna 172. You outlined what amounted to a
> suicide flight (as a result of stupidity, bravado, enormous ego or a
> combination of all three) with innocent passengers...big difference my
> friend. I fail to see the similarities.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The few of us that have been in aviation a long time get
worried real quick when someone starts asking questions like you did.
We've read too many articles about how someone tried something that
the airplane wasn't approved for and ended up wrecking a good airplane
and killing themselves in the process. Some of us knew people who did
dumb things, even after they were warned not to be stupid. So don't go
getting offended when alarm bells start going off when you ask such
questions. General aviation doesn't need any more silly accidents
because the media makes a big deal of them and the general public
starts demanding that little airplanes get grounded. The unfortunate
accidents--those that happen despite the pilot's best efforts--are bad
enough, but the accidents that are so obviously a result of
foolishness just cost us all in terms of credibility, freedom, and
insurance premiums.
A 172 is too draggy, too slow on the controls and lacks
the power to pull it through a decent roll. You will more likely fall
out of it and end up in some sort of Vne situation and perhaps pull
the thing apart trying to recover. We regularly do spins here with
172s (they're approved for them) and it will fall out of the spin,
usually within one turn, and the speed builds alarmingly. Easy to do
damage.
So that's why the reactions. We want you alive and well
and a credit to the aviation community. Know that a 172 is like a
station wagon: easy to drive but not something you'd want to do the
Indy 500 in.

Dan

[Clay]

On May 7, 9:17 am, wrote:
> On May 6, 3:36 am, gt > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 2:30 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On 1-May-2007, gt > wrote:
>
> > > > I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
> > > > rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
> > > > it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
> > > > well-executed barrel roll.
>
> > > > Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172?
>
> > > trying aerobatics in a Cessna 172. The pilot was a US Air Force instructor
> > > pilot at Laughlin AFB, Del Rio, Texas. I guess he thought he was a good
> > > enough stick to get away with it, but...
>
> > > NTSB Identification: FTW86FA051 .
> > > The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 31025.
> > > 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
> > > Accident occurred Sunday, March 30, 1986 in DEL RIO, TX
> > > Aircraft: CESSNA 172N, registration: N8423E
> > > Injuries: 4 Fatal.
> > > THE PILOT WAS DOING AEROBATIC MANEUVERS IN THE CESSNA 172 AIRPLANE WITH
> > > THREE PASSENGERS AND A HEAVY LOAD OF FUEL ABOARD. THE MANEUVERS CONSISTED OF
> > > BUZZING BOATS ON THE LAKE AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, AT LEAST ONE COMPLETE
> > > AILERON ROLL, SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT PULL-UPS, SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT LEVEL-OFFS
> > > AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, AND SEVERAL HAMMERHEAD TYPE TURNS. THE LAST MANEUVER,
> > > WHICH TERMINATED WITH THE ACCIDENT, WAS A STEEP PULLUP AND CLIMB FOLLOWED BY
> > > A HAMMERHEAD TURN AND A DELAYED PULLOUT AT THE BOTTOM WHICH RESULTED IN
> > > IMPACT WITH THE TERRAIN. THE AIRCRAFT WAS OPERATING IN THE UTILITY CATAGORY
> > > OF AIRWORTHINESS ON THE ACCIDENT FLIGHT. FOR THIS CATAGORY, AT THE TIME OF
> > > THE ACCIDENT THE AIRCRAFT WAS 323 POUNDS OVER IT'S MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS
> > > WEIGHT AND 3.1 INCHES BEYOND IT'S ALLOWABLE AFT C.G. LIMIT.
> > > The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
> > > this accident as follows:
> > > ALTITUDE..MISJUDGED..PILOT IN COMMAND
> > > LEVEL OFF..DELAYED..PILOT IN COMMAND
> > > Contributing Factors:
> > > AEROBATICS..PERFORMED..PILOT IN COMMAND
>
> > This one might illustrate what could happen to someone (like yourself
> > maybe)
>
> > Most probably it wouldn't. I asked a simple question about the
> > performance of a 1960 Cessna 172. You outlined what amounted to a
> > suicide flight (as a result of stupidity, bravado, enormous ego or a
> > combination of all three) with innocent passengers...big difference my
> > friend. I fail to see the similarities.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The few of us that have been in aviation a long time get
> worried real quick when someone starts asking questions like you did.
> We've read too many articles about how someone tried something that
> the airplane wasn't approved for and ended up wrecking a good airplane
> and killing themselves in the process. Some of us knew people who did
> dumb things, even after they were warned not to be stupid. So don't go
> getting offended when alarm bells start going off when you ask such
> questions. General aviation doesn't need any more silly accidents
> because the media makes a big deal of them and the general public
> starts demanding that little airplanes get grounded. The unfortunate
> accidents--those that happen despite the pilot's best efforts--are bad
> enough, but the accidents that are so obviously a result of
> foolishness just cost us all in terms of credibility, freedom, and
> insurance premiums.
> A 172 is too draggy, too slow on the controls and lacks
> the power to pull it through a decent roll. You will more likely fall
> out of it and end up in some sort of Vne situation and perhaps pull
> the thing apart trying to recover. We regularly do spins here with
> 172s (they're approved for them) and it will fall out of the spin,
> usually within one turn, and the speed builds alarmingly. Easy to do
> damage.
> So that's why the reactions. We want you alive and well
> and a credit to the aviation community. Know that a 172 is like a
> station wagon: easy to drive but not something you'd want to do the
> Indy 500 in.
>
> Dan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A C-172 does very nice wing overs.

[[email protected]]

On May 7, 8:35 am, Clay > wrote:
>
> A C-172 does very nice wing overs.- Hide quoted text -

A wingover is a chandelle, something the 172 is certified for.
It isn't a roll.

Dan

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"gt" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On May 2, 2:30 pm, wrote:
>> On 1-May-2007, gt > wrote:
>>
>> > I own a 1960 Cessna 172 with 2500 hours on the airframe. It is not
>> > rated for aerobatic flight, but the positive and negative G loads that
>> > it is approved for far exceed the normal G forces associated with a
>> > well-executed barrel roll.
>>
>> > Has anyone heard of this maneuver being performed in a 1960 172?
>>
>>
<...> Most probably it wouldn't. I asked a simple question about the
> performance of a 1960 Cessna 172.
<...>

Simple answer. No, I've never heard of anyone doing barrel roll a 1960
Cessna 172.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Private]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 7, 8:35 am, Clay > wrote:
>>
>> A C-172 does very nice wing overs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> A wingover is a chandelle, something the 172 is certified for.
> It isn't a roll.
>
> Dan

I would hesitate to call a wingover a chandelle.
I was taught to perform a chandelle from a level entry @ 105 knots, to 30-45
degrees bank, steeply climbing, descending airspeed, 180 degree turn,
finishing wings level in stall buffet.
IMHO a wingover is much closer to a very steep (over 90 degree) lazy 8.
I do think that the C-172 does perform both surprisingly nicely (when light,
with minimum fuel, and note restriction of MT baggage and rear seat)

Just MHO, Happy landings,

[vincent norris]

> I would hesitate to call a wingover a chandelle.

They are different maneuvers.

> I was taught to perform a chandelle from a level entry @ 105 knots, to 30-45
> degrees bank, steeply climbing, descending airspeed, 180 degree turn,
> finishing wings level in stall buffet.

Close enough for government work.

> IMHO a wingover is much closer to a very steep (over 90 degree) lazy 8.

In the Navy, at least, it is exactly 90 degrees of bank, at precisely 90
degrees of heading change and nose cutting the horizon; then gradual
roll-out to a 180 degree change of direction at the entry altitude.


vince norris