C-172

[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?

[stearmandriver]

On May 2, 12:48 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?

Well, I've heard of it being done, but it indeed has to well-
executed. The reason for the higher G-load ratings for Aerobatic
aircraft is in case one "blows" the manuever. If one doesn't get the
plane set up right and winds up in a screaming dive or a partial dive
witha rolling pullout, the loads can get pretty high. rolling
pullouts are harder on the airplane than straight g., and the G meter
doesn't really reflect that. I've been flying aerobatics in a
Stearman for more years than I care to admit, and when I was learning,
I pulled some pretty fearsome G's after "blown" manuevers.

I gotta say, if one really likes boring aerobatic holes in the sky,
get an aerobatice airplane. I used to have a Cessna, and I looked for
excuses like everybody else to go find 100 buck hamburgers. It
finally dawned on,me that I didn't really want to travel, I just like
to fly, especially"unusual attitudes". I swapped my cessna for a
truck full of Stearman parts and rebuilt it. Been boring corkscrew
holes in the sky for over 25 years and never a twinge of regret. I
think in all that time I had a desire to actually go somewhere (other
than a biplane fly-in) about 3-4 times, and I rented a spam cam to do
it.

steve stas

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

The problem with this isn't that the 172 can't do the roll within it's
normal category limits. The problem arises when and if the pilot executing
the roll somehow screws it up.

If this happens you might not have ANY...... and I repeat ANY, excess g to
play with. Couple this with the worst possible exit scenario for a botched
barrel roll being a rolling pullout and you have the perfect recipe for a
possible over g condition.
My advice is NOT to attempt it EVER in this type of airplane. The pilots who
fly aerobatics in non aerobatic certificated aircraft are expert and on
waivers.
Bottom line on this issue is that doing aerobatics in non aerobatic
certificated airplanes should NOT be attempted.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Ex- Demonstration Pilot P51 Mustang and others.



"gt" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>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?
>