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