aerobatic C172?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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