C-152 Breaks Up In Air

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

Two folks flew into instrument conditions and tried to fly back out without
success. Aircraft parts are scattered over a one mile radius.

How hard do you have to work to break up a 150 in flight?

I don't believe I've ever heard of its happening before. Anyone know of
another case?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
Two folks flew into instrument conditions and tried to fly back out without
success. Aircraft parts are scattered over a one mile radius.

How hard do you have to work to break up a 150 in flight?

I was recently reading the "AOPA Pilot" article about C150 Aerobat
aerobatic training.

Can any Cessna fans point out the differences between the basic 150/152
& Aerobat versions? Do they have different G restrictions? Or are the
Aerobat upgrades mainly pilot escape related, etc...

Thanks!

Dan Luke wrote:
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

Two folks flew into instrument conditions and tried to fly back out without
success. Aircraft parts are scattered over a one mile radius.

How hard do you have to work to break up a 150 in flight?

I don't believe I've ever heard of its happening before. Anyone know of
another case?


I've never heard of one but who knows? In this case, a graveyard spiral until
the wings came off? It only takes a few seconds to go from stall speed to
redline if you're pointed downhill with the power still on.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

B A R R Y wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
I was recently reading the "AOPA Pilot" article about C150 Aerobat
aerobatic training.

Can any Cessna fans point out the differences between the basic 150/152
& Aerobat versions? Do they have different G restrictions? Or are the
Aerobat upgrades mainly pilot escape related, etc...

As I recall, there is a bit of horizontal stabilizer reinforcement and
not much else.

Acrobatic or not, it's hard to imagine it being overly difficult to pull
the wings off in a spiral. And not too difficult to get in one in those
conditions.

The Aerobat has much larger struts and wing attach points.

Karl


"Maule Driver" wrote in message
...


B A R R Y wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
I was recently reading the "AOPA Pilot" article about C150 Aerobat
aerobatic training.

Can any Cessna fans point out the differences between the basic 150/152 &
Aerobat versions? Do they have different G restrictions? Or are the
Aerobat upgrades mainly pilot escape related, etc...

As I recall, there is a bit of horizontal stabilizer reinforcement and not
much else.

Acrobatic or not, it's hard to imagine it being overly difficult to pull
the wings off in a spiral. And not too difficult to get in one in those
conditions.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Larry,

Tragic indeed.


Hmm. If indeed it was VFR into IMC and the pilot had obtained his
certificate only two months prior, that's not the only word that comes
to mind. And I would have some questions for the CFI.

Speaking as a CFI who once had a student that she dumped for doing
idiotic stuff, it's not always the CFI's fault.

The 150/152 were certified in the normal/utility category which, as I
recall, carries a G rating of 3.8/4.4 positive and 1.52/1.76 negative.

The 150 Aerobat was certified in the aerobatic category which carries a
+6 -3 G rating.


Jim



"Maule Driver" wrote in message
...



As I recall, there is a bit of horizontal stabilizer reinforcement and not
much else.

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
...


As I recall, there is a bit of horizontal stabilizer reinforcement and not
much else.

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:37:07 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote in :

The 150/152 were certified in the normal/utility category which, as I
recall, carries a G rating of 3.8/4.4 positive and 1.52/1.76 negative.

The 150 Aerobat was certified in the aerobatic category which carries a
+6 -3 G rating.

But, was Vne increased?

Larry Dighera wrote:
"Maule Driver" wrote in message
...


As I recall, there is a bit of horizontal stabilizer reinforcement and not
much else.

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:37:07 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote in :

The 150/152 were certified in the normal/utility category which, as I
recall, carries a G rating of 3.8/4.4 positive and 1.52/1.76 negative.

The 150 Aerobat was certified in the aerobatic category which carries a
+6 -3 G rating.

But, was Vne increased?

Those limits apply to properly maintained airplanes, not those
that have been neglected, abused or otherwise poorly treated. I've seen
serious corrosion in 150 wings that would have weakened them; the
insides of struts can corrode from condensation; The stabilizer spars
can be cracked by pushing down on the tail to swing the nose around
during ground handling (though the 172 is more prone to that). A failed
stab allows the airplane go instantly go over onto its back and the
wings fail downward a la Bonanza or 210.
Who knows; maybe there was hardware missing. I once came across a
172 that had no nuts on the lower strut attach bolts, and those bolts
were working their way out. There are some real horror stories out
there.
But I would still suspect loss of control and a hard pull-up
when the ground appeared. The usual scenario in the Bonanza/210 crash.

Dan

Must of been scary in that plane.