 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gt
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: aerobatic C172? |
 |
|
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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ron Natalie
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
gt wrote:
| Quote: | 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? |
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
On May 2, 12:52 am, gt <garyto...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | 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' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roy Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
John <jdupre5762 (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote:
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt Barrow
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
"Roy Smith" <roy (AT) panix (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:roy-B3358B.09342802052007@032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net...
| Quote: | John <jdupre5762 (AT) aol (DOT) com> 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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C J Campbell
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
On 2007-05-01 21:52:46 -0700, gt <garytoler (AT) cox (DOT) net> said:
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
john smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 8:56 pm Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
In article <roy-B3358B.09342802052007@032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net>,
Roy Smith <roy (AT) panix (DOT) com> wrote:
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
john smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
In article <1178081566.032725.304120 (AT) y80g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
gt <garytoler (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote:
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert M. Gary
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
On May 2, 7:18 am, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On 2007-05-01 21:52:46 -0700, gt <garyto...@cox.net> 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)
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert M. Gary
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
On May 2, 7:18 am, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bill_hale@verigy.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
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 <johnsm...@net.net> wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1178081566.032725.304...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
gt <garyto...@cox.net> 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 2:30 am Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
On 1-May-2007, gt <garytoler (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote:
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flynrider via AviationKB.
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 2:47 am Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
C J Campbell wrote:
| Quote: |
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nobody
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 2:53 am Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
Have you ever spin the Cherokee 180?
flynrider via AviationKB.com wrote:
| Quote: | 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)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C J Campbell
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:36 am Post subject: Re: aerobatic C172? |
|
|
On 2007-05-02 14:47:53 -0700, "flynrider via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> said:
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
