Dave Stadt wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 May 2005 03:45:21 GMT, "Dave Stadt"

wrote in ::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 01 May 2005 20:00:07 GMT, "Ed" wrote
in
::

-1G is nothing more than hanging in your belts during level
inverted flight.

Isn't it also the maximum negative G limit of a C-150 operating
in the
Normal category? If so, the only reason it doesn't fail, is the
safety margin in the certification standard.

I doubt -1G is a limit.

A quick perusal of the Airworthiness certificates shows a load
factor
of +4-4, -1.76 for non aerobatic C-150s and +6.0, -3.0 for
Aerobats.


http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/f9939cf761ddfa3f86256e2b0053faa3/$FILE/3a19.pdf

The 120/140 limit is -2.26 G plus a 150% safety margin.

That seems to exceed the C-150 specification.

Yep, 2.26 is further from 0 than is 1.76.

It is nearly impossible to get a Cessna to come apart in the air.

Do you have some data to support that, or is that opinion
empirically
derived? :-)

The NTSB has the data. Those attempting to win a Darwin award would
do well
to avoid Cessnas.

The older C150s are rated at +4.4 / -1.76 g and you'd be pushing to get
anywhere over either number