Thread
:
aerobatic C172?
View Single Post
#
26
May 5th 07, 04:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
The Visitor
external usenet poster
Posts: 231
aerobatic C172?
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
The Visitor
View Public Profile
View message headers
Find all posts by The Visitor
Find all threads started by The Visitor