On May 2, 12:48 am, 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?

Well, I've heard of it being done, but it indeed has to well-
executed. The reason for the higher G-load ratings for Aerobatic
aircraft is in case one "blows" the manuever. If one doesn't get the
plane set up right and winds up in a screaming dive or a partial dive
witha rolling pullout, the loads can get pretty high. rolling
pullouts are harder on the airplane than straight g., and the G meter
doesn't really reflect that. I've been flying aerobatics in a
Stearman for more years than I care to admit, and when I was learning,
I pulled some pretty fearsome G's after "blown" manuevers.

I gotta say, if one really likes boring aerobatic holes in the sky,
get an aerobatice airplane. I used to have a Cessna, and I looked for
excuses like everybody else to go find 100 buck hamburgers. It
finally dawned on,me that I didn't really want to travel, I just like
to fly, especially"unusual attitudes". I swapped my cessna for a
truck full of Stearman parts and rebuilt it. Been boring corkscrew
holes in the sky for over 25 years and never a twinge of regret. I
think in all that time I had a desire to actually go somewhere (other
than a biplane fly-in) about 3-4 times, and I rented a spam cam to do
it.

steve stas