aerobatic C172?

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

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

On 2007-05-05 08:01:56 -0700, The Visitor
said:

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

Certainly the 1960 model is old enough. I don't remember, but didn't
Cessna bring the new ones up to FAR 23 standards?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:41:04 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

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.


Certainly the 1960 model is old enough. I don't remember, but didn't
Cessna bring the new ones up to FAR 23 standards?

They may have, and it's quite possible they brought stuff like the seats to
FAR-23 to lessen liability risks. But if they were manufacturing on the old TC
they certainly didn't have to....

Ron Wanttaja