Rolling a Non Aerobat 150

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 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 certification standard.

"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 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 certification standard.

I doubt -1G is a limit. The 120/140 limit is -2.26 G plus a 150% safety
margin. It is nearly impossible to get a Cessna to come apart in the air.

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.

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? :-)

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

"empirical" means "by experiment" (data). As opposed to "by theory"
(mathematics and modelling)

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 02 May 2005 12:56:55 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

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

"empirical" means "by experiment" (data). As opposed to "by theory"
(mathematics and modelling)

While what you assert is true, given Merriam-Webster's definition:

Main Entry:empirical
Pronunciation:-i-k*l
Variant:also empiric \-ik\
Function:adjective
Date:1569

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
*empirical data*
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due
regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or
experiment *empirical laws*
4 : of or relating to empiricism
–empirically \-i-k(*-)l*\ adverb

I wonder why you felt the need to define the meaning of the word.
What was your point?

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

"empirical" means "by experiment" (data). As opposed to "by theory"
(mathematics and modelling)

...given [webster's definition, consistant with my statement]
I wonder why you felt the need to define the meaning of the word.
What was your point?

It was a UU. ("usenet urge"). The original quote seemed to misuse the
word, pitting "empirical" against "having some data", when they mean the
same thing.

The usage I would expect would be something like "is there any theory
behind this, or is that opinion empirically derived?" or "do you have
some data to support that, or is this merely a theoretically based opinion?"

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"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.

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

Oh I dunno, it's pretty easy to reach -2G in a poorly done slow roll. You
let the nose drop a bit during knife edge flight, and then push a little too
aggressively to keep the nose up as you come over into inverted, and you'll
be pushing -2G easily. I've done it plenty of times in a Decathlon when I
was rusty.

You're probably right about the positive G's. Loops and other standard
aerobatic maneuvers can normally be done at +3.5G easily, and the difference
between 3.5 and 4.4 is more than most folks would think. The only time I
normally exceed 4.5 in my Decathlon is when I hold a straight downline with
full power and then then pull hard to level.

But then all this presupposes that the pilot knows what he is doing. Sure,
an experienced acro pilot could fly basic maneuvers in a C150 and not be at
serious risk. But a novice who watched it on TV or got some hangar flying
lessons could still easily kill himself trying it. He tries a slow roll,
panics when the engine burbles while inverted, and tries to Split S out of
it. Those wings are coming off.


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

On 17 May 2005 09:12:43 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in .com::

Ever see those things on T.V. when they put the fighter pilots in the G
simulator by spinning them around in a circle. If you sat in the middle
of that machine you would feel no G's (just like the cockpit of the
airplane) but the guy out at the end of the arm (or wing tip) sure
feels some G's.

-Robert


While the rolling aircraft was inverted, wouldn't any centrifugal
force generated act against (rather than add to)any negative G forces
the wing may feel?