A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rolling a Non Aerobat 150



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 2nd 05, 02:15 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #2  
Old May 2nd 05, 04:45 AM
Dave Stadt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.



  #3  
Old May 2nd 05, 01:43 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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? :-)
  #4  
Old May 2nd 05, 01:56 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #5  
Old May 2nd 05, 02:08 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?

  #6  
Old May 2nd 05, 02:20 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #7  
Old May 2nd 05, 02:31 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 02 May 2005 13:20:06 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)


...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



Oh, for a minute there, I thought you were attempting to define all
data as empirical.
  #8  
Old May 2nd 05, 02:36 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Oh, for a minute there, I thought you were attempting to define all
data as empirical.


No. Only high altitude pressurized data.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #9  
Old May 2nd 05, 10:18 PM
Dave Stadt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.



  #10  
Old May 2nd 05, 10:52 PM
george
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rolling a Non Aerobat 150 Jose Piloting 1 May 2nd 05 03:59 PM
Rolling a Non Aerobat 150 Larry Dighera Piloting 1 April 29th 05 07:31 PM
Rolling a Non Aerobat 150 kage Owning 0 April 29th 05 04:26 AM
Rolling a Non Aerobat 150 Larry Dighera Piloting 4 April 28th 05 05:06 PM
??Build rolling tool chest? Michael Horowitz Owning 15 January 27th 05 05:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.