aerobatic C172?

On May 7, 9:17 am, wrote:
On May 6, 3:36 am, gt wrote:





On May 2, 2:30 pm, wrote:

On 1-May-2007, 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?

trying aerobatics in a Cessna 172. The pilot was a US Air Force instructor
pilot at Laughlin AFB, Del Rio, Texas. I guess he thought he was a good
enough stick to get away with it, but...

NTSB Identification: FTW86FA051 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 31025.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, March 30, 1986 in DEL RIO, TX
Aircraft: CESSNA 172N, registration: N8423E
Injuries: 4 Fatal.
THE PILOT WAS DOING AEROBATIC MANEUVERS IN THE CESSNA 172 AIRPLANE WITH
THREE PASSENGERS AND A HEAVY LOAD OF FUEL ABOARD. THE MANEUVERS CONSISTED OF
BUZZING BOATS ON THE LAKE AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, AT LEAST ONE COMPLETE
AILERON ROLL, SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT PULL-UPS, SEVERAL VERY ABRUPT LEVEL-OFFS
AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, AND SEVERAL HAMMERHEAD TYPE TURNS. THE LAST MANEUVER,
WHICH TERMINATED WITH THE ACCIDENT, WAS A STEEP PULLUP AND CLIMB FOLLOWED BY
A HAMMERHEAD TURN AND A DELAYED PULLOUT AT THE BOTTOM WHICH RESULTED IN
IMPACT WITH THE TERRAIN. THE AIRCRAFT WAS OPERATING IN THE UTILITY CATAGORY
OF AIRWORTHINESS ON THE ACCIDENT FLIGHT. FOR THIS CATAGORY, AT THE TIME OF
THE ACCIDENT THE AIRCRAFT WAS 323 POUNDS OVER IT'S MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS
WEIGHT AND 3.1 INCHES BEYOND IT'S ALLOWABLE AFT C.G. LIMIT.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:
ALTITUDE..MISJUDGED..PILOT IN COMMAND
LEVEL OFF..DELAYED..PILOT IN COMMAND
Contributing Factors:
AEROBATICS..PERFORMED..PILOT IN COMMAND

This one might illustrate what could happen to someone (like yourself
maybe)

Most probably it wouldn't. I asked a simple question about the
performance of a 1960 Cessna 172. You outlined what amounted to a
suicide flight (as a result of stupidity, bravado, enormous ego or a
combination of all three) with innocent passengers...big difference my
friend. I fail to see the similarities.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The few of us that have been in aviation a long time get
worried real quick when someone starts asking questions like you did.
We've read too many articles about how someone tried something that
the airplane wasn't approved for and ended up wrecking a good airplane
and killing themselves in the process. Some of us knew people who did
dumb things, even after they were warned not to be stupid. So don't go
getting offended when alarm bells start going off when you ask such
questions. General aviation doesn't need any more silly accidents
because the media makes a big deal of them and the general public
starts demanding that little airplanes get grounded. The unfortunate
accidents--those that happen despite the pilot's best efforts--are bad
enough, but the accidents that are so obviously a result of
foolishness just cost us all in terms of credibility, freedom, and
insurance premiums.
A 172 is too draggy, too slow on the controls and lacks
the power to pull it through a decent roll. You will more likely fall
out of it and end up in some sort of Vne situation and perhaps pull
the thing apart trying to recover. We regularly do spins here with
172s (they're approved for them) and it will fall out of the spin,
usually within one turn, and the speed builds alarmingly. Easy to do
damage.
So that's why the reactions. We want you alive and well
and a credit to the aviation community. Know that a 172 is like a
station wagon: easy to drive but not something you'd want to do the
Indy 500 in.

Dan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A C-172 does very nice wing overs.

On May 7, 8:35 am, Clay wrote:

A C-172 does very nice wing overs.- Hide quoted text -

A wingover is a chandelle, something the 172 is certified for.
It isn't a roll.

Dan

"gt" wrote in message
ps.com...
On May 2, 2:30 pm, wrote:
On 1-May-2007, 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?


... Most probably it wouldn't. I asked a simple question about the
performance of a 1960 Cessna 172.
...

Simple answer. No, I've never heard of anyone doing barrel roll a 1960
Cessna 172.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 7, 8:35 am, Clay wrote:

A C-172 does very nice wing overs.- Hide quoted text -

A wingover is a chandelle, something the 172 is certified for.
It isn't a roll.

Dan

I would hesitate to call a wingover a chandelle.
I was taught to perform a chandelle from a level entry @ 105 knots, to 30-45
degrees bank, steeply climbing, descending airspeed, 180 degree turn,
finishing wings level in stall buffet.
IMHO a wingover is much closer to a very steep (over 90 degree) lazy 8.
I do think that the C-172 does perform both surprisingly nicely (when light,
with minimum fuel, and note restriction of MT baggage and rear seat)

Just MHO, Happy landings,

I would hesitate to call a wingover a chandelle.

They are different maneuvers.

I was taught to perform a chandelle from a level entry @ 105 knots, to 30-45
degrees bank, steeply climbing, descending airspeed, 180 degree turn,
finishing wings level in stall buffet.

Close enough for government work.

IMHO a wingover is much closer to a very steep (over 90 degree) lazy 8.

In the Navy, at least, it is exactly 90 degrees of bank, at precisely 90
degrees of heading change and nose cutting the horizon; then gradual
roll-out to a 180 degree change of direction at the entry altitude.


vince norris