aerobatic C172?

On May 2, 7:18 am, C J Campbell
wrote:
The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.

Is that true? I can understand that the float would run out of gas
after a bit but I don't see how the carb itself would care about the
G's. In the Aeronca we were able to maintain inverted flight for more
than a couple of seconds before the engine would stop. The carb is
already on the bottom of the engine and the fuel/air mixture travels
up the intake via the massive suction of the intake stroke.

-Robert

Rolling Airplanes

You too could make the hit parade.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070221X00205&key=1''

Probably had enough energy. No Tex Johnson.

Bill Hale


On May 2, 8:58 am, john smith wrote:
In article .com,

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?

Not enough "energy" to be performed in level flight.
It can be done in a dive by a competent aerobatic pilot, maintaining
airspeed and 1-G loading throughout the maneuver.

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?




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

C J Campbell wrote:

The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.

If you maintain around one G throughout the manuever, the carb will
continue to work just fine.

As others have posted, it's not whether or not the plane can take the
forces generated in a properly executed manuever (which it can). It's more
whether the airplane can take the stresses of a botched manuever.

I've botched some manuevers in a fully aerobatic aircraft that would have
been pretty ugly in a non-aerobatic plane.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200705/1

Have you ever spin the Cherokee 180?

flynrider via AviationKB.com wrote:
C J Campbell wrote:
The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.

If you maintain around one G throughout the manuever, the carb will
continue to work just fine.

As others have posted, it's not whether or not the plane can take the
forces generated in a properly executed manuever (which it can). It's more
whether the airplane can take the stresses of a botched manuever.

I've botched some manuevers in a fully aerobatic aircraft that would have
been pretty ugly in a non-aerobatic plane.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

On 2007-05-02 14:47:53 -0700, "flynrider via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe said:

C J Campbell wrote:

The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.

If you maintain around one G throughout the manuever, the carb will
continue to work just fine.

Yeah. I assumed that others had read the rest of the thread.




--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

nobody wrote:
Have you ever spin the Cherokee 180?


Yes. I spin my Cherokee on a fairly regular basis. It takes a bit of
planning ahead to make sure it's in the Utility Category envelope, but it's
worth it.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200705/1

The NTSB said :

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.

I think it could more accurately be said that the aircraft was NOT
operating in the Utility Category on the accident flight.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200705/1

On May 2, 7:18 am, C J Campbell
wrote:
On 2007-05-01 21:52:46 -0700, gt said:

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?

Of course. However, that does not mean it is legal or smart.

The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.
A barrel roll should not be a problem, executed properly, but if you
screw it up then you might have some trouble. The 172 is allowed to do
spins, but it can be hard on the instruments, knocking them back and
forth from stop to stop. For that reason some FBOs insist that spin
training be done in other airplanes.

I suspect, however, that the real reasons the 172 is not certified for
aerobatics is Cessna didn't want the liability, the 172 has a
not-very-much-fun roll rate, and sooner or later some pilot would be
bound to do them with passengers and no parachutes.

Finally, if you are the sort of person who goes out and abuses other
people's property and tries to conceal it, I suspect that most of us
would not want you renting our planes.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor


As I wrote, I own the plane. I do not and have not gone out and
abused other people's property. If I did, I wouldn't try to conceal
it, but thanks for the response.

On 2007-05-02 19:49:12 -0700, gt said:

On May 2, 7:18 am, C J Campbell
wrote:
On 2007-05-01 21:52:46 -0700, gt said:

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?

Of course. However, that does not mean it is legal or smart.

The 172 may be able to stand the G forces, but that is not the only
limitation. The carburetor only works when right side up, for example.
A barrel roll should not be a problem, executed properly, but if you
screw it up then you might have some trouble. The 172 is allowed to do
spins, but it can be hard on the instruments, knocking them back and
forth from stop to stop. For that reason some FBOs insist that spin
training be done in other airplanes.

I suspect, however, that the real reasons the 172 is not certified for
aerobatics is Cessna didn't want the liability, the 172 has a
not-very-much-fun roll rate, and sooner or later some pilot would be
bound to do them with passengers and no parachutes.

Finally, if you are the sort of person who goes out and abuses other
people's property and tries to conceal it, I suspect that most of us
would not want you renting our planes.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor


As I wrote, I own the plane. I do not and have not gone out and
abused other people's property. If I did, I wouldn't try to conceal
it, but thanks for the response.

I am very sorry. I did not mean to imply that you would do this. I was
speaking generally, not about you personally. I am embarrassed that I
said that.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor