barrel roll in 172

Andrey Serbinenko wrote:
If kept within the normal category load limits, is 172 certified to do
barrel rolls?

Andrey

No, but you can do a slip-short split-S if you so desire. I've only
done one in a low wing, but keeping positive 1g throughout is
necessary. They don't have the roll rate of an edge 540 so I don't know
why you would even want to do anything like a barrel roll in a training
aircraft. I like your live on the edge spirit though!!

(5) Model 172L (1972 model)

"This airplane must be operated in compliance with the
operating limitations

as stated in the form of placards, markings, and manuals:

MAXIMUMS

Normal Category Utility Category

Maneuvering speed (CAS) 122 mph (106 knots) 122 mph (106
knots)

Gross weight 2300 lbs. 2000 lbs.

Flight load factor

Flaps up +3.8 -1.52 +4.4 -1.76

Flaps down +3.5 +3.5

Normal category - No acrobatic maneuvers including spins
approved

Utility category - Baggage compartment and rear seat must
not be occupied.

No acrobatic maneuvers approved except those listed below.

Maneuver Max. Entry speed

Chandelles 122 mph (106 knots)

Lazy eights 122 mph (106 knots)

Steep turns 122 mph (106 knots)

Spins Slow deceleration

Stalls (except whip stalls) Slow deceleration"

Spin recovery: opposite rudder - forward elevator -
neutralize controls.

Intentional spins with flaps extended are prohibited. Known
icing conditions to

be avoided. This airplane is certified for the following
flight operations as of date

of original airworthiness certificate:

(DAY NIGHT VFR IFR)" (as applicable)



Download the entire TCDS here
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...4?OpenDocument





"JerryGirrafe" wrote in
message
ups.com...
|
| Andrey Serbinenko wrote:
| If kept within the normal category load limits, is 172
certified to do
| barrel rolls?
|
| Andrey
|
| No, but you can do a slip-short split-S if you so desire.
I've only
| done one in a low wing, but keeping positive 1g throughout
is
| necessary. They don't have the roll rate of an edge 540 so
I don't know
| why you would even want to do anything like a barrel roll
in a training
| aircraft. I like your live on the edge spirit though!!
|

Jim Macklin wrote

(5) Model 172L (1972 model)
"This airplane must be operated in compliance with the
operating limitations as stated in the form of placards,
markings, and manuals:

Yeah Jim, and we all MUST comply with all highway speed limits,
even when they were 55 mph. Hell...my speedometer even had a
big red mark at 55 mph.

A lot of those placards, markings, and manual limits are just
because the manufacturer did not want to spend the time and
money in order to seek certification for a particular item.

Such is the case of the "no slips with flaps" contained in the
manual for a lot of the C-172s.

Bob Moore

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:57:10 GMT, Bob Moore
wrote in ::

A lot of those placards, markings, and manual limits are just
because the manufacturer did not want to spend the time and
money in order to seek certification for a particular item.

Such is the case of the "no slips with flaps" contained in the
manual for a lot of the C-172s.

From: (Jackie Murray)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Cessna 172 slips with flaps
Date: 5 Jul 1994 15:06:35 -0400
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.114.130.70


I know this has been beaten to death, but I just received an article
from AOPA about the C172 and there is a reference to this problem.

Article: "Anatomy of a Success" (The makings of a winner) by Thomas A.
Horne, AOPA Pilot in May, 1992. In describing the phenomenal success
and popularity of this plane when introduced in 1955, the author says
this:

"There was -- and still is -- one handling quirk: In a forward slip
with flaps extended, a 172 could pitch nose down, violently enough to
push a pilot against his seat belt. This is caused by an upturned
aileron's reducing the normally strong downwash of air over the
horizontal tail. Though puzzling in its infrequency, Cessna saw the
potential for trouble. Consequently, a placard is installed near the
flap control: Avoid slips with flaps extended."

Message-ID:

An added note in this article...I am still reading it....in 1972 the
'dorsal fin was extended all the way forward to the rear window. This
helped virtually eliminate the nose-down pitch problem in sideslips
and made the airplane much more spin resistant....Cessna received
complaints from some flight instructors because of this
characteristic. Demonstrations of fully developed (three-turn) spins
were difficult to perform; result was usually a spiral"

Cessna received
complaints from some flight instructors because of this
characteristic. Demonstrations of fully developed (three-turn) spins
were difficult to perform; result was usually a spiral"

Interesting. Cessna creates a safer airplane, and people complain.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Larry Dighera wrote
I know this has been beaten to death, but I just received an article
from AOPA about the C172 and there is a reference to this problem.
Article: "Anatomy of a Success" (The makings of a winner) by Thomas A.
Horne, AOPA Pilot in May, 1992.

What makes the AOPA or Thomas Horne an authority on the subject?

I have posted the following on previous occassions before and still
believe it to be true. It is excerpted from the book, "Cessna, Wings
for the World" by William Thompson. Bill Thompson served as Manager of
Flight Test and Aerodynamics for the Cessna Aircraft Company. Seems as
if he should know the 'real' story.

Bob Moore

With the advent of the large slotted flaps in the C-170, C-180, and C-172 we encountered
a nose down pitch in forward slips with the wing flaps deflected. In some cases it was
severe enough to lift the pilot against his seat belt if he was slow in checking the
motion. For this reason a caution note was placed in most of the owner's manuals under
"Landings" reading "Slips should be avoided with flap settings greater than 30° due to a
downward pitch encountered under certain combinations of airspeed, side-slip angle, and
center of gravity loadings". Since wing-low drift correction in cross-wind landings is
normally performed with a minimum flap setting (for better rudder control) this
limitation did not apply to that maneuver. The cause of the pitching motion is the
transition of a strong wing downwash over the tail in straight flight to a lessened
downwash angle over part of the horizontal tail caused by the influence of a relative
"upwash increment" from the upturned aileron in slipping flight. Although not stated in
the owner's manuals, we privately encouraged flight instructors to explore these effects
at high altitude, and to pass on the information to their students. This phenomenon was
elusive and sometimes hard to duplicate, but it was thought that a pilot should be aware
of its existence and know how to counter-act it if it occurs close to the ground.
When the larger dorsal fin was adopted in the 1972 C-172L, this side-slip pitch
phenomenon was eliminated, but the cautionary placard was retained. In the higher-
powered C-172P and C-R172 the placard was applicable to a mild pitch "pumping" motion
resulting from flap outboard-end vortex impingement on the horizontal tail at some
combinations of side-slip angle, power, and airspeed.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:01:39 GMT, Bob Moore
wrote in : :


I just received an article
from AOPA about the C172 and there is a reference to this problem.
Article: "Anatomy of a Success" (The makings of a winner) by Thomas A.
Horne, AOPA Pilot in May, 1992.

What makes the AOPA or Thomas Horne an authority on the subject?

It sounds like he just paraphrased the quote you posted.

I have posted the following on previous occassions before and still
believe it to be true. It is excerpted from the book, "Cessna, Wings
for the World" by William Thompson. Bill Thompson served as Manager of
Flight Test and Aerodynamics for the Cessna Aircraft Company. Seems as
if he should know the 'real' story.

Bob Moore

With the advent of the large slotted flaps in the C-170, C-180, and C-172 we encountered
a nose down pitch in forward slips with the wing flaps deflected. In some cases it was
severe enough to lift the pilot against his seat belt if he was slow in checking the
motion. For this reason a caution note was placed in most of the owner's manuals under
"Landings" reading "Slips should be avoided with flap settings greater than 30° due to a
downward pitch encountered under certain combinations of airspeed, side-slip angle, and
center of gravity loadings". Since wing-low drift correction in cross-wind landings is
normally performed with a minimum flap setting (for better rudder control) this
limitation did not apply to that maneuver. The cause of the pitching motion is the
transition of a strong wing downwash over the tail in straight flight to a lessened
downwash angle over part of the horizontal tail caused by the influence of a relative
"upwash increment" from the upturned aileron in slipping flight. Although not stated in
the owner's manuals, we privately encouraged flight instructors to explore these effects
at high altitude, and to pass on the information to their students. This phenomenon was
elusive and sometimes hard to duplicate, but it was thought that a pilot should be aware
of its existence and know how to counter-act it if it occurs close to the ground.
When the larger dorsal fin was adopted in the 1972 C-172L, this side-slip pitch
phenomenon was eliminated, but the cautionary placard was retained. In the higher-
powered C-172P and C-R172 the placard was applicable to a mild pitch "pumping" motion
resulting from flap outboard-end vortex impingement on the horizontal tail at some
combinations of side-slip angle, power, and airspeed.

People were beginning to talk about all the different
maneuver that can be done in an airplane [in this case the
172, but this applies to all airplanes]. The OP asked about
"normal category" but even allowing for utility category,
the 172 is approved for very limited aerobatics. The
specific allowed maneuvers are listed.

Certainly, any airplane can perform any aerobatic maneuver,
since all the controls are present for all axis.

But just as any camera can take portraits or porn, any
airplane will only do what the pilot can do. If your name
is Bob Hoover et al, you don't need to ask the question and
you probably can do these maneuvers. But Joe Sixpack is
going to do several things...(a) bend the airplane (b) break
the airplane (c) wish he had a quick jettison door (d) wish
he had a parachute and (e) die.


Simple rule, The Law of Gravity has no exceptions or
appeals.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 121...
| Jim Macklin wrote
|
| (5) Model 172L (1972 model)
| "This airplane must be operated in compliance with the
| operating limitations as stated in the form of placards,
| markings, and manuals:
|
| Yeah Jim, and we all MUST comply with all highway speed
limits,
| even when they were 55 mph. Hell...my speedometer even
had a
| big red mark at 55 mph.
|
| A lot of those placards, markings, and manual limits are
just
| because the manufacturer did not want to spend the time
and
| money in order to seek certification for a particular
item.
|
| Such is the case of the "no slips with flaps" contained in
the
| manual for a lot of the C-172s.
|
| Bob Moore

Certainly, any airplane can perform any aerobatic maneuver,
since all the controls are present for all axis.

But just as any camera can take portraits or porn

Certainly not. Not all airplanes have sufficient control authority to
perform all aerobatic maneuvers, and not all cameras can take macros.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

You have to have "macros" to take porn? "Any acrobatic
maneuver" wasn't intended to mean 720 degree roll per second
rate or tail slides, or but just the basic 3 axis and
combinations.



"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
| Certainly, any airplane can perform any aerobatic
maneuver,
| since all the controls are present for all axis.
|
| But just as any camera can take portraits or porn
|
| Certainly not. Not all airplanes have sufficient control
authority to
| perform all aerobatic maneuvers, and not all cameras can
take macros.
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.