barrel roll in 172

Well, I thought that I worded the question clearly enough. What I did not
realize was that the video that I'm told has been circulated here a short while
ago would make the question look like someone is about to do something rather
stupid in his 172.


Barney Rubble wrote:
Why didn't you ask that in the original question then?


"Andrey Serbinenko" wrote in message
...
Don't encourage that type of behavior with a yes. If he had to ask, he
is

I'm slightly disappointed by how quickly you've assumed my complete
brainlessness. Yes I know what FARs say, and what POH says, and no, I'm
not going to read this newsgroup and go break my neck the next morning.
What I was hoping to hear was an opinion of someone who's familiar with
what is involved in test-flying for normal/utility category and how much
it covers the type of stress imposed on the airframe and systems in a
barrel
roll.


Andrey

Would you really feel safe going inverted in a gravity fed fuel system? The
172 is probably not the best choice for this type of maneuver, although you
could probably pull it off if you rolled quick enough.

Mike

____________________________________
Posted via Aviatorlive.com
http://www.aviatorlive.com

Andrey

As has been said in all the posts, the short answer is NO. 172 is not
certified to do barrel rolls.

However I can barrel roll a 172 only pulling 1 G which puts no more
load on airframe than straight and level flight. I have thousands of
hours to back up my statement.

A corollary.

Is a 707 certified for barrel rolls? Short answer is NO.

Did a Boeing Test Pilot barrel barrel roll a 707 over the boat races
on Lake Washington without any damage to aircraft. YES.

I'm also sure Dudley can barrel roll the 172 without any problem or
exceeding any limits.

Long Long answer is don't try to B-roll the 172.

My 1971 172/Skyhawk Owneers manual shows:

Normal Cateory Maneuvers

Max pos G' = 3.8
Stalls and turns not to exceed 60 degrees of bank.

Utility Caategory Maneuvers

Max pos G's = 4.4
Chandelles
Lazy Eights
Steep Turns
Spins
Stalls (Except whip stalls)

Acrobatics that may impose high loads should not be attempted.


Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````


On 20 Jul 2006 04:34:44 GMT, Andrey Serbinenko
wrote:


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

Andrey

The issue is recovery from a botched barrel roll, such as in
inverted stall followed by a high speed dive and too strong
a pull on recovery.


"Big John" wrote in message
...
| Andrey
|
| As has been said in all the posts, the short answer is NO.
172 is not
| certified to do barrel rolls.
|
| However I can barrel roll a 172 only pulling 1 G which
puts no more
| load on airframe than straight and level flight. I have
thousands of
| hours to back up my statement.
|
| A corollary.
|
| Is a 707 certified for barrel rolls? Short answer is NO.
|
| Did a Boeing Test Pilot barrel barrel roll a 707 over the
boat races
| on Lake Washington without any damage to aircraft. YES.
|
| I'm also sure Dudley can barrel roll the 172 without any
problem or
| exceeding any limits.
|
| Long Long answer is don't try to B-roll the 172.
|
| My 1971 172/Skyhawk Owneers manual shows:
|
| Normal Cateory Maneuvers
|
| Max pos G' = 3.8
| Stalls and turns not to exceed 60 degrees of bank.
|
| Utility Caategory Maneuvers
|
| Max pos G's = 4.4
| Chandelles
| Lazy Eights
| Steep Turns
| Spins
| Stalls (Except whip stalls)
|
| Acrobatics that may impose high loads should not be
attempted.
|
|
| Big John
| `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````
|
|
| On 20 Jul 2006 04:34:44 GMT, Andrey Serbinenko
| wrote:
|
|
| If kept within the normal category load limits, is 172
certified to do
| barrel rolls?
|
| Andrey
|

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrey Serbinenko wrote:

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

Certified? No.
Possible? Yes, but you will finish much lower than where you started.

Wing tip vortex from a 747, etc. would make it quite possible!

Big John schrieb:

However I can barrel roll a 172 only pulling 1 G which puts no more
load on airframe than straight and level flight. I have thousands of
hours to back up my statement.

No, you can't do a barrel roll without pulling more than 1g.

Did a Boeing Test Pilot barrel barrel roll a 707 over the boat races
on Lake Washington without any damage to aircraft. YES.

No, it wasn't a barrel roll, it was an aileron roll. (At least this is
what I've been told, and it makes a lot of sense.)

Stefan

This perfectly answers my question. Thanks!

Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Andrey Serbinenko" wrote in message
...
Possible? Yes, but you will finish much lower than where you started.

So, basically it's just because of a low-hp engine that the maneuver
can't be properly executed?



Andrey

Horsepower has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of an aircraft to
do a barrel roll. Airspeed and energy are all that's required and this can
be supplied even in an aircraft having no engine at all such as a glider or
a sail plane.
It helps of course if you have horsepower, but horsepower simply allows for
an entry into the roll from a higher nose attitude.
Also, barrel rolls can be done using various amounts of positive g as long
as positive g is applied to the aircraft through the roll.
The problem in discussing this issue in the context of using a normal
category airplane to do it, even considering the utility envelope if
available on such an airplane, isn't whether or not the maneuver can be
done. It's whether the pilot in such an airplane can keep the execution of
the roll inside safe parameters.
I have done barrel rolls in demonstration many times, as have pilots like
Bob Hoover, Bobby Bishop, and many others; not to mention Scotty McCray
using a sail plane. The issue as I've said isn't whether or not it can be
done in non aerobatic certificated airplanes. It most certainly can be done.
The issue is that to do ANY aerobatic maneuver SAFELY in these airplanes,
the maneuver has to be perfectly. There is little room for mistake or error.
It is extremely easy due to the lack of aerobatic performance; ie roll rate
and indeed "horsepower" to get these airplanes into extremely dangerous
recovery situations if a maneuver is botched.
This is the reason why you will get the type of answers you have been
getting on this newsgroup.
No one here knows who you are or why you are asking this question, so quite
naturally, the overwhelming reaction of the group at large is to post an
answer to you that not only protects you, but as well sets others who might
happen upon what has been said here, straight on this issue.
Dudley Henriques

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

Horsepower has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of an aircraft to
do a barrel roll. Airspeed and energy are all that's required and this can
be supplied even in an aircraft having no engine at all such as a glider
or
a sail plane.

I've done many loops and a few barrel rolls in gliders, so I
agree that horsepower is not the issue, but it's not without
*some* impact. Gliders that can do aerobatics well are
light and strong and clean. If they are too draggy, you
can't get enough kinetic energy (speed) to easily carry you
through the vertical parts of the maneuvers - speed dies too
quickly. If they are weak and/or heavy, you can't speed up
the maneuver by pulling more G's to limit the time in the
maneuver (losing kinetic energy through drag) or the
altitude gain (losing kinetic energy by conversion to
potential E - altitude)

Scotty McCray flew a Schweizer 2-22 EK for his demonstrations. We appeared
at the same shows many many times and I knew him quite well.
The 2-22 wasn't exactly the "cleanest" glider in the world by today's
standards. Scotty was an absolute master at energy control. His technique
for energy management was in my opinion the best I've ever seen done in an
unpowered aircraft. I think I watched Scotty perform hundreds of barrel
rolls in the 2-22 and never once did I see him dish it out of a roll.
Strangely enough, it was the addition of horsepower to his aerobatics that
killed him down in Brazil in 73, when the Decathlon he dished out of a low
altitude roll.
One of the nicest and finest guys I knew in aviation.
Dudley Henriques

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera schrieb:

The reaction is probably due to a freshly minted private pilot who
recently posted a link to a video of him and his instructor doing a
roll (or was it a loop?) in a C-150.

Probably not. Besides, who tells you it wasn't an aerobat and the
instructor not acro rated?

Stefan

The pilot that posted it.

"AJ" wrote in message
oups.com...
Geez, Morgans, can't someone ask a simple question about whether an
aircraft can perform a roll without you jumping to the absurd
conclusion that he's going to run right out and do it? There is such a
thing as "idle curiosity."

Take your meds and calm down.

First of all, lay off on the personal suggestions. That is unnecessary, and
in bad taste, when made in a serious tone, as you did.

Secondly, asking such a question, in the light of a certain other pilot from
the northwest already doing one and bragging about it here, it is
understandable to be concerned about doing it. Why on earth would a person
ask, if they were not interested in trying to do it?

Asking about such a procedure, IMHO shows a possible lack of judgment
developing. Any reasonable,sane person would know that a barrel roll in a
stock 172 is a very bad idea, unless it is done with the blessing of the
manufacturer, and performed by a very experienced acro pilot.
--
Jim in NC