Looping a 152
Richard Jones
Just looped my Cessna 152 last Saturday. Anyone else ever do it??
It was easy!!
Can you barrel roll those things?
Please no flames on legality/sanity of manuver.
C. Marin Faure
In article <32249...@ix.netcom.com>, Richard Jones
<Rjones!@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Just looped my Cessna 152 last Saturday. Anyone else ever do it??
> It was easy!!
>
> Can you barrel roll those things?
I took a few aerobatic lessons years ago in a Cessna 150 Aerobat.
Probably one of the worst performing aerobatic airplanes ever made due to
lack of power but you can loop them and you can do barrel rolls. I think
you can even do snap rolls in the thing, but I lost interest in aerobatic
flying before getting that far.
C. Marin Faure
author, Flying a Floatplane
roto...@fox.nstn.ca
Richard Jones <Rjones!@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Just looped my Cessna 152 last Saturday.
Why?
\|/
(. .)
+----------------------.o0O--(_)--O0o.----------------------+
|Mark E. Chapman | http://ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ad392 |
|aka "RotorHead" | "To Fly is Heavenly, To Hover is DIVINE!"|
| "Flying of Course - what the heck other hobby is there?"|
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
CheckPilot
>Just looped my Cessna 152 last Saturday. Anyone else ever do it??
>It was easy!!
>
Yes in the Aerobat version.
>Can you barrel roll those things?
>
Yes, in the Aerobat version.
>Please no flames on legality/sanity of manuver.
>
I said all I am going to say.
Jim
>
Jim Hann
ATP/MEL
CFIAIME
ex...@usa.net
>Just looped my Cessna 152 last Saturday. Anyone else ever do it??
>It was easy!!
>
>Can you barrel roll those things?
>
>Please no flames on legality/sanity of manuver.
I never looped, but I did barrel-roll a 152 sport. Most CFI's (who
had never done the manouver) said it was no problem. We went up to
5,000 and proceded to fall out of the sky.
Not one to give up, I started reading up on it and found that an entry
speed of 123 kts is needed to roll successfully.
Remember that this is above manouvering speed and I can't encourage
anyone to try it.
ps flames are for dipshits who should find another hobby.
John Shoemaker
Richard Jones <Rjones!@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Just looped my Cessna 152 last Saturday. Anyone else ever do it??
>It was easy!!
>
>Can you barrel roll those things?
I was under the impression that you could screw up the Attitude
indicator doing a roll or a loop. I have to assume that it is not
true.
-john
CheckPilot
>Not one to give up, I started reading up on it and found that an entry
>speed of 123 kts is needed to roll successfully.
Yep, we used 120 in the 152 for barrels and loops. Trying an Immelman
turn??? don't delay the roll from inverted and you need about 140 to hold
that line on the top for the roll. Of course that is in an Aerobat.
And yes, you can and do screw up an attitude indicator (and HI too) doing
aerobatics, unless you have gyros like the military has (read $$$).
Jim Hann
ATP/MEL
CFIAIME
C. Marin Faure
In article <322736a...@nntp.netcruiser>, jls...@ix.netcom.com (John
Shoemaker) wrote:
I believe you are supposed to cage conventional gyro instruments before
doing aerobatics to prevent the instruments from tumbling.
Robert Scott
fau...@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote:
>I believe you are supposed to cage conventional gyro instruments before
>doing aerobatics to prevent the instruments from tumbling.
Caged or tumbled, they are unusable in either case. Perhaps caging
protects them from damage, though.
-Bob Scott
SERDAR SUALP
>> I think
>> you can even do snap rolls in the thing
recommend you to try snap roll.
S. Sualp
--------------------------------------------------
ramk...@nevigator.com using NETcetera 2.511 for Internet News
--------------------------------------------------
Cessna6T
Richard Jones writes:
>Just looped my Cessna 152 last Saturday. Anyone else ever do it??
>It was easy!!
>
Moron! (oops, was that out loud?)
Ronnie Downs
Cess...@aol.com
1964 Cessna 150D N6006T
CheckPilot
In article <faurecm-2908...@blv-pm0-ip13.halcyon.com>,
fau...@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes:
> I think
>you can even do snap rolls in the thing, but I lost interest in aerobatic
>flying before getting that far.
Yep, you can, fastest way to lose about 35 knots or so. It is kind of
like slow motion. In an Aerobat 152 that is, N761XR I believe.
Jim Hann
Jim Hann
ATP/MEL
CFIAIME
Jim Cerna
I don't understand why he is a moron, because you are too chicken to
take
your 150 past 15 degrees ????
Cessna6T
Richard Jones wrote:
>> >Just looped my Cessna 152 last Saturday. Anyone else ever do it??
>> >It was easy!!
and I (Ronnie Downs) wrote:
>> Moron! (oops, was that out loud?)
To which Jim Cerna replied:
>I don't understand why he is a moron, because you are too chicken to
>take your 150 past 15 degrees ????
and I (Ronnie Downs) now reply:
Yep, that's it exactly! You've got me figured out. Anything over a 10
degree bank and I get airsick, causing me to barf all over the inside of
my plane and out the window on the heads of any unsuspecting ground
dwellers.
No, actually, an average summer day around here is about 95 degrees. I've
often flown when it was over a hundred degrees, so 15 degrees is a piece
of cake.
Seriously, I'm sure Mr. Cerna is aware that a 152 is not designed to
handle the G loads incurred while performing a loop, unless it's a 152
Aerobat. Since Mr. Jones would have surely specified if the 152 in which
he performed a loop was a 152 Aerobat, we can only assume it was *not* an
Aerobat, therefore making aforesaid loop not only stupid, but illegal, as
well.
There are young, bold pilots who might very well think "Richard Jones did
it, and the wings didn't fall off his 152, I think I'll try it!" They
might then proceed to destroy their 152, their health, and the lives of
anyone who was unfortunate enough to be underneath them at the time of
their adventure.
If the plane in which Mr. Jones performed his loop was, indeed, a 152
Aerobat, then he was obviously trolling for flames by intentionally
omitting that very relevant piece of information, otherwise he would have
never bothered to write "Please no flames on legality/sanity of manuver"
in his original post. He should and will get flamed for performing such an
obviously foolish/illegal act, and then bragging about it in a place where
impressionable student/new pilots think other, more experienced pilots are
demi-gods (or at least role models), and strive to emulate them.
Just my oh-so-humble opinion.
Ronnie Downs (who had his 150 at a very gentle 60 degree bank on Sunday --
and didn't even get queasy! [can you say s a r c a s m ?])
Peter Keep
cess...@aol.com (Cessna6T) wrote:
>Richard Jones wrote:
>
>>> >Just looped my Cessna 152 last Saturday. Anyone else ever do it??
>>> >It was easy!!
>and I (Ronnie Downs) wrote:
>>> Moron! (oops, was that out loud?)
>To which Jim Cerna replied:
<stupid bickering snipped>
>Seriously, I'm sure Mr. Cerna is aware that a 152 is not designed to
>handle the G loads incurred while performing a loop, unless it's a 152
>Aerobat.
<More righteousness cut>
In the utility category, the load factor is 4.4. In the normal
category, 3.8. In the Aerobatic, 6.0
And those are teh rated load factors. The design factor (ultimate load
factor) is 1.5 times higher. (Which, by the way, is that load factor
when exceeded is when the manufacturer expects primary structures
(wings, engines, etc) to start leaving the aircraft. Bad thing.
How many Gs do you pull in a loop? I pull maybe 1.5 - just enough to
"fool the carburator and oil system into thinking we are still
straight and level."
<More slathering snipped>
>Just my oh-so-humble opinion.
Humility does not shout in the public square.
>Ronnie Downs (who had his 150 at a very gentle 60 degree bank on Sunday --
>and didn't even get queasy! [can you say s a r c a s m ?])
How many g's do you pull to maintain airspeed and altitude? Where you
at cruise or Va? Was there any gust(s) encountered? etc.
Go get some instruction in aerobatics before exposing your lack of
awarenss any further.
- peter
roto...@fox.nstn.ca
kfl...@cybernw.com (Peter Keep) wrote:
Snip Snip
>>Ronnie Downs (who had his 150 at a very gentle 60 degree bank on Sunday --
>>and didn't even get queasy! [can you say s a r c a s m ?])
>How many g's do you pull to maintain airspeed and altitude? Where you
>at cruise or Va? Was there any gust(s) encountered? etc.
2
Doesn't matter
Walt Shiel
Can a -152 be looped safely? Of course. Should you? No.
As long as you do everything just right, you'll probably have no problem.
But if you blow it just once, you just might overstress something.
Notice I said "might." I would never suggest anyone should do aerobatics
in aircraft not designed for them -- I don't know who might take such a
suggestion as a recommendation and go out an break an airplane.
The really bad part of it is that the airframe might not fail for the
yo-yo who's trying to prove his manhood...it might wait for the next
unsuspecting pilot (or owner) who pulls a few g's that should have been
well within the aircraft limits.
There are aerobatic airplanes...save your money and go buy or rent one if
you want to do aerobatics. Common sense seems to be a limited commodity
among the populace...
And, before you start the flames, I should point out that I've done (and
taught) aerobatics in a lot of different airplanes -- from those that
cruise at 85 mph to those that can bust the Mach.
Walt
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Author: "Cessna Warbirds: A Detailed and Personal
History of Cessna's Involvement in the Armed Forces"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Peter Keep
Walt Shiel <wsh...@airmail.net> wrote:
>Can a -152 be looped safely? Of course. Should you? No.
>As long as you do everything just right, you'll probably have no problem.
> But if you blow it just once, you just might overstress something.
>Notice I said "might." I would never suggest anyone should do aerobatics
>in aircraft not designed for them -- I don't know who might take such a
>suggestion as a recommendation and go out an break an airplane.
>The really bad part of it is that the airframe might not fail for the
>yo-yo who's trying to prove his manhood...it might wait for the next
>unsuspecting pilot (or owner) who pulls a few g's that should have been
>well within the aircraft limits.
>There are aerobatic airplanes...save your money and go buy or rent one if
>you want to do aerobatics. Common sense seems to be a limited commodity
>among the populace...
oh damn - a thinking, rational reply. WHatever happened to the rapid
fire responses that quickly ran away from reason and kept the home
flames burning? <g>
- peter
Gary Hooper
If, in fact, it was not a 152 aerobat, then the self professed
egoism should have included, "I just looped my 152...therefore, I
am dumber than thou!"
--
Gary L. Hooper
Richmond, Virginia
CheckPilot
In article <50l56o$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cess...@aol.com (Cessna6T)
writes:
>There are young, bold pilots who might very well think "Richard Jones did
>it, and the wings didn't fall off his 152, I think I'll try it!" They
>might then proceed to destroy their 152, their health, and the lives of
>anyone who was unfortunate enough to be underneath them at the time of
>their adventure.
I don't have all the details but an accident along these lines happened in
Carlisle PA a while back. However, it was an Aerobat and the young male
student solo pilot still pulled the wings off of it.
I second the M word if it was not in an Aerobat.
Jim Hann
ATP/MEL
CFIAIME
Cessna6T
>>Richard Jones wrote:
>>>> >Just looped my Cessna 152 last Saturday. Anyone else ever do it??
>>>> >It was easy!!
and I (Ronnie Downs) wrote:
>>Seriously, I'm sure Mr. Cerna is aware that a 152 is not designed to
>>handle the G loads incurred while performing a loop, unless it's a 152
>>Aerobat.
Peter Keep wrote:
>In the utility category, the load factor is 4.4. In the normal
>category, 3.8. In the Aerobatic, 6.0
>How many Gs do you pull in a loop? I pull maybe 1.5 - just enough to
>"fool the carburator and oil system into thinking we are still
>straight and level."
Maybe *you* pull 1.5 Gs. I'm proud of you. You've obviously had aerobatic
training, and know the proper way to do a loop. How many Gs did you pull
in your *first* loop? How many Gs does Richard Jones pull when he does a
loop? How many Gs might that inexperienced student pilot on his third solo
flight pull during the attempted recovery from his first loop?
>Humility does not shout in the public square.
I don't recall shouting...I was just expressing my opinion--exactly as you
were.
>Go get some instruction in aerobatics before exposing your lack of
>awarenss any further.
I'll admit that I really don't know much about aerobatics (yet!), but I do
know that a loop is considered aerobatics, and the only aerobatics a 152
is certified for are: chandelles, lazy eights, steep turns, spins, and
stalls. Not loops.
And as for my lack of awareness, at least I'm aware of what I *don't*
know. I don't know how to properly and safely (or legally--I want to keep
my certificate) perform a loop in my 150, so you won't catch me doing it.
In a Pitts, maybe, in a standard 150/152, no.
Consider this. The annual on my 150 cost $3300. This was due, in large
part, to having numerous structural pieces replaced because of hairline
cracks. These cracks were likely caused, I was told, by someone doing
aerobatics in my 150 earlier in its life. Had these cracks not been
noticed, my plane might have come unglued because someone like Richard
Jones, or even Peter Keep (on a bad day) was doing loops when they
shouldn't have been.
Tom or Linda Gwilym
DUMB!!!!!
Steve Watkins
your favorite A&P to show you exactly how the C150 is
put together and what holds the tail on.
Some aerobatic maneuvers can be conducted without
overstressing a light civilian aircraft, if they are
done right THE FIRST TIME. What will kill you or wreck
your airplane is a botched maneuver leading to a nose
down attitude, overspeed and overstress on pull up. It
is not all that hard to pull 4 or more G's during such a
recover, especially if you panic.
Yes, I have done loops in a 150, but I was much younger
and...stupider at the time (I was 19). Looking back, it
is not something that I am particularly proud of. I am
really happy to still be around...a botched aerobatic
maneuver in a non-aerobatic C150 could cost you your life,
or the life of the person that flies the plane after you
overstressed the airframe.
I am proud of the 3000+ hour of SAFE flying I have done
since, most of it in the US Navy, lots of it upside down
and inside out.
Aerobatics are a blast and IMO just about the most fun
you can have with or without your clothes on! But, I
suggest you learn the basics with a qualified instructor
and in an airplane that was designed for it.
Steve Watkins
Yves E. Hoebeke
Richard Jones <Rjones!@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Just looped my Cessna 152 last Saturday.
>Why?
Mark, maybe he tried to avoid a helicopter! ;-)
--
|Yves E. Hoebeke - CFI - CHD - Skylane N6799M |
|For the rest of the story visit: |
|http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/YHoebeke |
Steve Watkins
Just a bit more on this. It is too bad that in most areas it is all but
impossible to find an aerobatic aircraft to rent. In my opinion, aerobatics
are a very important skill builder. Becoming proficient at it can give a person
the experience and training he/she may need to recover from an unusual
attitude without panic and overstressing the aircraft.
In my area I can rent a Citabria for $75 an hour so I guess I am lucky. I long for
a little more in the way of performance though. All right, I admit, I miss my
Navy days and the T34C.
FRANCIS615
What did the FBO say to you when you told him that you had looped his
rental Cessna 152?
Rod Farlee
I do not mean to recommend anything here, and apologize for prolonging
this thread, but some of the replies trouble me a bit.
If a C-150/152/172 encounters a wake vortex, rotor, extreme turbulence,
or a botched maneuver, after some gyrations it will come out pointed
straight down at relatively low airspeed.
Among of the saving graces of these airplanes are that maneuvering speed
is well above cruising speed, and they don't build up speed rapidly when
pointed straight down >>> unless the power is left on <<<.
If the pilot promptly pulls the power back, then pulls the yoke gently,
recovery will be made without exceeding 2 G, redline airspeed or RPM,
and with minimal loss of altitude.
The pilot will not hurt the airplane unless he is brutal or panics.
That's why the tone of panic in some of the replies troubles me.
Don't panic, just pull the power.
- Rod Farlee
p.s. Bill Kershner's "Basic Aerobatics Manual" for the A-150 Aerobat
is excellent. This stuff is MUCH easier in an airplane that's designed
for it, though.
Jay Hardin
kfl...@cybernw.com (Peter Keep) wrote:
>How many Gs do you pull in a loop? I pull maybe 1.5 - just enough to
>"fool the carburator and oil system into thinking we are still
>straight and level."
A 1.5 G loop? Are you sure about this? I've never seen a loop done
at much under 3G's. You must have one hell of an engine to get that
kind of vertical performance.
Jay D. Hardin
Jim Cerna
Didn't feel much over 2 to me. Just enter the loop at a shallow angle.
i.e. gain speed with a longer decent or do a slow entry and Boom the 152
goes balistic.
Rod Farlee
Jay Hardin wrote:
> A 1.5 G loop? Are you sure about this? I've never seen a loop done
> at much under 3G's. You must have one hell of an engine to get that
> kind of vertical performance.
But I've never seen an A-150 do a round loop, either!
They run out of energy at the top, and make egg-shaped loops.
But they don't require over 2 Gs.
If you try to pull 3 Gs, it slows down very quickly and stalls.
The "art" of looping one is to pull hard enough to get to the top
before it quits, but not pull too hard so it doesn't quit early.
I think it's about 2 Gs at the bottom, near 0 at the top.
I always enjoy watching an A-150, Champ or Cub aerobatic show, because
it is such a graphic exercise in energy management. Notice they always
come out lower than they start!
- rod farlee
John R. Johnson
On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Rod Farlee wrote:
<snip>
> If you try to pull 3 Gs, it slows down very quickly and stalls.
> The "art" of looping one is to pull hard enough to get to the top
> before it quits, but not pull too hard so it doesn't quit early.
> I think it's about 2 Gs at the bottom, near 0 at the top.
>
> I always enjoy watching an A-150, Champ or Cub aerobatic show, because
> it is such a graphic exercise in energy management. Notice they always
> come out lower than they start!
> - rod farlee
maneuvers, climb back up, do two or three maneuvers, climb back up, etc.
John
John R. Johnson
On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Jay Hardin wrote:
> kfl...@cybernw.com (Peter Keep) wrote:
> >How many Gs do you pull in a loop? I pull maybe 1.5 - just enough to
> >"fool the carburator and oil system into thinking we are still
> >straight and level."
>
> A 1.5 G loop? Are you sure about this? I've never seen a loop done
> at much under 3G's. You must have one hell of an engine to get that
> kind of vertical performance.
>
> Jay D. Hardin
>
While it is true that a perfect, round loop will give you 3 G's at the
bottom, that is not necessarily true for a sloppy truncated eggshaped
vertical maneuver that feels like a loop and looks like a loop from inside
the airplane, but does not look like a very good loop from outside.
Lose significant altitude on each iteration, pronounced egg shape, and
approximately 0 G across the top. Look like
.
. .
.
............. .
.
.........
from outside!
John
CheckPilot
In article <32398B...@bio-rad.com>, Rod Farlee
<Rod_F...@bio-rad.com> writes:
>But I've never seen an A-150 do a round loop, either!
>They run out of energy at the top, and make egg-shaped loops.
>But they don't require over 2 Gs.
>
>If you try to pull 3 Gs, it slows down very quickly and stalls.
>The "art" of looping one is to pull hard enough to get to the top
>before it quits, but not pull too hard so it doesn't quit early.
>I think it's about 2 Gs at the bottom, near 0 at the top.
>
Nah. Been there, done that, didn't stall. We looked expressly for 3 G's
going into the loop and had no problem keeping at least one all the way
around and it seemed fairly round (the Aresti judges weren't working that
day). Of course it was an A-152 so we had a whopping eight extra
horsepower (and 70 pounds more takeoff weight available). When I jumped
in the Pitts it was the same deal. You just gotta have the entry speed.
I still remember it, 120 KIAS in the 152 for loops and barrel rolls, with
140 KIAS for Immelman turns (they were tough to keep the engine running).
Yes, it takes a decent altitude loss to get a 152 up to those speeds. It
does slow down quickly, even more so if you snaproll it (yeah, did that
too)
Jim
Jim Hann
ATP/MEL
CFIAIME
Filipovic
John R. Johnson wrote:
<snip>
> Lose significant altitude on each iteration, pronounced egg shape, and
> approximately 0 G across the top. Look like
<snip>
Don't you mean 1 G? You are never escaping the gravitational forces of
mother Earth (unless you're looping the Space Shuttle).
Omar Filipovic
Mark Mallory
Filipovic (fil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Don't you mean 1 G? You are never escaping the gravitational forces of
: mother Earth (unless you're looping the Space Shuttle).
No, he means 0 G. Straight & level flight is 1 G.
BTW, the Space Shuttle is under almost the same Gravitational
influence as is an airplane (Earth's gravity is only 8 percent weaker at
Shuttle Altitude than at Sea Level).
Chris Durrant
Jim Cerna wrote:
> Didn't feel much over 2 to me. Just enter the loop at a shallow angle.
> i.e. gain speed with a longer decent or do a slow entry and Boom the 152
> goes balistic.
Does this mean you don't have an accellerometer (G-meter)? Here in the
UK an aerobatic aircraft must be so equipped to be legal for aeros (we
are talking C152 Aerobat here aren't we?). Our school teaches an entry
speed of 120 kts for the loop which yields an entry accelleration of
around 2.75 to 3.0 'G'. Over the top at about 0.5 'G' (feels less) and
back up to about 2.5 in the pull-through. Loops can be entered faster
(as for a roll off the top) with a 3.5 'G' pull-up but it's not
necessary. OTOH, a much slower entry is likely to lead to a severe
egg-shape loop as the aircraft 'flops' over the top (assuming you didn't
stall it during the pull-up).
A C152 going ballistic? - try the Pitts S2B, now there's a rocket ship!
Regards
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Chris Durrant Email: c...@mround.bt.co.uk
Phone: (01473) 647535
+44 1473 647535
Fax: (01473) 637523
+44 1473 637523
__________________________________________________________________________
Filipovic
John R. Johnson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Sep 1996, Filipovic wrote:
>
> > John R. Johnson wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Lose significant altitude on each iteration, pronounced egg shape, and
> > > approximately 0 G across the top. Look like
> > ^^^^^
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > mother Earth (unless you're looping the Space Shuttle).
> >
> not doing that. It is not flying, it is sort of falling back down
> the backside of the maneuver. When you jump of the top of a tall building
> you will experience 0 G all the way to the bottom. Then you will experience
> a brief higher accelleration that will effectively average it back out!
>
> John
Yep, I see my mistake now.
As they say: It's not the fall that kills you. You die from deceleration
trauma.
Thanks.
Omar Filipovic
John R. Johnson
Frank van der Hulst
Jim Cerna wrote:
> > kfl...@cybernw.com (Peter Keep) wrote:
> > >How many Gs do you pull in a loop? I pull maybe 1.5 - just enough to
> > >"fool the carburator and oil system into thinking we are still
> > >straight and level."
> >
> > A 1.5 G loop? Are you sure about this? I've never seen a loop done
> > at much under 3G's. You must have one hell of an engine to get that
> > kind of vertical performance.
1.5 G loop seems kinda light to me too.
> Didn't feel much over 2 to me.
If I'm not concentrating, I tend to pull a bit hard and end up pulling 3
- 3.5Gs. When I'm being careful, I do nice 2 - 2.5 G loops.
> Just enter the loop at a shallow angle.
This is not a good idea: the shallower the angle, the more height you
lose to gain your entry speed.
> i.e. gain speed with a longer decent or do a slow entry and Boom the 152
> goes balistic.
A slow entry means less energy, so you're liable to run out of puff by
the time you get to the top of the loop.
I've only done aeros in a C150, not a C152, but I think that mostly the
same principles are going to apply. I can't see a shallow entry angle
helping at all: if anything, I'd expect an inverted stall, or very
egg-shaped loop rather than a "ballistic" 152.
Frank.
Anton Verhulst
In article <32398B...@bio-rad.com> Rod Farlee <Rod_F...@bio-rad.com> writes:
>The "art" of looping one is to pull hard enough to get to the top
>before it quits, but not pull too hard so it doesn't quit early.
>I think it's about 2 Gs at the bottom, near 0 at the top.
I don't understand the above logic at all but then, my loops are in
sailplanes. The standard procedure (for Blaniks and B4s) is to dive to
100kts and then pull back to get around 3-3.5Gs. If you don't pull hard
enough you run out of energy before you get to the top -a as Rod says.
If you pull too hard, you just pull more Gs.
Tony V.
Rod Farlee
Anton Verhulst wrote:
> Rod Farlee <Rod_F...@bio-rad.com> wrote:
> >The "art" of looping one is to pull hard enough to get to the top
> >before it quits, but not pull too hard so it doesn't quit early.
> sailplanes.
The problem is in the drag polar for the Cessna. If you pull too hard, the
result is the same as trying to "stretch" a glide: the wing is above the
angle of attack that gives best L/D. The wing gets draggy, and the airplane
slows down or sinks. For the A-150 Aerobat:
stall max L/D
at 0.5 G 34 mph 49 mph
at 1 G 48 mph 70 mph
at 2 G 68 mph 99 mph
at 3 G 83 mph 121 mph.
Maneuvering speed is 124 mph, and entry speed isn't that much higher.
Pull 3 G much below this speed, the airplane gets draggy and slows down
and stalls before it gets over the top of the loop.
Gliders have much higher aspect ratio wings. This reduces their induced drag
and enables them fly efficiently (max L/D) much closer to stall speed. Pull
too hard, "bang" you're stalled; relax a little, you're flying at max L/D.
Gliders also have much less washout (twist) in the wing, so the entire span
of the wing is at max L/D at the same airspeed, and the max L/D is higher.
Cessna A-150 has 4 degrees of "washout": the root is at 4 degrees higher angle
of attack than the tip. This makes the stall entry more gradual. But it also
widens the difference between stall and max L/D speeds.
Everyone knows when they fly MCA "minimum controllable airspeed" at 55 mph
at 1 G in a 150, the airplane is very draggy. Same thing at 95 mph at 3 G,
only both the lift and drag are 3 times higher, so it slows down real fast.
To avoid this, relax back pressure as you go over, to stay near max L/D.
That's the only way I've found to arrive at the top with any airspeed left.
Done this way, looping a 150 is not a high speed or high G maneuver,
although it sure isn't very round, either.
- Rod Farlee
CheckPilot
In article <323D2D...@mround.bt.co.uk>, Chris Durrant
<c...@mround.bt.co.uk> writes:
>A C152 going ballistic? - try the Pitts S2B, now there's a rocket ship!
>
Even the S2A is balllistic compared to the A152. I flew them back to back
in training.
Jim Hann
ATP/MEL
CFIAIME
Kyle Hendrickson
John R. Johnson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Jay Hardin wrote:
>
> > kfl...@cybernw.com (Peter Keep) wrote:
> > >How many Gs do you pull in a loop? I pull maybe 1.5 - just enough to
> > >"fool the carburator and oil system into thinking we are still
> > >straight and level."
> >
> > A 1.5 G loop? Are you sure about this? I've never seen a loop done
> > at much under 3G's. You must have one hell of an engine to get that
> > kind of vertical performance.
> >
> >
> While it is true that a perfect, round loop will give you 3 G's at the
> bottom, that is not necessarily true for a sloppy truncated eggshaped
> vertical maneuver that feels like a loop and looks like a loop from inside
> the airplane, but does not look like a very good loop from outside.
> approximately 0 G across the top. Look like
>
> . .
> .
> ............. .
> .
> .........
>
> from outside!
>
> John
Any perfectly round loop flown in any airplane requires negative G across
the top (I don't care if it's an F-16 or a Decathelon) and while it may
"look" nice from the outside it is very ungraceful from the inside.
Also, to perform a geometrically perfect loop more G's are experienced on
the recovery than on the entrance because the plane accelerates faster on
the down side than it does on the up side. So, a geometrically "perfect"
loop will require more exit than entry G's.
John R. Johnson
On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Kyle Hendrickson wrote:
>
> Any perfectly round loop flown in any airplane requires negative G across
> the top (I don't care if it's an F-16 or a Decathelon) and while it may
> "look" nice from the outside it is very ungraceful from the inside.
> Also, to perform a geometrically perfect loop more G's are experienced on
> the recovery than on the entrance because the plane accelerates faster on
> the down side than it does on the up side. So, a geometrically "perfect"
> loop will require more exit than entry G's.
>
And right there folks, you can see why it takes a LOT of practice to do
"Air Show" quality nice round loops and why most loops are pretty strange
shapes. About all I can say for the average loop is it did execute a
360 degree turn in the vertical plane. It did provide the experience
of looking up and seeing GREEN.
John
Aaron Speer
Cessna6T (cess...@aol.com) wrote:
> >>Richard Jones wrote:
>
> >>>> >Just looped my Cessna 152 last Saturday. Anyone else ever do it??
> >>>> >It was easy!!
In reading this article I am reminded of a catch phrase that was drilled
into our heads when we undertook filght traing. I think it seems
appropriate here:
THERE ARE OLD PILOTS, AND
THERE ARE BOLD PILOTS, BUT
THERE ARE NO OLD, BOLD PILOTS
When I fly I keep this in mind. It's kept me flying and flying agian the
next day. It might not solve all of the problems but it sure prevents a
whole lot.
Aaron Speer
asp...@lager.engsoc.carleton.ca
John R. Johnson
I wonder if the FAA would go after his flight instructor if he had
pulled the wings off the 152?
John
Mike Connor
normal/utility? nothing prevent a pilot from performing aerobatics, as
long as the plane is rated, and far 91 is adhered to, of course taking
instruction in aerobatics and spinning/out-of-control would be wise
prior
Julian Throp
One might consider that the 152 might be an areobat model, but then again
if we don't hear from him again we will have a good idea what happeneed!
Dave Nadig
Julian Throp <jth...@earthlight.co.nz> wrote in article
<3284E1...@earthlight.co.nz>...
>
> One might consider that the 152 might be an areobat model, but then again
> if we don't hear from him again we will have a good idea what happeneed!
I thought only 150's were Aerobats?
Dave
David Beal
mjma...@gate.net (Michael J. Marron) wrote:
>When was the last time you heard of anyone "pulling the wings off"
>a 152? I realize he had to build the airspeed up into the caution
>range in order to loop a 152, but that doesn't necessarily mean he
>over-stressed the airframe. Perhaps you and those who trot out
>the, "No Old Bold Pilots" saying could use a few hours of aerobatic
>instruction. A good pilot is capable of performing beautiful loops
>and rolls in Cessna 152's.
First, the disclaimer: No one in their right mind would perform
aerobatics in a plane that's not certified for it.
Having said that, when I was starting my primary training,
I found it comforting to read that, despite all the dumb
things people have certainly done to them (like looping),
there has *never* been an in-flight structural failure
of a 152. Nice to know, isn't it?
- Dave
Mark Prochaska
> I thought only 150's were Aerobats?
>
> Dave
152's are actually in the utility category which means that they are
rated for spins. I think they did make a areobat 152, though. Isn't it true
that if a loop is done correctly, there isn't any excess stress on the plane?
Bob Webster
In article <328656...@vax1.mankato.msus.edu>, Mark Prochaska
<pro...@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> wrote:
>152's are actually in the utility category which means that they are
>rated for spins. I think they did make a areobat 152, though. Isn't it true
>that if a loop is done correctly, there isn't any excess stress on the plane?
I think you could do one with quite a bit less than +4g stress on the plane,
which is about what they're rated for.
patterson,george r
In article <01bbce44$340d3780$ec522399@pc8936>,
Dave Nadig <gr...@gte.net> wrote:
>I thought only 150's were Aerobats?
Nope. Cessna made both A150s and A152s.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| When I hear TVA get sanctimonious about the loss
| of farmland, it makes me see red. It's like having
George Patterson - | a tubbo get on your case about gaining weight
| while he's munching a jelly doughnut.
| Sam Venable
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Natalie
Mark Prochaska wrote:
> 152's are actually in the utility category which means that they are
> rated for spins.
Warning, Warning, Danger, Danger. While a utility category rating means
it is certified for a higher G loading, it says nothing about
appropriateness
for SPINNING or other manouvers. My Navion for instance, has a utility
category envelope (reduced Gross Weight, like the 172 does), but
intentional
spins are prohibited in either the normal or utility category.
You need to check the limitations of the aircraft. Now a 152 can be
intentionally spun because Cessna specfically says in the limitations
that they can be.
-Ron
John R. Johnson
Michael,
I have given a few hundred hours of aerobatic instruction.
It is very easy to "pull the wings off" a Cessna 150/152.
All you have to do is perform the loop INCORRECTLY. I will
admit, I can, and (blush) have, done loops repeatedly in a C-150.
It is VERY easy to exceed the red line ( Vne ) in an inverted drop
which is a not uncommon mistake. Then an attempt to pull it out
of the resulting dive can EASILY remove the wings, from ANY airplane.
Another one that does in people, that can easily be done CORRECTLY
in any airplane is a barrel roll. Most people, on their first
barrel roll, freeze when they get upside down and stop rolling!
Since the speed required through a barrel roll is well above the
entry speed for a split ess, which usually results instantaly when
they stop the roll, they quickly exceed Vne. Any attempt to level
the airplane at airspeeds above Vne can EASILY remove the wings.
If you don't think 150/152's can break, you should see the pile of
them my neighbor has parked next to my hangar.
John
On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Michael J. Marron wrote:
> >"John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu> wrote:
>
> >I wonder if the FAA would go after his flight instructor if he had
> >pulled the wings off the 152?
>
> When was the last time you heard of anyone "pulling the wings off"
> a 152? I realize he had to build the airspeed up into the caution
> range in order to loop a 152, but that doesn't necessarily mean he
> over-stressed the airframe. Perhaps you and those who trot out
> the, "No Old Bold Pilots" saying could use a few hours of aerobatic
> instruction. A good pilot is capable of performing beautiful loops
> and rolls in Cessna 152's.
>
> --
> Mike Marron
>
>
>
Chris Durrant
Michael J. Marron wrote:
> When was the last time you heard of anyone "pulling the wings off"
> a 152? I realize he had to build the airspeed up into the caution
> range in order to loop a 152, but that doesn't necessarily mean he
> over-stressed the airframe. Perhaps you and those who trot out
> the, "No Old Bold Pilots" saying could use a few hours of aerobatic
> instruction. A good pilot is capable of performing beautiful loops
> and rolls in Cessna 152's.
I can't believe this one keeps coming up every few months. Yes, you can
loop a 150 or a 152 provided it is the Aerobat model. Of course the
non-Aerobat model will loop and roll just the same but it is not
stressed as highly (+4.4 instead of +6) so there is a reduced margin of
error for the inept. Most important of all the non-Aerobat is not
certified for aerobatics so any aeros performed will be outside the
aircraft's certificate of airworthiness - illegal, invalidates insurance
and dumb.
End of thread?
Chris
brian whatcott
In article <563i65$7...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
dave...@worldnet.att.net says......
>I found it comforting to read that, despite all the dumb
>things people have certainly done to them (like looping),
>there has *never* been an in-flight structural failure
>of a 152. Nice to know, isn't it?
>
>- Dave
>
That's structural.
Guess what he'd been doing?
Regards
brian whatcott <in...@intellisys.net>
Altus OK
Ron Natalie
Andrew Boyd wrote:
>
> David Beal <dave...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >First, the disclaimer: No one in their right mind would perform
> >aerobatics in a plane that's not certified for it.
>
>
> He rolled the boeing 707/kc-135 prototype [aka 367-80] twice at
> 1500 feet, in front of a large crowd, without incident. Read
> his autobiography.
The -80 was an experimental ship.
>
> And, I guess you know more than bob hoover, too. Probably never
> heard of bob hoover before. I guess you missed osh this year,
> too, where all the rest of us were glad to see bob looping and
> rolling a non-aerobatic shrike [twin engine] aero commander,
> at low level, with both engines feathered.
Yep, and there was another guy who did a Hoover-esque routine in
a Partenavia and at the end of a very gentle manouver, the cumulatative
abuse of the ship caused the wings to fold back.
Andrew Boyd
David Beal <dave...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>First, the disclaimer: No one in their right mind would perform
>aerobatics in a plane that's not certified for it.
I guess you know more than boeing's chief test pilot, tex johnston.
He rolled the boeing 707/kc-135 prototype [aka 367-80] twice at
1500 feet, in front of a large crowd, without incident. Read
his autobiography.
Of course, he only had 20,000 hrs of flight time at that point,
and didn't have the benefit of many hours of internet keyboard
time.
And, I guess you know more than bob hoover, too. Probably never
heard of bob hoover before. I guess you missed osh this year,
too, where all the rest of us were glad to see bob looping and
rolling a non-aerobatic shrike [twin engine] aero commander,
at low level, with both engines feathered.
Yeah, both tex johnston and bob hoover could sure pick up
a few pointers from the low-time pilots around here.
--
#include <std.disclaimer>
ifly
A Cessna 152 lost it`s wings in Detroit in 1979. I`m sure it isn`t the
only one. It is a good strong airplane, but it`s not a good airplane for
teaching yourself aerobatics in! Get a Biplane, preferably a real dirty
one that`s built like a freightrain if you`re gonna do that!
(the origin of this thread was someone asking advice on how to go about
looping a 150, having never been upside down himself before)
Jeff Morris
Dale
> Yep, and there was another guy who did a Hoover-esque routine in
> a Partenavia and at the end of a very gentle manouver, the cumulatative
> abuse of the ship caused the wings to fold back.
That 'very gentle' maneuver was an entry to a loop so the pilot may have
put quite a load on the airplane.
--
Dale L. Falk
Cessna 182A N5912B
Don Peterson
At the other end of the controversial spectrum...
If anybody REALLY has an interest in looping a C150, hook up with H&R
aviation and come to the annual one-design contest at Edna, Tx., where we
all take out their 150 Aerobat and do the IAC Basic sequence before a
panel of judges. It includes a Spin, Loop, Roll, and a couple of
aerobatic turns (minimum 60 degree bank). Lots of fun, and the old prop
really sings when you get her above about 3,500. (Just kidding).
One of the preferred techniques for rolling it is unusual, in that you
cross your hands over to opposite sides of the yoke so when you twist it
around they are back in their normal position. Then, when upright, just
let go. All the springs just snap the yoke back to neutral.
Big yucks.
Don
Dave Beal
Andrew Boyd wrote:
>
> David Beal <dave...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >First, the disclaimer: No one in their right mind would perform
> >aerobatics in a plane that's not certified for it.
> Yeah, both tex johnston and bob hoover could sure pick up
> a few pointers from the low-time pilots around here.
Jeez, what did I do to deserve that?
I was just suggesting that the excellent reliability
history of the C152 probably shouldn't encourage those
of us less skilled than Tex Johnston and Bob Hoover to
do things the plane isn't certified for.
On the other hand, for you, Andrew, I suggest tailslides
in an ultralight, or maybe a really old V-tail Bonanza... ;-)
- Dave
Dale
> At the other end of the controversial spectrum...
>
snip
>
> One of the preferred techniques for rolling it is unusual, in that you
> cross your hands over to opposite sides of the yoke so when you twist it
> around they are back in their normal position. Then, when upright, just
> let go. All the springs just snap the yoke back to neutral.
Uh, what springs? The 150/152's I've flown didn't have a spring in the
aileron system. Could you be referring to airloads on the control
surfaces?
Walt Shiel
Chris Durrant wrote:
>
> I can't believe this one keeps coming up every few months. Yes, you can
> loop a 150 or a 152 provided it is the Aerobat model. Of course the
> non-Aerobat model will loop and roll just the same but it is not
> stressed as highly (+4.4 instead of +6) so there is a reduced margin of
> error for the inept. Most important of all the non-Aerobat is not
> certified for aerobatics so any aeros performed will be outside the
> aircraft's certificate of airworthiness - illegal, invalidates insurance
> and dumb.
>
> End of thread?
>
Gawd, we can only hope so...but it's not very likely. Think about all the fools
we encounter daily while driving the highways and byways... I think the
percentage of fools winging thru the skyways is just as great. The only thing
keeping the accident rate being as bad is there is usually more open space without
hard objects in the immediate vicinity when things don't work as expected.
The worst scenario is for a brave fool without sufficient training to decide to
teach him/herself aerobatics or mountain flying or other high-accident-potential,
low-margin-of-safety maneuvers.
All we have to do is look at the number of GA accidents involving "continuted
flight in known IMC" by non-instrument pilots and those involving simply running
out of go-juice due to get-home-itis or simply poor planning.
I am sure no amount of pontification by you or me will stop the fools from
attempting to do what either they or their aircraft (or both) are neither
certified nor, in some cases, capable of doing.
Frustrating, ain't it?
Walt
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Author: "Cessna Warbirds: A Detailed and Personal History of
Cessna's Involvement in the Armed Forces"
For More Info: http://www.us-aviator.com//usamall/walt/walt-web.htm
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Walt Shiel
Andrew Boyd wrote:
>
> Yeah, both tex johnston and bob hoover could sure pick up
> a few pointers from the low-time pilots around here.
>
And I'm sure you're just as good and capable and qualified a pilot as either of
those men. Everyone who thinks he's able to do everything Hoover does, please stand
up...we're scheduling a fly-off competition with you betting everything you own
against everything he owns...
Walt Shiel
The entry is rarely the part of the maneuver that causes the real stresses. It's
usually the exit from over-the-top maneuvers. And the problem with accumulation of
stresses on the airframe is very real -- and why, in the USAF, every time a jet is
over-g'd (even a little), it was written up and inspected. Of course, we did have guys
who, for fear of retribution for screwing-up or doing what they weren't supposed to be
doing anyway, failed to own up to an over'g -- they rarely paid the price if the result
was overstress of the airframe, it was usually some unsuspecting guy on some subsequent
flight.
Dale
In article <328DF2...@airmail.net>, Walt Shiel <wsh...@airmail.net> wrote:
> Dale wrote:
> > That 'very gentle' maneuver was an entry to a loop so the pilot may have
> > put quite a load on the airplane.
> >
>
> The entry is rarely the part of the maneuver that causes the real
stresses. It's
> usually the exit from over-the-top maneuvers. And the problem with
accumulation of
> stresses on the airframe is very real -- and why, in the USAF, every
time a jet is
> over-g'd (even a little), it was written up and inspected. Of course,
we did have guys
> who, for fear of retribution for screwing-up or doing what they weren't
supposed to be
> doing anyway, failed to own up to an over'g -- they rarely paid the
price if the result
> was overstress of the airframe, it was usually some unsuspecting guy on
some subsequent
> flight.
I've had very little acro instruction and certainly bow to your
experience. The point I was trying to make about the loop entry was that
it was not gentle. I've seen the video and the guy was pulling contrails
off the wingtips on the pullup.
As for accumulation of stress, during WWII is was common to see aircraft
with a WW tailcode which meant War Weary. They were retired from combat
and used as squadron hacks.
John R. Johnson
Actually, Walt, all that you bet is your life! Your heirs may get
what's left.
John
On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Walt Shiel wrote:
> Andrew Boyd wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, both tex johnston and bob hoover could sure pick up
> > a few pointers from the low-time pilots around here.
> >
>
> And I'm sure you're just as good and capable and qualified a pilot as either of
> those men. Everyone who thinks he's able to do everything Hoover does, please stand
> up...we're scheduling a fly-off competition with you betting everything you own
> against everything he owns...
>
Reg Lukasik
Lots of planes aren't approved for aerobatics. It doesn't mean
they won't do them. You can and I have seen, Cessna 140, 150, 152, 172,
182, L-19, and 206s looped, not to mention Schweizer non aerobatic
gliders 2-22 and 2-33. The difference between approval and non-approval
is safety margin and certification by some organization. My old BD-4 did
great loops, rolls, snaps. It wasn't approved for aerobatics, it was
experimental. A plane doesn't know whether it is approved or
certified or not. It does know if it is overstressed, war weary as
someone says. Just because I can do it or you can do it, today or
tomorrow, doesn't mean everyone can, everyday. When a wing falls off in
turbulence because someone pulled too many g's doing illegal aerobatics
all you can say is I hope the guy/gal who died in wreck was the same one
who overstressed it earlier. You want aerobatics build a one-design or a
zenair CH-150.
A classic example of overstressing an airplane was a Zenair 601
we figure was doing above 220 mph, way past redline in a high speed
pullout. The wings were twisted, the motor mount was broken in a couple
of spots and engine was scrap. The strange thing is a couple of other
rental pilots flew it after the aerobatic flight in question. The
incident happened in Southern Saskatchewn in early 1996. The last pilot
was lucky the plane didn't come apart in midair. You should have seen
the inspection and rebuild Ville-Tech did on the plane. It cost $25,000+
to return it to the new condition it was before the aerobatic Yahoo got
his hands on it.
If you don't give a damn for your life, think about the guys/gals who
will fly your plane later.
Reg Lukasik
Ron Kelley
>> Andrew Boyd wrote:
>> >
>> > Yeah, both tex johnston and bob hoover could sure pick up
>> > a few pointers from the low-time pilots around here.
>> >
Actually, if you look real close, you'll notice that Bob Hoover
doesn't fly a 152 in his aerobatic act. I haven't seen Tex Johnston
fly, so I don't know what aircraft he uses. But if he flys a program
like Bob Hoover, I'll bet it's not a 152.
Ron Kelley
Walt Shiel
Ron Kelley wrote:
>
> Actually, if you look real close, you'll notice that Bob Hoover
> doesn't fly a 152 in his aerobatic act. I haven't seen Tex Johnston
> fly, so I don't know what aircraft he uses. But if he flys a program
> like Bob Hoover, I'll bet it's not a 152.
>
Tex Johnson was the Boeing test pilot who did a slow barrel roll over Lake
Washington in the prototype 707 for a gathering of airline execs. He got
suspended briefly as I recall...but Boeing sold a lot of airplanes and I suspect
his little demo didn't hurt at all.
Walt
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Author: "Cessna Warbirds: A Detailed and Personal History of
Cessna's Involvement in the Armed Forces"
For More Info: mailto:wsh...@airmail.net
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>