What is a C172 capable of? [Archive]

SNS3Guppy

1st Nov 2007, 21:32

I've flown Cessna 172's in and out of dirt strips in box canyons in very rough terrain full of people and cargo and gear, even gasoline, towed banners with them, instructed in them, done all sorts of work with them; they're an economical, easy to fly, simple airplane with no bad habits. They're easy to work on. They have decent performance for their designed purpose. Read the aircraft flight manual; it details exactly what the airplane can do.

What on earth is a "stall turn?"

Gertrude the Wombat

1st Nov 2007, 21:36

it'll get four of you where you want to go
Well, three, unless you're taking no luggage and careful about how much fuel you load.

Yes, you did say subject to T&C. But we wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that you can just put four people in it and go flying.

DaveW

1st Nov 2007, 21:36

What on earth is a "stall turn?"

It's what those of us over on this side of the pond call it instead of a "Hammerhead". No idea why, we just do.

S-Works

1st Nov 2007, 21:50

Well, three, unless you're taking no luggage and careful about how much fuel you load.

Yes, you did say subject to T&C. But we wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that you can just put four people in it and go flying.

4 people, 5hrs fuel, 130kts and 18,000ft in my 172. LEGALLY.

Don't tar all 172's with the same brush.

A and C

1st Nov 2007, 21:58

Please tell me how?

SNS3Guppy

1st Nov 2007, 22:15

It's what those of us over on this side of the pond call it instead of a "Hammerhead". No idea why, we just do.

Thank you.

4 people, 5hrs fuel, 130kts and 18,000ft in my 172. LEGALLY.

Setting aside the issue of legality, you're achieving FL180 in your 172? With four people and 5 hours of fuel? You're seeing 130 knots (indicated??)?

I've flown 172's with 145 hp, 150 hp, 160 hp, 180 hp, and 215 hp. None of them were that effective; they all do well, but four people and full fuel to eighteen thousand feet and holding 130 indicated? I'll bite. Tell us more.

WorkingHard

1st Nov 2007, 22:42

Have to agree with Bose-X, you just need the right model of the ubiquitous 172. Hi Bose, I need a trip to Biarritz soon if you are going that way.

S-Works

2nd Nov 2007, 08:49

Working hard, you are welcome, in fact we are going to Portugal in the next couple of weeks to look at a chippy project and will be stopping at Biaritz on the way. So if you want a lift PM me.

Sorry I should have said an 18,000ft service ceiling. But otherwise accurate. My Hawk XP has a max weight of 2550lbs and an empty weight of 1560 giving a useful load of 990lbs. Taken from my current W&B schedule done after the avionics work in January.
2 males = 360lbs
2 females = 240lbs
600lbs
Fuel Max useable 188l = 293lbs
Total = 893lbs
Leaving 97lbs for bags or fatter people
200hp constant speed prop.
2000ft indicates 130kts at 23"/2300
10,000ft IAS 110kts ISA day TAS= 128kt or Mach 0.2002
Burns 32lph in the cruise at 10,000ft giving me a 5.8hr range I allow the .8hr for climb and reserve.

DX Wombat

2nd Nov 2007, 10:28

I was just wondering, what exactly is the every day C172 capable of in terms of flying, e.g. can it do anything like a stall turn?
The simple answer is:
READ THE P.O.H!

snowy_owl

2nd Nov 2007, 10:48

DX Wombat - Notice how everyone else on here has just had a general discussion about it and some have spoken about their aircraft capability, except you! You have to go in and just answer like a tw*t!

DX Wombat

2nd Nov 2007, 11:14

Snowy Owl, that description would fit you rather better. The PLAIN SIMPLE FACT is that it is the MANUFACTURER who knows what the aircraft is capable of and certified to do and that is published in the POH which anyone with any sense at all will read thoroughly BEFORE they first fly the aircraft. You asked what the aircraft was capable of, I pointed you in the right direction to find the definitive information. Only an idiot ignores that information. If you don't like appearing to be a bit dense because you didn't look there first (or couldn't be bothered saying you had studied it) then that is your problem. The fact remains, that no matter what others may think it is capable of, it is the manufacturer who has the definitive information, so I say again:
READ THE P.O.H!

A and C

2nd Nov 2007, 11:16

Thank you I did not think that the humble 172 could do such things but as you say it is a very capable aircraft when fitted with a 200HP engine and VP propeler.

But just to add balace to the thread look a look at the numbers for my Robin DR400 (with a true airways nav fit) and I find a usefull load of 1016 Lb, 132 KT TAS at 10,000 ft, 32Lt/Hr fuel burn and 780 Nm range (to dry tanks). With the long range tank add another 1.5 hours endurance.

And all this is done with 180HP and a fixed prop.

snowy_owl

2nd Nov 2007, 11:32

DX - i've done most of my flying in a PA-28 and therefore i haven't read the 172's POH yet!

And anyhow, what would be the point in this section if everyone just read the POH and that was that!?

S-Works

2nd Nov 2007, 11:59

A and C,
We could get into a mine is better than yours contest but we each bought what we wanted. And I bet my true airways fit equals yours (not to mention I have an IR to actually use it!)....... And with my long range tank fitted I have an 11hr range and my service ceilings is a lot higher, yours is 14k as I recall..... nah nah nah!!!
The robins are indeed suberb aircraft, lots of performance from minimal horse power and that cranked wing is amazing but wood and fabric are what deterred me from buying one and the fact that I wanted short field performance that even yours is not capable of.

sternone

2nd Nov 2007, 12:22

AVWEB:

A WELL-DESERVED RETIREMENT FOR TROPIC AIR'S CESSNA 172
For those of you struggling to put 50 hours a year on your Cessna 172, consider the long and productive life of a 1982 P-model that was retired last week with 30,000 hours on it, likely making it the highest-time 172 in the world. The 172, with tail number V3-HDN, has been making as many as three or four flights a day in scheduled airline service for Tropic Air, which is based on San Pedro, an island off the coast of Belize. AVweb's Russ Niles spoke with Tropic Air President John Greif about the aircraft's history and his experience with a diesel-powered replacement.

SkyHawk-N

2nd Nov 2007, 14:53

DX Wombat said ....
.
Snowy Owl, that description would fit you rather better. The PLAIN SIMPLE FACT is that it is the MANUFACTURER who knows what the aircraft is capable of and certified to do and that is published in the POH which anyone with any sense at all will read thoroughly BEFORE they first fly the aircraft. You asked what the aircraft was capable of, I pointed you in the right direction to find the definitive information. Only an idiot ignores that information. If you don't like appearing to be a bit dense because you didn't look there first (or couldn't be bothered saying you had studied it) then that is your problem. The fact remains, that no matter what others may think it is capable of, it is the manufacturer who has the definitive information, so I say again:
READ THE P.O.H!

THERE IS ALWAYS ONE! :rolleyes:

d192049d

2nd Nov 2007, 15:06

Forgive the thread creep, but why would you use Max Useable fuel in your weight & balance calculation? Should it not be total fuel on board?

Feel free to educate me.:ok:

S-Works

2nd Nov 2007, 15:15

Because the unusable fuel weight is included in the basic weight and balance calculation on my aircraft as is the oil.

micromalc

2nd Nov 2007, 16:29

A and C

2nd Nov 2007, 17:29

Is the long range tank that you talk of a standard factory fit?

The Robins max altitude is quoted in the manual at 20,500ft at a reduced weight and 15,500ft at MTOW (as for the IR I got one of those from both sides of the Atlantic about 8000 hours ago)

treadigraph

2nd Nov 2007, 19:29

sorry to go off the thread a little
but, the other day i saw a video from that airfield in NY. Old Rheinbeck(i think)anyway, this pilot did a display in a cub. loops rolls etc.
Q. Can cubs do this?
Q Has it been strengthened?
or
Is the pilot insane?

Ah the Flying Farmer Routine... Stan Segalla... He's been doing it every other summer weekend at least as long as I've been alive and in the same aeroplane without breaking it. But it's best left to him perhaps...

My regret is that I didn't see him do it when I went to Old Rhinebeck... Maybe next time... soon..

PH-UKU

3rd Nov 2007, 11:08

Hawk XP or Reims Rocket ... 210HP .. and it can do

THIS (http://www.scotlandonfloats.com) :ok:

SNS3Guppy

3rd Nov 2007, 18:36

.. and it can do

THIS

You mean this?

A maximum take-off weight of 2550lbs will give us an excellent 690lbs of useful load. This means that we can realistically offer 3 seats plus 2 hours flying.

Just as well it's not Alaska, because two hours wouldn't get you anywhere...unlike some places where you can cross the entire country in two hours.

Why travel thousands of miles to Alaska, Canada, or the Mickey Mouse queues in flat, humid Florida ? Instead - before your transatlantic flight would have crossed over Ireland - you (and your loved one .. or flying buddy) could already be splashing down in some of Europe's most stunning and beautiful landscapes.

Why travel overseas to fly...because it's whole lot less expensive.

Years ago my first student came from Germany, to the US, to do his private. He flew over, we did the private pilot in 30 days, then he flew his girlfriend over and toured around the US in a rental airplane, for the cost of what it would have been to do his private at home, and that included the price of airfare back home. Or you could just blow it all on a few hours in a performance limited airplane in Scotland, I guess. Your choice.

Floats sap the performance of any airplane by a wide margin. The 172 especially; particularly if the added weight of amphib floats are used.

The Hawk XP/T-41/Reims certainly makes an improvement, though some of it's lost in the weight of the prop, too.

PH-UKU

3rd Nov 2007, 20:16

Just as well it's not Alaska, because two hours wouldn't get you anywhere...unlike some places where you can cross the entire country in two hours.

The point is that AFAIK all the other training seaplanes in Europe are 2 seaters (Cubs/Huskies) - 3 seats and fuel just isn't an option. However, 2 seats gives us full tanks. Guess we can get just as far as most other 172s on full tanks. :rolleyes:

Floats and particularly amphibs are always going to be a compromise against wheels. Then again I would say that having to land on tarmac all the time was a compromise.

If you want to go to Alaska or Canada, fine, I just think it is nice to have different options, and as nice as North America is ... I can't think of any castles or distilleries you can float in on :E - Plenty of people choose Scotland as a destination - we just hope to offer something a little bit special and different. :ok:

Anyway, the thread title was about 172 capabilities. And that is what I was trying to contribute.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

3rd Nov 2007, 20:18

C172 - capable but boring aeroplane (only slightly less boring than the PA28). Good flaps, nice elevator, no view out (high instrument panel, high wing)appalling ailerons giving soggy handling - an insult to the airman's art. Oh, and definatly completely un-aerobatic.

If you enjoy driving a Ford Escort with fogged-up windows ('cept a wiped area for the driver to see through) down the M6, you'll like flying a C172. :E

I've many hours in them, including para dropping. Which was free flying. Which was why I flew the thing!

SkyHawk-N

3rd Nov 2007, 20:49

no view out (high instrument panel....

Bit of a short @rse are we Shaggy Sheep Driver? :E

Gargleblaster

3rd Nov 2007, 22:18

Ah, the good ole 172. Have owned one with some friends, a fine 'N' model.

They decided to sell it and bought a brand new one at 140,000 Sterling. I told them they were crazy, especially after having flown the new one myself. Apart from electronics and FADEC, it's an exact replica of a 50 year old aircraft.

Anyway, I still fly the thing, and like it in a way over Pipers. More space, better short field performance, two doors. The damn airfields keep disappearing when I turn.

SNS3Guppy

4th Nov 2007, 02:16

Plenty of people choose Scotland as a destination - we just hope to offer something a little bit special and different.

Don't get me wrong. Scotland is on the list of places to spend some time, one day. Definitely special, definitely different.

To this day the single most haunting, soul moving sound I have ever heard is a bagpipe. I have relatives, none of whom I know now, all over the UK. One of these years will be the right time to look some up. Or at least go get some haggis.

Just not in a rented Cessna...;)

Red777

4th Nov 2007, 04:02

The C172 is capable of doing stall turns...whether or not they are designed to fly such a manoeuvrer is another issue...I have seen many done during mustering ops and they have handled well. Don't recommend trying them without known how to do them properly. And if you do, do it in a plane built for aero’s. Also the manufacture won’t take any responsibility if something happens.

The C172 is a hardy a/c. I have landed them on clay-pans, gravel flats, both main and dirt roads, beaches and sealed RWY's. They handle ok, can be sloppy at slow speeds. I have had some good performance in them in 45degree heat mustering and pushed them to max +ve G's and could never fault them apart from being slow in cruise. Best T/O distance I have achieved was 290m with 60-75% fuel and only me (70kg) in approx 5kt headwind at about 12degrees C. I used a short field t/o technique with flaps 10. A/c was a C172SP.

As long as you fly them properly, within operational limits, like all a/c you will have no issues with them. Push them past there envelope and you’re on your own.

They train pilots in them and if you have watched or experienced a student pilot do a sh*t landing you will see how capable they can be.
Just my bit, redT7

SNS3Guppy

4th Nov 2007, 07:22

The C172 is capable of doing stall turns...whether or not they are designed to fly such a manoeuvrer is another issue...I have seen many done during mustering ops and they have handled well. Don't recommend trying them without known how to do them properly. And if you do, do it in a plane built for aero’s. Also the manufacture won’t take any responsibility if something happens.

My first employment in aviation was flying ag--crop dusting, right after high school. I've done a lot of low level maneuvering work, from chasing animals to firefighting to ag work, and there is never a call for hammer head turns (especially in aircraft not designed for it). I've seen more than a few pilots do it too, but inevitably they're the ones destined for tragedy at some point. It's just not necessary. Pushing any airplane beyond it's design and certification isn't necessary, and is always a bad idea.

The manufacturer isn't going to take responsibility anyway...that should never be the criteria in determining how to act in the airplane. Staying within the certification and legal limitations of the airplane, and the conservative safety boundaries of the airplane should be the yardstick.

Hotdogging and cowboy flying has no place in the cockpit.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

4th Nov 2007, 15:08

Bit of a short @rse are we Shaggy Sheep Driver?

Nope.

But even if I was, what's that got to do with Mr Cessna blocking off half the windscreen with bleedin great instrument panel in a simple plane like a 172? European manufacturers don't feel the need to block the outside view, which is what a lot of us fly for, and which in what is mainly a VFR aeroplane is a serious safety issue.:rolleyes:

SkyHawk-N

4th Nov 2007, 15:41

what's that got to do with Mr Cessna blocking off half the windscreen with bleedin great instrument panel in a simple plane like a 172

I don't find the 172 windscreen blocked (there is an engine and cowling behind the panel :bored:) and as for the 'bleedin great instrument panel' I've run out of space on mine and wish it had a bit more space on it.

SNS3Guppy

4th Nov 2007, 18:29

But even if I was, what's that got to do with Mr Cessna blocking off half the windscreen with bleedin great instrument panel in a simple plane like a 172?

That migh be the case if you're three feet high. In that case, get a booster seat. Otherwise, the 172 has excellent visibility. I spent a few years flying tours, back country charter and all sorts of other things from banner towing to search and rescue to grand canyon charters in 172's, 182's, 206's, and 207's...the high wing Cessna's have always been popular because of their excellent visibility and unobstructed view.

Try raising your seat up a little higher.

llanfairpg

4th Nov 2007, 22:30

What is a C172 capable of?

Encouraging inane comments

:)

Red777

5th Nov 2007, 02:13

SNS3Guppy I total agree with your reply quoted below:

The manufacturer isn't going to take responsibility anyway...that should never be the criteria in determining how to act in the airplane. Staying within the certification and legal limitations of the airplane, and the conservative safety boundaries of the airplane should be the yardstick.
Hotdogging and cowboy flying has no place in the cockpit.

The point i was pushing with my original post was the manufacturer will not take responsiblity for trying such manoeuvrers where damage or loss of airframe are a result.

But of course, as you said, it comes down to the individual flying. The limtations are there to avoid damage/loss of airframe of the a/c and most importantly the life of the Pilot and Pax.

Sedbergh

5th Nov 2007, 07:25

Excellent vis from a Cessna?? - agreed if you are sightseeing.

But for seeing other aircraft??? ----- 'kin joking. They scare the **** out of me. Might just as well be sitting in a letterbox looking out of the slit.

S-Works

5th Nov 2007, 08:59

Poppycock. I have thousands of hours in cessna's and have never had a problem looking out the window and avoiding traffic.

Sedbergh

5th Nov 2007, 09:50

OK then, but how do you see where you're going in a turn? (and I'm not taking the p***, it's a serious question).

S-Works

5th Nov 2007, 12:28

lift the wing before the turn, look out the window. It's pretty simple stuff.

Sedbergh

5th Nov 2007, 12:39

Good on yer then, you're the first Cessna driver I've come across that actually looks.

S-Works

5th Nov 2007, 13:04

Then the Cessna drivers you are flying with need some remedial training in airmanship I would guess........
I have an inbuilt survival instinct, a simple check could save my life. When I am teaching I ingrain it into the student.

Rod1

5th Nov 2007, 13:26

Bose,

The AAIB have criticised the vis of the Cessna range, for example it the case of the Tornado and the 152 over Wales. In a more modern low wing design it would have at least been possible to see the Tornado coming.

Uses for a Cessna 172 (generically, no ones personal aircraft you understand)

Hen house

Example of corrosion and its impact on structural integrity

A classic design icon in a museum

An example of how inefficient 1950’s design is compared to the current day

An example of truly appalling handling

A comparison between 1920 engine tec and how far we have come with the modern diesel version.

An example of a really bad investment as thay become more and more undesirable as the modern replacements take over.

Rod1:E:E:E:E
(No I do not work for Cirrus)

S-Works

5th Nov 2007, 13:31

Ah! Yes I see. A cessna hit by a Tornado at several hundreds knots, the pilot would not have had a problem in say an MCR01..... :E

More uses for a 172, Night flight, night in Instrument conditions, over flight of towns.......

As opposed to the "replacements" being DAY/VFR only permit aicraft. You know what I prefer........ :p

DX Wombat

5th Nov 2007, 13:47

you're the first Cessna driver I've come across that actually looks.Meet another one then. Then there are also the FIs I flew with when doing my PPL, not to mention those since then. Every single one of them lifted the wings before turning. You must have met a particularly dim bunch.

Sedbergh

5th Nov 2007, 14:02

Well as a humble glider pilot I spend most of my airtime looking out of the window.

In my job I spend a lot of time being hauled around parts of Africa and S America in light aircraft, mostly Mr Cessna's products, driven by what are supposed to be "commercial" pilots.

And I've never known any of them to look properly before turning. And sorry guys, but in a high wing single, (for that read Cessna) it will always feel to me like I'm in a flying letter box.

Sorry Bose & the boys who do look out, but that's the way it is. I'm a lot happier in something like one of Mr Piper's flying devices. At least I can look for myself then.

A and C

5th Nov 2007, 15:19

We are all still waiting with baited breath to find out if this 11 hour endurance long range fuel tank is a factory option?

Final 3 Greens

5th Nov 2007, 18:52

The AAIB have criticised the vis of the Cessna range, for example it the case of the Tornado and the 152 over Wales. In a more modern low wing design it would have at least been possible to see the Tornado coming.

How good was the viz from the Tornado? How come it flew into the Cessna?

Rod1

5th Nov 2007, 19:03

“How good was the viz from the Tornado? How come it flew into the Cessna?”

The pilot and the Instructor had banked Tornado to admire a red telephone box when they tripped over the 152, which was circling and taking pictures. The angle the Tornado hit the 152 made it impossible for the pilot to have seen the Tornado, even if he had been looking. In a DA40 / Cirrus / low wing VLA etc you would not have had the blind spot, which was pointed out at the time.

Rod1

WorkingHard

5th Nov 2007, 19:45

Rod1 the Tornado hit the Cessna from approx th37 o'clock position whilst travelling in excess of 250 metres per second. Now tell what civilian aircraft the Cessna pilot could have been flying that would have allowed him to see the mil jet and take avoiding action. It is interesting to note the official BOI gave the cause of the accident as "The failure of the 2 pilots to see each other". How the hell do you see something coming up your *rse at that speed?

S-Works

5th Nov 2007, 19:47

We are all still waiting with baited breath to find out if this 11 hour endurance long range fuel tank is a factory option?

Sorry I had no idea that WE were waiting with baited breath, if you were that keen to get an answer you could have PM'd me.

It is a cessna Ferry tank, goes in the baggage bay at the back. Bought it to go Oshkosh next year. Is even approved for an external filler cap.

smarthawke

5th Nov 2007, 19:59

Not wishing to be pedantic but there have been two accidents between military aircraft and 152s.

#1 was a JAGUAR and a 152 with the Jaguar hitting the Cessna from behind.

#2 was a TORNADO and a 152 in the Gamston area where the (inexperienced) Tornado student was head down in the cockpit selecting switches.

Rod1

5th Nov 2007, 20:25

WorkingHard

I have not had time to look the exact details up so I have been relying on memory.

Not sure what “th37 o'clock” is but IF I remember the details then any bubble canopy aircraft would have had a chance to see the Tornado. Most modern low wing VLA types allow you a full view of the tail. I never mentioned anything about avoiding action!

Rod1

A and C

5th Nov 2007, 22:32

OK so not a factory option, what I was trying to get a grip on is what the C172 can do as a production aircraft.

We can all fit aftermarket bits of kit but I suspect that the tank you have is a ferry tank that is only cleared for ferrying the aircraft, not as in the case of the Robin suplimental tank that is a standard factory option.

I have no objection to Cessna aircraft they are a very workmanlike And rugged bit of kit (I own two of them) but in pure performance terms the fact is that the 172XP is out classed by an aircraft built out of something that looks like old tea chests with a fixed pitch prop and 20HP less power in the engine department.

As me if the Robin is a realistic rental aircraft and I will tell you that I would take the Cessna each tme!

172driver

5th Nov 2007, 23:46

Most modern low wing VLA types allow you a full view of the tail

Hmmmmm..... so I take it then, they also come fitted with rearview mirrors :}

Gipsy Queen

6th Nov 2007, 02:08

Oh no! Not again - I thought this very silly subject had been done to death before.

DAVE W - Since nobody seems to have answered your question, I shall.

In the UK and english speaking world generally, a Stall Turn is a vertical climb continued until flying speed no longer can be maintained, full rudder is applied to swing the aircraft about its "Z" axis to then face vertically downwards. A Hammerhead involves going backwards, erect or inverted (positive or negative).

However, in the USA things are a little different. There the Stall Turn is known as a Hammerhead. Why this should be so I am unable to say but they refuse to acknowledge our terminology on the basis that a stall is a condition pertinent to an aerofoil section only under load and since there is no load applied to the wing in this vertical manoeuvre, it cannot stall and in consequence the term is inappropriate. Pedantic perhaps but nevertheless correct.

For this reason it is prudent to get things clear with trans-Atlantic types. I once was teaching basic aeros in a Victa Airtourer to an American who was insistent that I showed him how to perform a Hammerhead and was quite upset at my refusal since the aircraft was not cleared for same. Back on the ground it became clear that he wanted to do Stall Turns - not "Tailslides" which is the American version of the Hammerhead.

GQ.

SNS3Guppy

6th Nov 2007, 04:10

Good on yer then, you're the first Cessna driver I've come across that actually looks.

Meet another one. What you don't see will kill you.

SNS3Guppy

6th Nov 2007, 05:06

In the UK and english speaking world generally, a Stall Turn is a vertical climb continued until flying speed no longer can be maintained, full rudder is applied to swing the aircraft about its "Z" axis to then face vertically downwards. A Hammerhead involves going backwards, erect or inverted (positive or negative).

The hammerhead does not involve a stall, and does not involve a tailslide.

Wilipedia:
1/4 loop (pull or push) to vertical, as momentum/airspeed decreases, rudder is applied and the aircraft rotates around its yaw axis, the nose falls through the horizon and points towards the ground, a momentary pause is made to draw the vertical down line, and 1/4 loop to level flight. This figure is sometimes called a stall turn which is a misnomer because the aircraft never actually stalls. The manoeuvre is performed when the aeroplane decelerates through 20 - 30kts (more or less, depending on the aeroplane flown) of airspeed. The cartwheel portion of the hammerhead is performed with full rudder and full opposite aileron. Gyroscopic forces from the propeller during the rapid rate of yaw will produce a pitching and rolling moment and a degree of forward stick will be required to keep the aeroplane from coming off-line over the top. The yaw is stopped with opposite rudder while the ailerons and elevator remain in position, then once the yaw is stopped and the aeroplane is pointed down vertically, all controls are returned to neutral together. Although they can be flown left or right in any aeroplane with the proper technique, a hammerhead is best flown to the left with a clockwise rotating prop, and to the right with an anticlockwise rotating prop (as in a Yakovlev type), due to propeller torque/gyroscopic effects.

British Aerobatic Association on stall-turns:

http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/judging/judging-stallturns1.htm

http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/judging/judging-stallturns2.htm

Incidentally, so far as origins of aerobatics, the first aerobatic display was at Rheims, France in 1909. Not until 1913 did Adolphe Pegoud begin displaying and performing aerobatics on behalf of Louis Bleriot. Lincoln Beachey began flying aerobatics as an exhibition pilot in the United States in 1911.

LowNSlow

6th Nov 2007, 14:24

Here's another one who does the "Cessna Lift" before turning as I too want to carry on enjoying my aviating! I flown the Cessna 172 (145hp and 160hp) The older 145hp model had better visibility as the glareshield was (seemed)lower but they were both better than the PA-28.The one I flew (Warrior) had a real "junior airline pilot" instrument panel and glareshield. I'm 6' but felt my visibility severly limited by the panel. Yes, the seat was raised! This in turn reduced my view out of the upper side windows.

Gipsy Queen

11th Nov 2007, 13:51

SN3Guppy,

This apparent confusion may be my fault. By "the english speaking world" I had intended to convey the "British Commonwealth" and should have said so. This would have excluded American terminology and thus avoided misunderstanding - sorry.

An English Hammerhead DOES involve a "stall" (just accept the term for the moment) and DOES include a Tailslide. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the English Stall Turn is analogous to the American Hammerhead and the American Tailslide translates as the English Hammerhead but the terms are not interchangeable. That's why it is important to determine that a common language is being spoken.

The links you provided will be helpful to others; they contain much information which I excluded since I was not writing a primer on the subject. For myself, I think I may just be getting a handle on these aero things - I have been at it only since 1949.

GQ.

tigerbatics

11th Nov 2007, 15:28

I have never heard anyone in British aerobatics use the term 'hammerhead' as an alternative to 'tailslide'. If it was the term used at one time it has long since ceased to be in regular use. Most people hearing the word would assume that a stall turn was meant but the individual had used U.S. terminology.

However I have often heard people refer to the 'hammerhead canopy up (down) out of the tailslide' as a reference to the exit portion of the figure.

MidgetBoy

11th Nov 2007, 17:14

I don't know if a 'stall turn' is the same as a 'climbing turn stall' but I've done all of my training on 172s and I've seen it do loops, spins, spirals, canyon turns, etc.
In about 4 weeks the flight school I attend in Pitt Meadows, B.C., Canada will have the first flight school owned diesel engine 172M in Canada giving it a service ceiling of 18,000 ft. Aircraft Ident is C-GAME.

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4579/172pvo1.jpg
This picture is the first diesel installed on a 172, it's a 172p. Turbocharged, FADEC, composite 3-bladed prop, push start, runup is: push a button for 30 seconds, watch the gauges, and listen to it feather and switch computer systems..

BackPacker

11th Nov 2007, 20:31

Yep, the Thielert 1.7 (or is it a 2.0) Centurion, now available in 172s as well. My club looked into retrofitting them to the PA-28-161 but decided against that for now. Given the weight of a PA-28-161 (and the 172 is roughly comparable with the PA28-161) the take-off distance would be unacceptable for anything but the largest GA-friendly runways. So watch those numbers like a hawk!

Mind you, once it's flying it will indeed go to 18.000 feet, and the fuel costs are about 1/4 to 1/5th of comparable AVGAS types.

Oh, and your engineers might benefit from a chat over dinner with engineers with DA-40/42 TDI (or Robin Ecoflyer) experience, so they know what to look for at 700 hours (cracked cylinder heads) and all the other teething problems that this engine seems to have.

DX Wombat

11th Nov 2007, 20:34

Yep, the Thielert 1.7There are NONE anywhere in Europe and they are no longer manufactured. I was last able to fly the DA40 TDi from the Flight Centre in August (NOT the fault of the Flight Centre) because they are STILL waiting for Thielert/Diamond to get their act together and produce a new engine for it. :*

Pilot DAR

11th Nov 2007, 23:08

My, my,

How times have changed! It seems like such a short time ago that I was comletely trashed for simply confirming that yes, a 172 could be safely rolled, by an appropriately skilled pilot. As I recall, other members expressed an intent to leave PPRuNe completly over the issue (I just ignored PPRuNe for a while).

Now I read protracted posts about hammerhead turns or stalls in C172's. What a bad idea! Cessna might find tolerance of the concept that their prized design could be flown gently through a positive G inverted manuever, but I'm certain they did not intend that it be flown backward relative to the airflow. I suppose that should be a limitation in the flight manual!

Would PPRuNe please consider splitting the Private Flying forum into "Ab Initio Flying", Private Flying for Business and Pleasure", and "Aerobatics and Competion Flying".

With this arrangement, at least the correct aircraft types could be discussed in association with the appropriate type of operation.

Pilot DAR

hoodie

12th Nov 2007, 07:29

Oh, Lord, Pilot DAR. :ugh:You were quite rightly "trashed" for your assertion, and if you read the whole of this thread, rather than taking one or two posts in isolation, you'll see that the message here is the same simple one as it was for you:

(1) It's not in the POH
(2) It's very dangerous - for the pilots who fly after you as well as the "aeros ace" him/herself, and so:
(3) Don't aerobat a C172. :=

Gipsy Queen

13th Nov 2007, 03:12

Tigerbatics,

"I have never heard anyone in British aerobatics use the term 'hammerhead' as an alternative to 'tailslide'. If it was the term used at one time it has long since ceased to be in regular use. Most people hearing the word would assume that a stall turn was meant but the individual had used U.S. terminology."

I was about to suggest that the term was in current use until very recently as I remember discussing the subject with a well-known display pilot whilst flying G-ACDC from Redhill (although we had no thought of going backwards in such a venerable aircraft - Dev Deverill would have killed us even if the a/c didn't!) but I have just realised that this was more than twenty five years ago so it wasn't so recent . . . Time has a strange way of being compressed as one advances in age.

Also, on a wall in the Tiger Club hangar, there was a chart of the Aresti symbols which included what you understand as a Tailslide but then was described as a Hammerhead - positive and negative. BLAC literature of the period made similar references. And I remember much the same thing in the CFI's office but this was in Cyril Nepean Bishop's time, pre-Aresti whose method was adopted some time in the early sixties, if I remember correctly.

With the assistance of the governments of the day, the British light aircraft industry quietly left the field to the American manufacturers and it would be consistent for the domestic terminology to follow a similar path; it seems that it has.

GQ.

tigerbatics

13th Nov 2007, 09:15

Gipsey Queen:

You are right about the passage of time.

I joined the Tiger Club in 1978 and flew several times a week for many years until the Club left Redhill. I seldom missed a BAeA contest during that time either in the Club Stampe, (TKC was my particular preference), or later in my Pitts. I was an aerobatic check pilot at the club from the early 80's. Seems like yesterday!

I never met Nepean Bishop, known as 'Bish' I believe, but did fly the SuperTiger OAA 'The Deacon' in the series inspired by his name a few times. Lovely machine and the nearest a Tiger Moth ever came to being a proper aeroplane. I agree, Dev would have had a fit at the thought of a tailslide in CDC.

I do not recall any aerobatic chart in the hanger but I do not doubt that what you say about terminology is correct.

My point was only that the term has dropped into disuse and has suffered this fate for very many years.

What seems to have happened to aerobatic terminology in more recent times is that the language used by the FAI and in the Aresti Catalogue has become the norm. So it is 'flick roll' rather than 'snap roll'; 'stall turn' rather than 'hammerhead' and 'tailslide' for what we once seem to have called a 'hammerhead'.

However no aerobatic pilot is consistent in his use of terminology, any more than in his flying, and the only thing that is very, very seldom heard over here is the use of 'Immelmann' instead of 'roll off the top'.

Gipsy Queen

14th Nov 2007, 04:54

Tigerbatics,

The DH82A was never a favourite of mine and, compared with the SV4, a bit of a dog but saying so will no doubt generate squeals of protest from the predictable quarters! However, it did teach me to fly and was a good ab initio trainer. Agree absolutely, Rollason's mods made a huge difference. I remember The Deacon well enough although I don't remember flying it. However, I do have an hour or three in The Archbishop (NZZ) which was like chalk and cheese with the standard aircraft- but it still wouldn't roll! Never quite got the hang of all the complication of changing to the inverted system and back - I was always nervous of the thing quitting in the middle of the procedure. A metal prop might have helped here.

More fun was the Arrow Active but it was an aircraft in which I never felt really comfortable. It certainly had a vicious temper. All very different from the well-mannered S2S; 260hp, fuel injection and c/s prop - yes, times certainly change. We thought we had hit gold with the 190hp in the Zlin! But that used to cough when you were half way round as the other carburettor chimed in. I think it's called "character" . . .and speaking of which, "Bish" was a wonderful person and a brilliant pilot; I feel privileged to have learned from him. And privileged to have lived through the last of the Golden Age.

Ahhhhh - nostalgia ain't wot it used to be.

GQ.

SNS3Guppy

14th Nov 2007, 18:11

This apparent confusion may be my fault. By "the english speaking world" I had intended to convey the "British Commonwealth" and should have said so. This would have excluded American terminology and thus avoided misunderstanding - sorry.

Quite alright. The english speaking world ceased to be limited to the British commonwealth quite some time before the breakup of the British empire.

Rod1

14th Nov 2007, 19:11

“breakup of the British empire”

No idea what you are talking about old chap.

Rod1

SNS3Guppy

14th Nov 2007, 22:59

No idea what you are talking about old chap.

I know. That's really the point. You seem to have missed it a couple hundred years ago...been going on ever since. Not to worry. More speak english outside the UK than in.

waldopepper42

15th Nov 2007, 13:49

More speak english outside the UK than in.

Dear boy, surely you mean more people speak a version of English outside?

It really is quite preposterous to consider the Colonies as true speakers of the mother tongue.......

run away, run away......:E:E:E

Pilot DAR

16th Nov 2007, 01:17

Which is the "version" if more people speak it outside the UK, rather than inside?

Pilot DAR

SNS3Guppy

16th Nov 2007, 02:59

I don't know if it's actually true, but I was told that the native language used by the majority in the USA is now Spanish. That could be urban myth of course!

It's a myth, though certainly it feels that way sometimes.

It really is quite preposterous to consider the Colonies as true speakers of the mother tongue.......

Not if your'e referring to the "Queen's english." It's only superceded in ridiculousness of syntax by that of the biggest english speaking buffoon in the free world...George Bush (junior).

Do I sense a touch of post-colonial antagonism towards our green and pleasant land from SNS3Guppy?

No, just idly following up on a comment made earlier in the thread regarding the English speaking world.

If it helps, my immediate family is English, with my extended family Irish and Welsh.