172 Aerobatics
- Thread starter Milesar
- Start date
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
horrible music in that first one. . .
the second one is actually pretty funny.
the second one is actually pretty funny.
First a question: are we sure that's a 172? If it is, does anyone know of a 172 model that is in the aerobatic category?
First video: It starts with poor technique. Notice how he overshoots the turn onto the runway? Also notice how he fails to maintain center line on take-off? And if he's flying a plane not certified for aerobatics, coupled with his obvious youth, you've got a judgment chain gone very wrong.
Second video. Very, very poor judgment by those pilots. Army helos won't even fly that low or maneuver like that off post without a surveyed route to ensure obstacle clearance, wires, etc.
I think we've shown these as examples of what not to do.
First video: It starts with poor technique. Notice how he overshoots the turn onto the runway? Also notice how he fails to maintain center line on take-off? And if he's flying a plane not certified for aerobatics, coupled with his obvious youth, you've got a judgment chain gone very wrong.
Second video. Very, very poor judgment by those pilots. Army helos won't even fly that low or maneuver like that off post without a surveyed route to ensure obstacle clearance, wires, etc.
I think we've shown these as examples of what not to do.
SRA_kbad
Scooter Trash!!!
WORD!!!!
frog_flyer
FredFlyer
The jackoff in the first vid didn't even secure the seatbelts? Comon.
Milesar
Well-Known Member
Both vids were described as a 172 by YouTube.
I also noticed in the first video he has the night cabin light on, thats a handy thing during the day. After the first "roll" he seemed to have climbed a lot higher for the second one, as if he was concerned about the altitude lost in the maneuver.
I would guess this would stress the airframe?
I also noticed in the first video he has the night cabin light on, thats a handy thing during the day. After the first "roll" he seemed to have climbed a lot higher for the second one, as if he was concerned about the altitude lost in the maneuver.
I would guess this would stress the airframe?
falconvalley
Absentee Dad of the OOTSK, Runner, Cat Frustrator
In the first video, the plane looks alot like a 150 or 152. The dude in the video acted alot like someone who shouldn't be doing that, however.
taseal
Well-Known Member
a kid like that is gunna do it in whatever plane it is... also if you look, you can see backseats (yes I know some 15xs had backseats, but that is a 172)
Old Pete
Cockpit Authoritarian
Looks like a 1963-1982 cessna 172 to me. As the pilot pans the camera you can see two side windows and the "split" rear window.
I don't know of any 172s that are certified in the aerobatic category. Depending on W&B normal or utility.
A properly executed barrel roll puts very little stress on the airplane.
He is reckless.
I bet with a little bit of effort some one could find out who he is. Does anybody know what airport is he flying out of? Runway 17 L, VOR on the field.
IF they surveyed the route to ensure it is free of wires and obstacles and their flight complies with FAR 91.119 it would be marginally okay... I would still question the level of training they had to conduct low-level operations. It takes a lot to make a flight like that safe.
qball194fa
New Member
The first one I was disgusted to see.
He obviously had extensive difficulty even taxiing the airplane. He didn't bother to maintain centerline after liftoff either.
He obviously cared more about videotaping than flying the airplane. This is something YouTube should take off - or at least say that this is something you should NOT do - to prevent others from doing it.
This guy is going to kill himself, and likely someone else.
He obviously had extensive difficulty even taxiing the airplane. He didn't bother to maintain centerline after liftoff either.
He obviously cared more about videotaping than flying the airplane. This is something YouTube should take off - or at least say that this is something you should NOT do - to prevent others from doing it.
This guy is going to kill himself, and likely someone else.
Sanchez12
New Member
i dont think it would put stress on the structural integrity of the aircraft.. my concern is, wouldnt that put stress/damage on the gyros of the aircraft instruments? I know some aerobatic aircraft have cages to lock them in place when they do aerobatic maneuvers. In either video, I feel there is a lack of judgment...
triplec76
Well-Known Member
I think both videos are really stupid. I guess it was interesting seeing a 172 do a barrel roll since I have never seen it before, but I just don't make any airplane do anything it wasn't designed to do.
With that out of the way, I have a few related stories. One instructor I know who is now in a corporate setting told me that he liked to have his students fly a winding river at <500' so that they could get good aileron/rudder/pitch control. I didn't really respond when he was bragging about his teaching technique.
Another guy who I know visits this board told me that a program he used to finish up some of his ratings typically used a loop in a 172 in their training. All I could think of was how stupid. People like that I just avoid like the plague.
With that out of the way, I have a few related stories. One instructor I know who is now in a corporate setting told me that he liked to have his students fly a winding river at <500' so that they could get good aileron/rudder/pitch control. I didn't really respond when he was bragging about his teaching technique.
Another guy who I know visits this board told me that a program he used to finish up some of his ratings typically used a loop in a 172 in their training. All I could think of was how stupid. People like that I just avoid like the plague.
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
I would have no trouble handing someone like that to the feds. They don't deserve to have a license. They are endangering every person that flies that plane after them.
I agree with you there. Just a matter of time till they hurt themselves or someone else.
aloft
New Member
It's standard procedure up in Alaska. Dudes up there rarely fly higher than 500 feet from what I'm told.
No doubt. I'm sure they know the terrain very well.
Plus, 500 feet ain't exactly low-level.
SRA_kbad
Scooter Trash!!!
No doubt. I'm sure they know the terrain very well.
Plus, 500 feet ain't exactly low-level.
... And I doubt that there are any power lines to worry about in the rural areas of AK