Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SkyDancer
According to the FAA, the full envelope is +6/-3 G's. The FAA. They say the plane is not capable of +9.

and is FAA certified to +6 / -3 G's.

Anyway, you did say you got up to 9G's at times. I don't understand how the plane withstood that without bending the frame. Joke?

Post 276:

Just a point you made re: 9g's ... if you read it you'll know it wasn't all the time. You pull a turn trying to get inside the other pilot's turn you will pull up to that much.

364 posted on 06/16/2012 4:21:03 PM PDT by eartrumpet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies ]


To: eartrumpet

If, if , if ,if you pulled 9gs ... never said I’d get there. You’d tunnel out long before that because even being a dumb blond I know you need a g-suit.


369 posted on 06/16/2012 4:34:22 PM PDT by SkyDancer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies ]

To: eartrumpet

And that’s why, say, a Boeing 777 under wing stress tests can pull 150% of their load before the wing snaps. And before you accuse me of comparing the two planes, it’s what the FAA says the M-260 is rated at not what it could be capable of. The demonstrated cross-wind landing of a Cessna 152 is 12kts. That’s not to say it could land at a CW of 15 or more. It’s what’s demonstrated. Key word.


370 posted on 06/16/2012 4:37:50 PM PDT by SkyDancer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson