The longest ever flight was 64 days in a Cessna 172 (2021) • Hacker News Board

Re: The longest ever flight was 64 days in a Cessna 172 (2021)

#101

Post by jeffrallen » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 1:09 PM UTC

gavanm wrote: post #78

jeffrallen wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric airplanes are already used in training in Europe. They are less expensive to operate on an hourly basis just because of fuel/energy cost. But they are probably also cheaper to overhaul; the Emrax motors in Pipistrels are relatively simple, and it would probably cost less to buy two and swap one out (sending the other one back to Emrax for a new bearings) than to do one thermal engine overhaul. And almost no…

Is there anything you can share regarding the electric plane? I had a look at your profile and couldn't see any links beyond your keys.

Pie Aéronefs, s.a. of Switzerland

Re: The longest ever flight was 64 days in a Cessna 172 (2021)

#102

Post by eddsh1994 » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

travisjungroth wrote: post #35

eddsh1994 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An afternoon will feel like 64 days in a 152! If it has seats behind you it was probably a skyhawk. If you could do tricks it was probably a 152.

Are you thinking of a 152 Aerobat? 150 Aerobats are pretty rare, 152 Aerobats even more so.

I thought all 152s were Aerobat rated? Might be mistaken though! I've only flown the 172

Re: The longest ever flight was 64 days in a Cessna 172 (2021)

#103

Post by travisjungroth » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 9:30 PM UTC

eddsh1994 wrote: post #102

travisjungroth wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you thinking of a 152 Aerobat? 150 Aerobats are pretty rare, 152 Aerobats even more so.

I thought all 152s were Aerobat rated? Might be mistaken though! I've only flown the 172

The 152 is the second version of the 150. It's based on the same design and is they're both rated for +4.4/-1.76g. The biggest difference between them is the Lycoming O-235 engine replacing the Continental O-200.

Both airplanes came in a number of variants. The Aerobat variant of each was rated to +6/-3g due to structural improvements. It had other aerobatic features like a quick release door, four point harness and skylights. You might be able to identify them by their checkerboard paint job. Less than 4% of 150/152s were Aerobats.

"Aerobat" is a brand name specific to Cessna. You can do some amount of aerobatics in any trainer, like steep turns or a lazy eight. The FAA defines "acrobatic", which specifically excludes those maneuvers and a few more. There's an associated Aerobatic Category of aircraft.

Re: The longest ever flight was 64 days in a Cessna 172 (2021)

#104

Post by BHSPitMonkey » Fri, Dec 16, 2022, 9:52 PM UTC

kqr wrote: post #69

prottog wrote: post #6

That's amazing. I get in-air refueling, but the fact that the two pilots managed to live in this tiny space, performing tasks that I'm sure very quickly became repetitive and monotonous, listening to the engine, peeing in a bottle, etc. for two months is truly outrageous.

Not only that, but they had already tried a few times before, at least one 17 days long! > After the first three flights, the plane had never stayed aloft longer than 17 days. Imagine going up there a third time, spending a day, then two, then a week, then two weeks, and then a few days later being forced to land... only to get up there again aiming for two months!

Seems like good practice for interplanetary travel.