Drink holder test

Well, last Friday’s strip about cup holders sparked a more lively debate than I would have anticipated! And that’s despite one shouldn’t drink and drive! But I’m just kidding and that’s another subject, one that’s actually not very funny. Although, with self-driving cars looming on the horizon, I can see a point in the future where that’s not going to be an issue anymore. I wonder if the widespread use of self-driving cars will make a statistically noticeable impact on alcohol consumption. Hm, I might be onto something! I should go and buy beer stocks! Gee, the mental leaps I’m capable of in just one paragraph …

Tagged with: , , ,
5 comments on “Drink holder test
  1. Fbs says:

    Chuck should be happy to be alive as the C172 is not certified for negative Gs. But it might not get away with this, as if I was julio, I would soon finish him off….

  2. Johsua says:

    Actually, the 172 is. G limit on a utility category aircraft is +4.4 and -1.52 G. A spin (which the 172 is certified for) won’t take the aircraft very negative, if at all. In fact the engine will continue to produce full power throughout all phases of the spin.

    Chuck was probably trying something a bit more Bob Hoover-ish, but even one negative G is extremely uncomfortable so I doubt the aircraft was in any danger.

  3. Quill says:

    All this talk of negative G in a Cessna – I once tried to do a parabola, pull zero G, when I was learning to fly (solo at the time, should have done it with my instructor, a former Vomit Comet pilot). Kept pushing over, getting closer and closer, but not quite to zero. Then on the third or fourth try, I went negative, the tow bar in the back seat hit the ceiling (as did any other objects in the cabin – wasn’t there a comic about that at one point?) and the engine cut out. The engine cutting out really freaked me, I immediately pulled positive and it resumed running. Wasn’t a big deal, and wouldn’t have bothered me had I anticipated it, considered ahead of time that carburetors don’t work upside down. I didn’t try it again though. Hitting exactly 0 g is very difficult.
    As for Chuck, he said he took the Cessna for a “spin,” would have worked well for the comic if he’d done a literal spin. Though they don’t involve negative G, spins aren’t exactly docile maneuvers, and I’d be impressed if any suction-cup coffee holder could stay on and not spill through all of that. Unless maybe Bob Hoover is flying, he could probably do a spin while pouring hydrochloric acid from a bucket into a small-mouth bottle.

  4. Johsua says:

    Of course, another thing to consider is that the Cessna’s oil system isn’t designed to go negative. However the loss of fuel should make that failure a little easier on the engine but it probably won’t make it to TBO if you keep abusing it in that way.

    One famous example of the phenomena Quill observed was the Spitfire. The negative G would cause the carburetor to flood the engine and it simply wouldn’t restart. Miss Shilling’s orifice solved that problem by restricting fuel flow. (double entendre no doubt intended.)

  5. Captain Dunsel says:

    I don’t know if it’s a Cessna they’re in, but it is a high-winged aircraft.


    (If you have no success, search for zero gravity dog on Youtube.)

    I’d say they went slightly negative :-).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *