Complex / High Performance / Low Performance

[R.T.]

Good day all,
After reading some older posts with regards to aircraft purchasing allot of
discussion seems to come up about Complex and High Performance aircraft.
My question is this? Is a 172 RG classified as a Complex aircraft? and a 182
fixed gear classified as a non-complex High Performance?
For my needs a decent payload is going to be important, so I am considering
purchasing a 182 or possibly a Cherokee 6 (which would suit me even better).
Any opinions on either of these aircraft good or bad would be appreciated.
Rob T

[Tom Sixkiller]

"R.T." <brt5ATexeculink.com> wrote in message
...
> Good day all,
> After reading some older posts with regards to aircraft purchasing allot
of
> discussion seems to come up about Complex and High Performance aircraft.
> My question is this? Is a 172 RG classified as a Complex aircraft? and a
182
> fixed gear classified as a non-complex High Performance?
> For my needs a decent payload is going to be important, so I am
considering
> purchasing a 182 or possibly a Cherokee 6 (which would suit me even
better).
> Any opinions on either of these aircraft good or bad would be appreciated.


AIUI, a "complex" aircraft is one with a constant speed prop. A "high
performance" aircraft is one with 200HP or more.

HTH.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:23:48 -0400, "R.T." <brt5ATexeculink.com> wrote:

>Good day all,
>After reading some older posts with regards to aircraft purchasing allot of
>discussion seems to come up about Complex and High Performance aircraft.
>My question is this? Is a 172 RG classified as a Complex aircraft? and a 182
>fixed gear classified as a non-complex High Performance?
>For my needs a decent payload is going to be important, so I am considering
>purchasing a 182 or possibly a Cherokee 6 (which would suit me even better).
>Any opinions on either of these aircraft good or bad would be appreciated.
>Rob T
>

A "complex" airplane is an airplane that has a retractable landing gear,
flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller; or, in the case of a seaplane,
flaps and a controllable pitch propeller.

A high-performance airplane is an airplane with an engine of more than 200
horsepower.

So, for example, a Piper Arrow, or an older Mooney like mine, with a 200 hp
engine, is complex but NOT high performance.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Joe Johnson]

Complex: retractable gear, movable flaps, and constant speed prop (all 3)
High performance: greater than 200 horsepower (200 HP or less is not high
performance)

[Brenor Brophy]

A complex (land) plane has to have retractable gear AND flaps AND a constant
speed prop. If any one is missing then its not a complex plane. So a 172RG
would NOT be a complex plane because it has a fixed pitch prop.

A fixed gear 182 would be high performance but would NOT be complex because
it doesn't have retractable gear.

Here is the FAR:

Sec. 61.31
:
(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes. (1) Except
as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot
in command of a complex airplane (an airplane that has a retractable landing
gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller; or, in the case of a
seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller),
:
(f) Additional training required for operating high-performance airplanes.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may
act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane with an
engine of more than 200 horsepower),
:

-Brenor


"R.T." <brt5ATexeculink.com> wrote in message
...
> Good day all,
> After reading some older posts with regards to aircraft purchasing allot
of
> discussion seems to come up about Complex and High Performance aircraft.
> My question is this? Is a 172 RG classified as a Complex aircraft? and a
182
> fixed gear classified as a non-complex High Performance?
> For my needs a decent payload is going to be important, so I am
considering
> purchasing a 182 or possibly a Cherokee 6 (which would suit me even
better).
> Any opinions on either of these aircraft good or bad would be appreciated.
> Rob T
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> AIUI, a "complex" aircraft is one with a constant speed prop.

And retractable gear. And flaps.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[BTIZ]

I was thinking the C172RG I used to fly had a controllable prop... mmmm

yep... sure enough.. here's the old UND check list complete with Prop cycles
on the before takeoff checks.. and MP/RPM for cruise settings.. I can't
find the reference, but it might have been 180HP..

so it would be Complex, but not High Performance.. C 172RG, Cutlass.. it was
a sweet flying Skyhawk.. did not cruise like a standard gear dragger..

BT

"Brenor Brophy" > wrote in message
m...
> A complex (land) plane has to have retractable gear AND flaps AND a
constant
> speed prop. If any one is missing then its not a complex plane. So a 172RG
> would NOT be a complex plane because it has a fixed pitch prop.
>
> A fixed gear 182 would be high performance but would NOT be complex
because
> it doesn't have retractable gear.
>
> Here is the FAR:
>
> Sec. 61.31
> :
> (e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes. (1)
Except
> as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as
pilot
> in command of a complex airplane (an airplane that has a retractable
landing
> gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller; or, in the case of a
> seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller),
> :
> (f) Additional training required for operating high-performance airplanes.
> (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may
> act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane with
an
> engine of more than 200 horsepower),
> :
>
> -Brenor
>
>
> "R.T." <brt5ATexeculink.com> wrote in message
> ...
> > Good day all,
> > After reading some older posts with regards to aircraft purchasing allot
> of
> > discussion seems to come up about Complex and High Performance aircraft.
> > My question is this? Is a 172 RG classified as a Complex aircraft? and a
> 182
> > fixed gear classified as a non-complex High Performance?
> > For my needs a decent payload is going to be important, so I am
> considering
> > purchasing a 182 or possibly a Cherokee 6 (which would suit me even
> better).
> > Any opinions on either of these aircraft good or bad would be
appreciated.
> > Rob T
> >
> >
>
>

[Troy Towner]

Actually it has to have 201 hp or more... 200 is not high perf.

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> "R.T." <brt5ATexeculink.com> wrote in message
> ...
> > Good day all,
> > After reading some older posts with regards to aircraft purchasing allot
> of
> > discussion seems to come up about Complex and High Performance aircraft.
> > My question is this? Is a 172 RG classified as a Complex aircraft? and a
> 182
> > fixed gear classified as a non-complex High Performance?
> > For my needs a decent payload is going to be important, so I am
> considering
> > purchasing a 182 or possibly a Cherokee 6 (which would suit me even
> better).
> > Any opinions on either of these aircraft good or bad would be
appreciated.
>
>
> AIUI, a "complex" aircraft is one with a constant speed prop. A "high
> performance" aircraft is one with 200HP or more.
>
> HTH.
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

R.T.,

while you've gotten the answers you sought, one more thought: Why is
this important? Getting the appropriate endorsements is trivial if you
intend to own either a complex or a high-performance aircraft. Even if
you don't, your piloting abilities would benefit from getting the
endorsements in any case.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[10Squared]

Brenor Brophy wrote:

> :
> (f) Additional training required for operating high-performance airplanes.
> (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may
> act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane with
> an engine of more than 200 horsepower),

What does the training for the HP endorsement usually consist of?

[Dan Luke]

"Brenor Brophy" wrote:

> So a 172RG would NOT be a complex plane
> because it has a fixed pitch prop.

The ones I've flown must be exceptions.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Steve Robertson]

Not much. You need to be able to discuss and demonstrate appropriate engine
management proceedures. That is, locate and use the correct procedures in the
POH. Since most high-performance aircraft also have a CS prop, the relationship
between RPM/MP/fuel flow will normally be emphasized. As will proper fuel since
many of these engines are high compression. Some knowldge of turbocharging and
fuel injection will normally be required.

Best regards,

Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft A23-24 Musketeer

10Squared wrote:

> Brenor Brophy wrote:
>
> > :
> > (f) Additional training required for operating high-performance airplanes.
> > (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may
> > act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane with
> > an engine of more than 200 horsepower),
>
> What does the training for the HP endorsement usually consist of?

[Bushy]

Thankfully this is top posting in this thread, it takes to much scrolling to
get down to the arse of the thread.....
;<)

So for a fifty hour pilot that wants to fly (+ homebuild...) a complex, high
performance aircraft from his back yard (the nicest thing about living on
160 acres, is being able to make a runway and a hanger!) the extra training
is not much?

Yet it allows so much extra take-off and landing performance, especially at
a summer density altitude of 5000 plus feet and a tiny little 330 metres or
1000 feet of runway?

If only I could find a nice amphibion set of floats for it......

;<)
Peter


"Steve Robertson" > wrote in message
...
> Not much. You need to be able to discuss and demonstrate appropriate
engine
> management proceedures. That is, locate and use the correct procedures in
the
> POH. Since most high-performance aircraft also have a CS prop, the
relationship
> between RPM/MP/fuel flow will normally be emphasized. As will proper fuel
since
> many of these engines are high compression. Some knowldge of turbocharging
and
> fuel injection will normally be required.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Steve Robertson
> N4732J 1967 Beechcraft A23-24 Musketeer
>
> 10Squared wrote:
>
> > Brenor Brophy wrote:
> >
> > > :
> > > (f) Additional training required for operating high-performance
airplanes.
> > > (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person
may
> > > act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane
with
> > > an engine of more than 200 horsepower),
> >
> > What does the training for the HP endorsement usually consist of?
>

[EDR]

In article >, 10Squared
> wrote:

> What does the training for the HP endorsement usually consist of?

Meeting the minimum insurance requirements. ;-))

[EDR]

In article >, R.T. wrote:

> For my needs a decent payload is going to be important, so I am considering
> purchasing a 182 or possibly a Cherokee 6 (which would suit me even better).
> Any opinions on either of these aircraft good or bad would be appreciated.

Six seats vice four seats gives you more flexibility, leg room and
cargo space.

The Cherokee Six has a ten knot speed advantage in cruise (135 kts vice
125 kts).

For off airport/non-paved surface operations, the 182 will be less
succeptible to FOD damage (high wing and higher horizontal stabilizer)

Typical Cessna vice Piper arguements:
High wing vice low wing
Both have two doors, in this case!

I fly both and I think the 182 will get in and out of shorter fields.
Then again, the Cherokee Six has 300 higher gross (3400 lbs vice 3100
lbs)
The 1978 Cherokee Six has 84 gallons usable
The 1986 Cessna 182R has 88 gallons usable

The Cherokee Six consumes 16 gph in cruise
The 182 consumes 12 gph in cruise

My observations and experiences.

[C J Campbell]

"Brenor Brophy" > wrote in message
m...
> A complex (land) plane has to have retractable gear AND flaps AND a
constant
> speed prop. If any one is missing then its not a complex plane. So a 172RG
> would NOT be a complex plane because it has a fixed pitch prop.
>

The 172RG has a constant speed prop. It is a complex airplane.

[Newps]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:hL6Ec.5949$z81.3182@fed1read01...
> I was thinking the C172RG I used to fly had a controllable prop... mmmm
>
> yep... sure enough.. here's the old UND check list complete with Prop
cycles
> on the before takeoff checks.. and MP/RPM for cruise settings.. I can't
> find the reference, but it might have been 180HP..
>
> so it would be Complex, but not High Performance.. C 172RG, Cutlass.. it
was
> a sweet flying Skyhawk.. did not cruise like a standard gear dragger..

I was at GFK when UND still had the Cessna's. What years were you there?

[Newps]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
>
> For off airport/non-paved surface operations, the 182 will be less
> succeptible to FOD damage (high wing and higher horizontal stabilizer)

Especially as you run your wings thru the bushes as you taxi in on some two
track road to a cabin. The 182 lets you skim thru the tops, the Cherokee
make you tear up the wing.


> Then again, the Cherokee Six has 300 higher gross (3400 lbs vice 3100
> lbs)

Gross is irrelavant. You want the lowest gross available with the highest
HP available. What you really want is the highest useful load. That 3100
gross 182 is a dog. I have a 182 with a 2800 gross which will vastly
outperform a newer 182 with the higher gross weights. Has to. Same
horsepower lifting less weight.

[Matt Whiting]

10Squared wrote:

> Brenor Brophy wrote:
>
>
>>:
>>(f) Additional training required for operating high-performance airplanes.
>>(1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may
>>act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane with
>>an engine of more than 200 horsepower),
>
>
> What does the training for the HP endorsement usually consist of?

For me it was a couple of patterns in my Skylane.


Matt

[BTIZ]

> > so it would be Complex, but not High Performance.. C 172RG, Cutlass.. it
> was
> > a sweet flying Skyhawk.. did not cruise like a standard gear dragger..
>
> I was at GFK when UND still had the Cessna's. What years were you there?
>

I was in GFK.. actually KRDR... from 1988-1991. The local FBO would lease
out the UND Cutlass's to renter pilots.. just schedule one and the FBO would
make sure there was one on his ramp from UND. It was a nice plane.. for a
172.. and it had the RNAV system in it.

BT

[Newps]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:eMmEc.7250$z81.6499@fed1read01...
> > > so it would be Complex, but not High Performance.. C 172RG, Cutlass..
it
> > was
> > > a sweet flying Skyhawk.. did not cruise like a standard gear dragger..
> >
> > I was at GFK when UND still had the Cessna's. What years were you
there?
> >
>
> I was in GFK.. actually KRDR... from 1988-1991.

I was at GFK from 3/89-12/92.

[Russell Kent]

"Troy Towner" > wrote:
> Actually it has to have 201 hp or more... 200 is not high perf.

Look, if you're going to nitpick, at least get it right. A high performance
airplane (under US FAA rules) is one which has an engine of greater than 200
HP. So a 200.5 HP engine is high performance, as is a 200.1 HP engine, as
is a 200.00000001 HP engine. The magic number is " > 200" not " >= 201".
See FAR 61.31

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/283B12
B7EA4B82BD86256959004B99F0?OpenDocument


Russell Kent

[R.T.]

Thanks for all your insights. I test flew a 182 last week and I'm hoping to
get up in a six this week.
RT
"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, R.T. wrote:
>
> > For my needs a decent payload is going to be important, so I am
considering
> > purchasing a 182 or possibly a Cherokee 6 (which would suit me even
better).
> > Any opinions on either of these aircraft good or bad would be
appreciated.
>
> Six seats vice four seats gives you more flexibility, leg room and
> cargo space.
>
> The Cherokee Six has a ten knot speed advantage in cruise (135 kts vice
> 125 kts).
>
> For off airport/non-paved surface operations, the 182 will be less
> succeptible to FOD damage (high wing and higher horizontal stabilizer)
>
> Typical Cessna vice Piper arguements:
> High wing vice low wing
> Both have two doors, in this case!
>
> I fly both and I think the 182 will get in and out of shorter fields.
> Then again, the Cherokee Six has 300 higher gross (3400 lbs vice 3100
> lbs)
> The 1978 Cherokee Six has 84 gallons usable
> The 1986 Cessna 182R has 88 gallons usable
>
> The Cherokee Six consumes 16 gph in cruise
> The 182 consumes 12 gph in cruise
>
> My observations and experiences.