Complex endorsement question

[john]

I already have a high-performance sign-off with several hours in a
C182 and a couple in a Bonanza. I have found a couple of places which
rent a C172RG for a reasonable price. My goal is to be get my
commercial and I'm starting to work on my IFR. With that in mind, I'm
looking at taking at least part of the IFR training in the 172RG.

How many hours does it normally take to get a sign-off and what
training will involved in getting it? To ask it a different way, what
differences will I need to learn other than the the max gear down
speed and remembering to lower the gear? I know the high performance
retracts means flying a more slipperly airplane which means the need
to plan altitude and speed for the landing a lot further in advance
than a fixed gear.. (at least that was the case with the Bonanza).

thanks,

John

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 22, 7:19*pm, john > wrote:
> I already have a high-performance sign-off with several hours in a
> C182 and a couple in a Bonanza. *I have found a couple of places which
> rent a C172RG for a reasonable price. *My goal is to be get my
> commercial and I'm starting to work on my IFR. *With that in mind, I'm
> looking at taking at least part of the IFR training in the 172RG.

If you are working on your commercial the complex will just come with
it. The sign of for complex is really about being able to handle more
systems at once.

-Robert, CFII

[john]

Thanks for the information. I'm considering it for a few reasons -
1) An older 172RG is renting cheaper than a newer 172. ($110 compared
with $114).
2) Getting a commerical is one thing, but insurance and job
requirements will usually require more than just the 10 hrs required
for the commercial.
3) X-C trips are nicer during the times when I want to get somewhere a
little faster.
4) Not as many pilots rent the RG. Most renters are student pilots,
or pilots just out having fun and aren't interested in an older model.
(No auto-pilot or panel GPS???). As a result, it is more likely to be
available when I want to fly.

>
> If you are working on your commercial the complex will just come with
> it. The sign of for complex is really about being able to handle more
> systems at once.
>
> -Robert, CFII

[Stan Prevost]

I've never flown a 172RG. Does it have a variable pitch prop?


"john" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for the information. I'm considering it for a few reasons -
> 1) An older 172RG is renting cheaper than a newer 172. ($110 compared
> with $114).
> 2) Getting a commerical is one thing, but insurance and job
> requirements will usually require more than just the 10 hrs required
> for the commercial.
> 3) X-C trips are nicer during the times when I want to get somewhere a
> little faster.
> 4) Not as many pilots rent the RG. Most renters are student pilots,
> or pilots just out having fun and aren't interested in an older model.
> (No auto-pilot or panel GPS???). As a result, it is more likely to be
> available when I want to fly.
>
>>
>> If you are working on your commercial the complex will just come with
>> it. The sign of for complex is really about being able to handle more
>> systems at once.
>>
>> -Robert, CFII
>

[[email protected]]

john > wrote:
> I already have a high-performance sign-off with several hours in a
> C182 and a couple in a Bonanza. I have found a couple of places which
> rent a C172RG for a reasonable price. My goal is to be get my
> commercial and I'm starting to work on my IFR. With that in mind, I'm
> looking at taking at least part of the IFR training in the 172RG.

> How many hours does it normally take to get a sign-off and what
> training will involved in getting it? To ask it a different way, what
> differences will I need to learn other than the the max gear down
> speed and remembering to lower the gear? I know the high performance
> retracts means flying a more slipperly airplane which means the need
> to plan altitude and speed for the landing a lot further in advance
> than a fixed gear.. (at least that was the case with the Bonanza).

Depends.

The local FBO requires 5 hours dual for a complex sign-off and
permission to fly their airplanes solo.

Part of that is their insurance requirement.

Basically, it is operate the engine controls properly along with gear
normal and emergency operations along with a bunch of landings and
takeoffs to see if you do it all correctly.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Stan Prevost wrote:
> I've never flown a 172RG. Does it have a variable pitch prop?


It's a mini C-210... in everything but carrying capacity. Retractable gear,
constant speed prop, cowl flaps, rudder trim. I always thought they were nice
flying and they're quicker than a normal C-172. Given the OP's choices between
the older RG and the newer SP, I'd pick the RG every time... unless one's a dog
and the other one isn't. But a RG in good condition is good flying.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[BT]

if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already have a complex
endorsement.
yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex aircraft.. but the
endorsement does not come with the check ride
B

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 22, 7:19 pm, john > wrote:
> I already have a high-performance sign-off with several hours in a
> C182 and a couple in a Bonanza. I have found a couple of places which
> rent a C172RG for a reasonable price. My goal is to be get my
> commercial and I'm starting to work on my IFR. With that in mind, I'm
> looking at taking at least part of the IFR training in the 172RG.

If you are working on your commercial the complex will just come with
it. The sign of for complex is really about being able to handle more
systems at once.

-Robert, CFII

[john]

The Bonanza was with an instructor, and in order to rent it solo, the
insurance requires 500 hrs total, IFR cert, and 50 hrs in type. It
will be awhile before I fly it solo. I would have to check, but I
think the insurance requirements on his C337s are less strict.

On Feb 23, 11:07*am, "BT" > wrote:
> if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already have a complex
> endorsement.
> yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex aircraft.. but the
> endorsement does not come with the check ride
> B
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
> On Feb 22, 7:19 pm, john > wrote:
>
> > I already have a high-performance sign-off with several hours in a
> > C182 and a couple in a Bonanza. I have found a couple of places which
> > rent a C172RG for a reasonable price. My goal is to be get my
> > commercial and I'm starting to work on my IFR. With that in mind, I'm
> > looking at taking at least part of the IFR training in the 172RG.
>
> If you are working on your commercial the complex will just come with
> it. The sign of for complex is really about being able to handle more
> systems at once.
>
> -Robert, CFII

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
:

> Stan Prevost wrote:
>> I've never flown a 172RG. Does it have a variable pitch prop?
>
>
> It's a mini C-210... in everything but carrying capacity. Retractable
> gear, constant speed prop, cowl flaps, rudder trim. I always thought
> they were nice flying and they're quicker than a normal C-172. Given
> the OP's choices between the older RG and the newer SP, I'd pick the
> RG every time... unless one's a dog and the other one isn't. But a RG
> in good condition is good flying.
>
>
>

?? Really? I flew a few of them brand new from the factory and wondered why
they bothered.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"BT" > wrote in :

> if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already have a
> complex endorsement.
> yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex aircraft.. but
> the endorsement does not come with the check ride


IIRC the horsepower requirement for the commercial is 180 while the
watershed for high performance horsepower is 200. A pilot needs to be
signed off for each aspect of the high performance reg. We used to have to
sign guys off for Stearmans, for example, but only for the HP restriction.


Bertie
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 12:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "BT" > wrote :
>
> > if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already have a
> > complex endorsement.
> > yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex aircraft.. but
> > the endorsement does not come with the check ride
>
> IIRC the horsepower requirement for the commercial is 180 while the
> watershed for high performance horsepower is 200. A pilot needs to be
> signed off for each aspect of the high performance reg. We used to have to
> sign guys off for Stearmans, for example, but only for the HP restriction.
>
> Bertie
>
>

There's no specific horsepower requirement for the Commercial -- only
10 hours dual in a complex (retractable, flaps, and constant speed
prop) airplane. The PTS requires a complex for a portion of the test
as well.

The "High Performance" endorsement is not required for the Commercial.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 23, 12:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "BT" > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already have a
>> > complex endorsement.
>> > yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex aircraft..
>> > but the endorsement does not come with the check ride
>>
>> IIRC the horsepower requirement for the commercial is 180 while the
>> watershed for high performance horsepower is 200. A pilot needs to be
>> signed off for each aspect of the high performance reg. We used to
>> have to sign guys off for Stearmans, for example, but only for the HP
>> restriction.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> There's no specific horsepower requirement for the Commercial -- only
> 10 hours dual in a complex (retractable, flaps, and constant speed
> prop) airplane. The PTS requires a complex for a portion of the test
> as well.
>
> The "High Performance" endorsement is not required for the Commercial.
>


Yeah, that's it. What I was thinking is you coul ddo your commercial in
something like a 180 Arrow and still not be qualified to fly a 182


Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 2:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 12:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "BT" > wrote
> >> :
>
> >> > if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already have a
> >> > complex endorsement.
> >> > yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex aircraft..
> >> > but the endorsement does not come with the check ride
>
> >> IIRC the horsepower requirement for the commercial is 180 while the
> >> watershed for high performance horsepower is 200. A pilot needs to be
> >> signed off for each aspect of the high performance reg. We used to
> >> have to sign guys off for Stearmans, for example, but only for the HP
> >> restriction.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > There's no specific horsepower requirement for the Commercial -- only
> > 10 hours dual in a complex (retractable, flaps, and constant speed
> > prop) airplane. The PTS requires a complex for a portion of the test
> > as well.
>
> > The "High Performance" endorsement is not required for the Commercial.
>
> Yeah, that's it. What I was thinking is you coul ddo your commercial in
> something like a 180 Arrow and still not be qualified to fly a 182
>
> Bertie
>
>

Right -- or a 180 a side twin and still not require a "high
performance" endorsement.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 23, 2:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote
>> innews:26f508f5-46db-4e10-8e69-

>> m:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 23, 12:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> "BT" > wrote
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already
>> >> > have a complex endorsement.
>> >> > yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex
>> >> > aircraft.. but the endorsement does not come with the check ride
>>
>> >> IIRC the horsepower requirement for the commercial is 180 while
>> >> the watershed for high performance horsepower is 200. A pilot
>> >> needs to be signed off for each aspect of the high performance
>> >> reg. We used to have to sign guys off for Stearmans, for example,
>> >> but only for the HP restriction.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > There's no specific horsepower requirement for the Commercial --
>> > only 10 hours dual in a complex (retractable, flaps, and constant
>> > speed prop) airplane. The PTS requires a complex for a portion of
>> > the test as well.
>>
>> > The "High Performance" endorsement is not required for the
>> > Commercial.
>>
>> Yeah, that's it. What I was thinking is you coul ddo your commercial
>> in something like a 180 Arrow and still not be qualified to fly a 182
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> Right -- or a 180 a side twin and still not require a "high
> performance" endorsement.
>

OK, that's a twist I never heard before.

Bertie

[BT]

Bertie.. the HP endorsement is required for HP "greater than" 200.. so the
200HP Arrow is only complex, not high performance.
and yes.. the entire Commercial check ride can be completed in the Arrow.. I
could never figure out why people would to 90% of the check ride in a
C-172.. and then jump into an Arrow for a couple of traffic patterns to
complete that requirement.. just do it all in an Arrow.

BT

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "BT" > wrote in :
>
>> if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already have a
>> complex endorsement.
>> yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex aircraft.. but
>> the endorsement does not come with the check ride
>
>
> IIRC the horsepower requirement for the commercial is 180 while the
> watershed for high performance horsepower is 200. A pilot needs to be
> signed off for each aspect of the high performance reg. We used to have to
> sign guys off for Stearmans, for example, but only for the HP restriction.
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>>
>

[BT]

>
> ?? Really? I flew a few of them brand new from the factory and wondered
> why
> they bothered.
>
> Bertie

The C172RG was Cessna's answer to flight school needs to full fill the
commercial complex requirement, controllable prop, flaps and retract.. I
would consider the 172RG a "baby Skylane" and not a mini C210.

BT

[David Kazdan]

Even more odd--it's for aircraft with at least one engine greater than
200. Any planes out there with differing engines, even in-line twins?

David

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

David Kazdan > wrote:
> Even more odd--it's for aircraft with at least one engine greater than
> 200. Any planes out there with differing engines, even in-line twins?

Rutan's Boomerang?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Boomerang

Its not much differnace, though. 200 and 210 hp.

As an extreme example there is always something like the B-36 - 6 turning and
4 burning.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

BT wrote:
> Bertie.. the HP endorsement is required for HP "greater than" 200.. so the
> 200HP Arrow is only complex, not high performance.
> and yes.. the entire Commercial check ride can be completed in the Arrow.. I
> could never figure out why people would to 90% of the check ride in a
> C-172.. and then jump into an Arrow for a couple of traffic patterns to
> complete that requirement.. just do it all in an Arrow.


I did the required complex hours in training but the rest of the commercial in a
C-172. Then when I did the ride itself, I did exactly what you suggested... all
in the Arrow. I couldn't see any point in switching... I'd have to bone up on
the numbers for two aircraft; not one... and for what? To save $3-4?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

BT wrote:
>> ?? Really? I flew a few of them brand new from the factory and wondered
>> why
>> they bothered.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The C172RG was Cessna's answer to flight school needs to full fill the
> commercial complex requirement, controllable prop, flaps and retract.. I
> would consider the 172RG a "baby Skylane" and not a mini C210.


The C-210 is a stretched C-182; just as the PA-32 came directly from the PA-28.
Anybody comfortable in one will know his way around the other.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"BT" > wrote in
:

> Bertie.. the HP endorsement is required for HP "greater than" 200.. so
> the 200HP Arrow is only complex, not high performance.

Yeah, I vaguely remember.

> and yes.. the entire Commercial check ride can be completed in the
> Arrow.. I could never figure out why people would to 90% of the check
> ride in a C-172.. and then jump into an Arrow for a couple of traffic
> patterns to complete that requirement.. just do it all in an Arrow.

Money, I guess. I did it in two airplanes, but it was because the Arrow ( a
180 HP one) broke during my ride and there wasn't a second arrow to fly. (
cowl flap linkage broke) I did the rest in a 172, ...I think!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

David Kazdan > wrote in news:fi5wj.3437$tW.372
@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:

> Even more odd--it's for aircraft with at least one engine greater than
> 200. Any planes out there with differing engines, even in-line twins?

There have been, Mostly trimotors. There was an Aeronca Sedan with a second
engine added for cruise. I think only two were made. It had a C-145 and a
C-90, I think. It has to be fun to show up with something for a check ride
that fits the letter of the law, yet does some serious eyebrow raising on
the part of the examiner.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"BT" > wrote in news:PE4wj.18961$497.6256
@newsfe14.phx:

>
>>
>> ?? Really? I flew a few of them brand new from the factory and wondered
>> why
>> they bothered.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The C172RG was Cessna's answer to flight school needs to full fill the
> commercial complex requirement, controllable prop, flaps and retract.. I
> would consider the 172RG a "baby Skylane" and not a mini C210.


The few I flew wee just useless. The performance was desperate, the gear
was complicated. Half the baggage area was taken up with wheel well and all
for a handful of knots...


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 24, 1:50 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:

>
> Strange.
> I got my HP/complex endorsement in an Arrow 200 hp.
> Does that mean I've been flying illegally all these years?

No.. the division and required endorsement only applied to those being
checked out after 1997.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:3821e921-2105-4e88-
:

> On Feb 24, 1:50 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>
>>
>> Strange.
>> I got my HP/complex endorsement in an Arrow 200 hp.
>> Does that mean I've been flying illegally all these years?
>
> No.. the division and required endorsement only applied to those being
> checked out after 1997.


Well, my understanding of it ( a long time before 1997 ) was that you
needed to be signed off or each of the complex items. So, you could be
signed off for retracts in a Culver Cadet, for a controllable prop in a T-
cart with a Beech Roby, and a Stearman for the over 200 hp thing, just for
instance..


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 24, 7:17 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote in news:3821e921-2105-4e88-
> :
>
> > On Feb 24, 1:50 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>
> >> Strange.
> >> I got my HP/complex endorsement in an Arrow 200 hp.
> >> Does that mean I've been flying illegally all these years?
>
> > No.. the division and required endorsement only applied to those being
> > checked out after 1997.
>
> Well, my understanding of it ( a long time before 1997 ) was that you
> needed to be signed off or each of the complex items. So, you could be
> signed off for retracts in a Culver Cadet, for a controllable prop in a T-
> cart with a Beech Roby, and a Stearman for the over 200 hp thing, just for
> instance..
>
> Bertie

OK...

In 1997, the FAA changed part 61's definition of "high performance"
and added a separate endorsement for "complex" aircraft.

If one had an endorsement for a High performance a/c prior to that
time, a separate "complex" endorsement was/is not necessary.

A discussion that came up the other day was a "right seat"
endorsement.

Was that one ever in the FARs?

Dan

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
David Kazdan > wrote:

> Even more odd--it's for aircraft with at least one engine greater than
> 200. Any planes out there with differing engines, even in-line twins?
>
> David

Didn't the air force have a bomber with both jet and prop engines in the
50's? I can't remember the designation.

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith > wrote:
> In article >,
> David Kazdan > wrote:

> > Even more odd--it's for aircraft with at least one engine greater than
> > 200. Any planes out there with differing engines, even in-line twins?
> >
> > David

> Didn't the air force have a bomber with both jet and prop engines in the
> 50's? I can't remember the designation.

B-36

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Roy Smith > wrote in news:roy-B93787.11113224022008@70-1-84-
166.area1.spcsdns.net:

> In article >,
> David Kazdan > wrote:
>
>> Even more odd--it's for aircraft with at least one engine greater than
>> 200. Any planes out there with differing engines, even in-line twins?
>>
>> David
>
> Didn't the air force have a bomber with both jet and prop engines in the
> 50's? I can't remember the designation.
>

There was the B36 as well as the P2 Neptune and some miscellaneous
experimental things likt the Ryan Fireball.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Bertie the Bunyip >
>
>>The few I flew wee just useless. The performance was desperate, the
>>gear was complicated. Half the baggage area was taken up with wheel
>>well and all for a handful of knots...
>
> The one thing I REALLY like about any RG (trike) is the increase in
> yaw stability when you tuck that nose wheel up and out of the breeze.
>
> The few extra knots aren't all that important. At least to me.
> But I do like the more stable flight.
>

Hmmm, never noticed! There're better ways to get yaw stability than that,
though!


Bertie

[Ron Natalie]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> " > wrote in news:3821e921-2105-4e88-
> :
>
>> On Feb 24, 1:50 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>>
>>> Strange.
>>> I got my HP/complex endorsement in an Arrow 200 hp.
>>> Does that mean I've been flying illegally all these years?
>> No.. the division and required endorsement only applied to those being
>> checked out after 1997.
>
>
> Well, my understanding of it ( a long time before 1997 ) was that you
> needed to be signed off or each of the complex items. So, you could be
> signed off for retracts in a Culver Cadet, for a controllable prop in a T-
> cart with a Beech Roby, and a Stearman for the over 200 hp thing, just for
> instance..
>
>
Negatory good buddy. Before aug 97, the FAA clarified, one endorsement
covered everything. It was quite possible to do your complex
endorsement in an Arrow and then go out and fly a 182.

Note that there is a "gotcha" in the grandfathering clause however. If
all you ever flew were Arrows before 97, you are NOT grandfathered into
HP aircraft.

There is not now nor was there ever a requirement for separate
endorsement for each "complex" component. If an airplane doesn't
have ALL THREE: retractible gear, controllable prop, flaps, then
it isn't complex. It neither requires an endorsement nor is training
in one sufficient to get the endorsemenet.

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:

>> Didn't the air force have a bomber with both jet and prop engines in the
>> 50's? I can't remember the designation.
>
> B-36
>
There were some others as well. There's some sort of goofy Fairchild
military transport that has props and ONE jet engine as well.

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Ron Natalie > wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>> Didn't the air force have a bomber with both jet and prop engines in the
>>> 50's? I can't remember the designation.
>>
>> B-36
>>
> There were some others as well. There's some sort of goofy Fairchild
> military transport that has props and ONE jet engine as well.

And for something more vaguely GA, there is the Rutan Boomerang. Maybe
it doesn't count quite so much as the differance between the engines is
only something like 10 HP.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Ron Natalie > wrote in
m:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> " > wrote in
>> news:3821e921-2105-4e88-
>> :
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 1:50 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Strange.
>>>> I got my HP/complex endorsement in an Arrow 200 hp.
>>>> Does that mean I've been flying illegally all these years?
>>> No.. the division and required endorsement only applied to those
>>> being checked out after 1997.
>>
>>
>> Well, my understanding of it ( a long time before 1997 ) was that you
>> needed to be signed off or each of the complex items. So, you could
>> be signed off for retracts in a Culver Cadet, for a controllable prop
>> in a T- cart with a Beech Roby, and a Stearman for the over 200 hp
>> thing, just for instance..
>>
>>
> Negatory good buddy. Before aug 97, the FAA clarified, one
> endorsement covered everything. It was quite possible to do your
> complex endorsement in an Arrow and then go out and fly a 182.
>
> Note that there is a "gotcha" in the grandfathering clause however.
> If all you ever flew were Arrows before 97, you are NOT grandfathered
> into HP aircraft.
>
> There is not now nor was there ever a requirement for separate
> endorsement for each "complex" component. If an airplane doesn't
> have ALL THREE: retractible gear, controllable prop, flaps, then
> it isn't complex. It neither requires an endorsement nor is training
> in one sufficient to get the endorsemenet.


OK, that all sounds vaguely familiar. The each airplane scenario was one
we came up with in the hangar. I don't know anyone who ever did it. We
did have to endorse guys to fly the Stearman, though.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Frank Stutzman > wrote in
:

> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Didn't the air force have a bomber with both jet and prop engines
>>>> in the 50's? I can't remember the designation.
>>>
>>> B-36
>>>
>> There were some others as well. There's some sort of goofy
>> Fairchild military transport that has props and ONE jet engine as
>> well.
>
> And for something more vaguely GA, there is the Rutan Boomerang.
> Maybe it doesn't count quite so much as the differance between the
> engines is only something like 10 HP.
>

And I think he only did that because he had those two engines lying
around...


Bertie

[Mark T. Dame]

john wrote:
>
> How many hours does it normally take to get a sign-off and what
> training will involved in getting it?

The complex sign-off (assuming that it's not also high performance)
could be done in an hour or two of flight and an hour of ground work
going over systems and dealing with W&B issues involved in the gear
retraction (your CG changes when you raise your gear).

In flight you will need to learn and demonstrate proper procedures for
raising the gear on take off for normal, short field, and soft field
take offs, proper gear lowing for landing, and emergency gear extension.
You will also need to demonstrate stalls with gear raised and lowered
(with various combinations of flaps).

That being said, most FBOs have requirements of more than an hour or
two. Five hours is typical, but it could be more (especially if you are
a low time pilot).

As someone else mentioned, for the commercial training you will do
everything you need to do for the sign off, so you will get the sign off
during your training. Regardless, it's probably easier than the high
performance sign off.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of
people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
-- The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Douglas Adams

[gatt[_2_]]

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...

> That being said, most FBOs have requirements of more than an hour or two.
> Five hours is typical, but it could be more (especially if you are a low
> time pilot).

Ours was something like 10. I simply rolled it into the Commercial training
and accomplished both simultaneously.

-c

[buttman]

On Feb 23, 12:16*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote :
>
> > On Feb 23, 2:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> " > wrote
> >> innews:26f508f5-46db-4e10-8e69-
>
>
>
>
>
> >> m:
>
> >> > On Feb 23, 12:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> "BT" > wrote
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already
> >> >> > have a complex endorsement.
> >> >> > yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex
> >> >> > aircraft.. but the endorsement does not come with the check ride
>
> >> >> IIRC the horsepower requirement for the commercial is 180 while
> >> >> the watershed for high performance horsepower is 200. A pilot
> >> >> needs to be signed off for each aspect of the high performance
> >> >> reg. We used to have to sign guys off for Stearmans, for example,
> >> >> but only for the HP restriction.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > There's no specific horsepower requirement for the Commercial --
> >> > only 10 hours dual in a complex (retractable, flaps, and constant
> >> > speed prop) airplane. The PTS requires a complex for a portion of
> >> > the test as well.
>
> >> > The "High Performance" endorsement is not required for the
> >> > Commercial.
>
> >> Yeah, that's it. What I was thinking is you coul ddo your commercial
> >> in something like a 180 Arrow and still not be qualified to fly a 182
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Right -- or a 180 a side twin and still not require a "high
> > performance" endorsement.
>
> OK, that's a twist I never heard before.
>
> Bertie

heheheehejehehehejh

idjiot.

[buttman]

On Feb 23, 10:18*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "BT" > wrote :
>
> > if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already have a
> > complex endorsement.
> > yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex aircraft.. but
> > the endorsement does not come with the check ride
>
> IIRC the horsepower requirement for the commercial is 180 while the
> watershed for high performance horsepower is 200. A pilot needs to be
> signed off for each aspect of the high performance reg. We used to have to
> sign guys off for Stearmans, for example, but only for the HP restriction.
>
> Bertie
>
>

Nope.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:18:21 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"BT" > wrote in :
>
>> if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already have a
>> complex endorsement.
>> yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex aircraft.. but
>> the endorsement does not come with the check ride
>
>
>IIRC the horsepower requirement for the commercial is 180 while the
>watershed for high performance horsepower is 200. A pilot needs to be

That used to be "Greater than 200" which eliminated the Arrow from
high performance. Did they change that?

Roger

>signed off for each aspect of the high performance reg. We used to have to
>sign guys off for Stearmans, for example, but only for the HP restriction.
>
>
>Bertie
>>
>>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Feb 23, 12:16*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote
>> innews:7b2c4e2c-6d9b-4bfd-bb
> :
>>
>> > On Feb 23, 2:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> " > wrote
>> >> innews:26f508f5-46db-4e10-8e69-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> m:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 23, 12:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> "BT" > wrote
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> > if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already
>> >> >> > have a complex endorsement.
>> >> >> > yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex
>> >> >> > aircraft.. but the endorsement does not come with the check
>> >> >> > ride
>>
>> >> >> IIRC the horsepower requirement for the commercial is 180 while
>> >> >> the watershed for high performance horsepower is 200. A pilot
>> >> >> needs to be signed off for each aspect of the high performance
>> >> >> reg. We used to have to sign guys off for Stearmans, for
>> >> >> example, but only for the HP restriction.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > There's no specific horsepower requirement for the Commercial --
>> >> > only 10 hours dual in a complex (retractable, flaps, and
>> >> > constant speed prop) airplane. The PTS requires a complex for a
>> >> > portion of the test as well.
>>
>> >> > The "High Performance" endorsement is not required for the
>> >> > Commercial.
>>
>> >> Yeah, that's it. What I was thinking is you coul ddo your
>> >> commercial in something like a 180 Arrow and still not be
>> >> qualified to fly a 182
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Right -- or a 180 a side twin and still not require a "high
>> > performance" endorsement.
>>
>> OK, that's a twist I never heard before.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> heheheehejehehehejh
>
> idjiot.
>

Good lord. You really think you're making headway here, don't you?

And I though Kennie as thick.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Feb 23, 10:18*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "BT" > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already have a
>> > complex endorsement.
>> > yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex aircraft..
>> > but the endorsement does not come with the check ride
>>
>> IIRC the horsepower requirement for the commercial is 180 while the
>> watershed for high performance horsepower is 200. A pilot needs to be
>> signed off for each aspect of the high performance reg. We used to
>> have to
>
>> sign guys off for Stearmans, for example, but only for the HP
>> restriction.
>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> Nope.
>

Yep.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Roger > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:18:21 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"BT" > wrote in
:
>>
>>> if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already have a
>>> complex endorsement.
>>> yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex aircraft..
>>> but the endorsement does not come with the check ride
>>
>>
>>IIRC the horsepower requirement for the commercial is 180 while the
>>watershed for high performance horsepower is 200. A pilot needs to be
>
> That used to be "Greater than 200" which eliminated the Arrow from
> high performance. Did they change that?

I have no idea. I haven't done any kind of instruction where that came into
play for years. The only thing I've taught in lately fits fairly nicely
into the complex and in excess of 200 HP niche. Having said that, I will be
doing it again soon so I better get anew copy of 61 and 91!


Bertie
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 23, 8:07*am, "BT" > wrote:
> if he's flying solo in the Bonanza... then he should already have a complex
> endorsement.
> yes, part of the Commercial PTS does require a complex aircraft.. but the
> endorsement does not come with the check ride

Oh come on don't be foolish. When I sign someone off for the
commerical checkride I sign the complex endorsement; yes it "comes
with it"; I don't do any additional dual. I'm not sure if you were
trying to make a point or just be silly.

-Robert, CFII