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