Complex / High Performance / Low Performance

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

"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.

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.

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.

"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...R.nsf/0/283B12
B7EA4B82BD86256959004B99F0?OpenDocument


Russell Kent

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)

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)

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

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

"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?