A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Complex / High Performance / Low Performance



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 30th 04, 04:39 AM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.




  #22  
Old July 2nd 04, 07:51 PM
Russell Kent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #23  
Old July 6th 04, 08:04 AM
R.T.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fwd: [BD4] Source of HIGH CHTs on O-320 and O-360 FOUND! Bruce A. Frank Home Built 1 July 4th 04 07:28 PM
High Performance Single Engine Choices O. Sami Saydjari Owning 82 January 6th 04 07:32 PM
More on High Performance Insurance Jay Honeck Owning 25 December 15th 03 03:24 AM
High performance homebuilt in the UK NigelPocock Home Built 0 August 18th 03 08:35 PM
FAR:Safety Pilot & High Performance/Complex? Jim General Aviation 51 August 18th 03 03:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.