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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article , 10Squared
wrote: What does the training for the HP endorsement usually consist of? Meeting the minimum insurance requirements. ;-)) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |