Earning your high performance..

J

Jassco77

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Feb 12, 2020
Messages
4
Display Name
Display name:
Jassco77
Greetings pilots,

I am close to retiring and my plan is to learn to fly and own a plane to travel.

My question is this, is it possible or even smart, to obtain my high performance endorsement as I am earning my PPL? My plan/desire is to buy a Cherokee 6/300 or maybe a Piper Dakota and learn to fly in that.

I will be purchasing the plane outright, no financing involved, but would my insurance rates be astronomical due to low time in a high performance aircraft? Would it be more financially prudent to learn in a rented Cherokee 180, then obtain my HP at a later time?
 
I did my PPL in a 182. So I had my HP before my first solo. It's no big deal. And a Dakota/Pathfinder is a great plane and at your age could very well be your first plane is your perfect long term plane. My only advice is find an instructor who values your plane above and beyond a beater rental. I suspect the majority of the answers you get will be to rent first and beat that one up. Also good advice but if you are sure this is for you and can afford it I say research more and go for it. Keep in mind the training will not be all that much cheaper though so dont do it just for that reason. Do it because you want to learn in the plane you'll be flying a lot.
 
It’s a ho hum endorsement, don’t worry about it till you need it.
 
It's a joke. Learn how a CS prop and cowl flaps work then go fly with a CFI for an hour.
 
Doesn't matter. Both ways work.

I have a friend who, like @Sinistar, earned his private in a 182. In his case, he found busy flight school maintenance downtime was causing problems with his training schedule. So he figured that since he was planning to buy a 182, why not do it now? It probably shortened his overall training time rather than lengthened it.

OTOH, the transition from Cherokee to Cherokee 6 or Cherokee 235/236 is a relatively short one.

On the insurance, the only way to know is to ask a broker. You may find that once you factor in the dual requirement before solo, there isn't that much savings from waiting.
 
Thanks for the good and quick replies.

@Sinistar the reason i plan on going this route is as you stated, to learn in what I am going to be flying for quite a while. I may, eventually, move to a complex like a lance or Saratoga. But for the foreseeable future will be in the Cherokee 6 or 235/236. My instructor is going to be my niece, so she will value my plane not just as a beater. Making sure this is for me is no problem. I’ve grown up around aviation my entire life (grandfather was a pilot, uncle is a pilot, stepdad was a pilot, dad had his ppl but didn’t fly much). Grew up in my grandpas Skyhawk and home built Starduster, just never took actual lessons that counted for anything.
 
Add another who learned in a HP: friend had an uncle who bought a 182 to fly off his farm. Farm was short so the uncle scared himself and gave the 182 to my friend for primary training..
 
The only reason not to is the cost, but if you're buying the plane for cash... I'd say you have no worries. The archer I trained in burns 9 gph, the Dakota 12-13, and I understand a six is more like 15, so at $5/gal, you're looking at $10-25 more per hour, which sadly isn't much in aviation. I suppose you should consider that the engine reserve and mx will be higher as well. It would probably still cost you more to rent though.

Welcome to POA.... hope to see pictures of your new bird and hear about your progress!
 
Lots of ways that can work, plenty of pilots get their PPL in 182's or Cherokee 235s. In that case, you'd need the HP endorsement before you could solo, but that would simply be part of the primary training you'd have in that airplane.
But, I believe you'll find insurance rates take a giant leap when going from 4 seats to 6, making a 235/Dakota more feasible than a Cherokee 6 until more hours are logged, as mentioned, ask your insurance agent.
 
timwinters said:
He said high performance, not complex.
Click to expand...

So? The comment you quoted said nothing about retractable gear. Just a constant speed prop and cowl flaps. Many (most?) HP aircraft have a constant speed prop. Many have cowl flaps too. The airplanes the OP is considering have constant speed props. A 182 has both.

BTW, I disagree with his "it's a joke" comment. I've done a number of pilot transitions and, while it is certainly not difficult, I have not found any early transition to be a joke.
 
A couple years ago it was winter time and the grass strip based taildragger I was flying was sitting in the hanger for several months so I went up to the local flight school with a friend who was a flight instructor and flew a few flights just to get some flying time in. I flew a few hours in the Piper Arrow to get the complex (this was more fun) and then flew the 182 for an hour to get the HP (not a whole lot to this). Oh, and had him sign me off for a flight review while we was at it. Since then I flew another friends arrow one time which is the only time I have used either.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
So? The comment you quoted said nothing about retractable gear. Just a constant speed prop and cowl flaps.
Click to expand...
So? It's my understanding that you need a complex endorsement if you have two of the three: CS prop, flaps, retracts. If that's correct, @ktup-flyer was quoting what was required for a complex...and that has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's question which was about a HP.

my 182, for example, does not require a complex endorsement because the 1958 model was the last year without cowl flaps. I only needed a HP when I bought it.

...But yes, I understand that HP & complex tend to be synonymous. A complex isn't, however, what the OP asked about, regardless of how synonymous they are.
 
Complex is Flaps, CS prop and Gear for Land airplanes.
Seaplanes they removed the gear requirement.

HP is just an engine rated over 200HP.

I don't believe cowl flaps are in any of the definitions any longer.

Lance (300HP) is HP and Complex.
Cessna 182 is HP only.
(200hp) Arrow is Complex only.
Seneca1 (200HP engines) is Complex only.
A jet is not "Complex."
 
Looks like cowl flaps are still in there and, yeah, it looks like all three are required for complex. That still doesn't change the fact that a CS prop and flaps have nothing to do with HP though.


From: Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3B) Chapter 11

A complex airplane is an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller. In lieu of a controllable pitch propeller, the aircraft could also have an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and the propeller.
 
Where do you see cowl flaps in that statement? It says Flaps.
 
timwinters said:
So? It's my understanding that you need a complex endorsement if you have two of the three:
Click to expand...
I see you got your "understanding" fixed, so you also understand my original "so?"
Complex: "retractable landing [or floats] gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller [or FADEC-type system].
High Performance: "an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower"
While not required, by far most high performance airplane have a controllable pitch propeller and cowl flaps are meaningless to either definition.
ktup-flyer said:
There is no fixed gear complex airplane. The vast majority of HP aircraft have cowl flaps and a CS prop, including the two he listed.
Click to expand...
Unless there is a variation I haven't come across, neither of the two he listed - the Dakota and the Six - have cowl flaps. The only mention of cowl flaps in either is:
The two-piece cowling cools the engine in normal flight conditions, including protracted climb, without the use of cowl flaps or cooling flanges (emphasis added)​
 
Always wondered why they didn't make the Arrow just a hair over 200HP.
 
DFH65 said:
Always wondered why they didn't make the Arrow just a hair over 200HP.
Click to expand...
No verification but I heard the story was that it was done intentionally. Dunno how true that is since, before 1997, there was no complex endorsement; only a HP endorsement. HP was defined as an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower or one with retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller. It was split into two separate endorsements in the 1997 Part 61 revision.

BTW, the Arrow is not the only 200 HP airplane. Mooney has a couple of 200 HP models. The Beech Sierra was 200 HP. Rockwell Commander too.
 
I'd suggest renting for your ppl. After you get it, try a few different planes. You'll be in a much better position to pick the one that makes sense for your mission but also one that you like to fly.
 
You guys will argue about anything. :D

A CFI endorsing someone for high performance aircraft is endorsing them once for anything high performance they can find and fly, forever. Even if the flight time is in some barely-adequate 201hp piper cub wannabe, we'd still go over the use of cowl flaps and CS props, as it's my signature in the book. Once done, they're free to roam the country looking for bigger and better planes to crash and entangle me with the FSDO's back office. :D

That's how I interpret the spirit of the endorsement, even if there is no letter to follow.

$0.02
 
I recently upgraded from a C172 to a Cherokee 6XT. It has fixed gear so, with 300 hp and CS, it required a high performance endorsement. My CFI had a well planned course for me that included these topics: review hypoxia and oxygen system use (I fly higher now and use oxygen), review icing, discuss 50% faster speed and the effects of reduced time for decision making, review top of descent at higher speed to avoid arriving too high, familiarization of glass panel (steam gauges in my C172 so this was a big change), learn about turbochargers and manifold pressure limits, learn about constant speed prop, and review PoH recommended settings for RPM/MP. We then flew to put each of these into practice. We verified RPM/MP settings with speed and fuel flow. He also had me practice some basic maneuvers such as slow flight and stalls. He also had me do one night flight and one high altitude flight. By the time we finished, I felt very comfortable with my new plane. I realize that some of you are faster learners and natural born flyers, but this training was totally worthwhile for me.
 
Shouldn't be any problem getting a PPL in either of those airplanes, and there's something to be said about doing your training in the airplane you plan on flying. My only suggestion would be it might be better to rent until after you solo. Learning to land can be hard on airplanes.
 
Thank you for all the informative, and argumentative, replies. I have gleaned some good information, and am also now thoroughly confused. Would the Dakota or Cherokee 6 also require a complex endorsement? I thought they would not as they do not have all 3 criteria for complex?
 
Jassco77 said:
Thank you for all the informative, and argumentative, replies. I have gleaned some good information, and am also now thoroughly confused. Would the Dakota or Cherokee 6 also require a complex endorsement? I thought they would not as they do not have all 3 criteria for complex?
Click to expand...
No, they are not complex, as they don’t have retractable landing gear.
 
One of the big drivers in higher insurance costs is retractable gear, thanks to all the knuckleheads who ignore gear warning horns. Getting a fixed gear, HP plane for instruction and early PPL time will likely not make a blip on the insurance scale - unless you have a very high hull value or want a lot of protection (like the $2m smooth we have). Lots of folks get their PPL in a 182, especially the older ones that are relatively cheap. The hardest thing to do is getting them to actually do a power on stall.

DFH65 said:
Always wondered why they didn't make the Arrow just a hair over 200HP.
Click to expand...

Remember, the first Arrows were 180 HP parallel valve IO360s. The main reason was almost certainly to keep operating costs low for the flight schools. 10 GPH was more important than students being able to go fast.

smv said:
Many twins do not qualify as High Performance either...
Click to expand...

AFAIK, all twins are "High Performance," even if their individual engines are 200 HP or less.
 
N1120A said:
AFAIK, all twins are "High Performance," even if their individual engines are 200 HP or less.
Click to expand...

Not unless they have at least one engine producing more than 200 hp... Neither the DA42 (135 hp engines), the Piper Seminole (180 hp engines), nor many Piper Senecas (180 and 200 hp engines) are classified as High Performance. Complex? Yes. HP? No.
 
N1120A said:
One of the big drivers in higher insurance costs is retractable gear, thanks to all the knuckleheads who... DON’T PUT THE GEAR DOWN.
Click to expand...

FTFY. :)

If the horn is going off, you already done effed up.
 
I bought my 182 with a 275 hp and other mods and got my ppl in it.

It turned out to be a very good decision, as I practiced in the plane that I actually fly today. It did increase the time I needed to be comfortable though, as there's more to manage with more horsepower, and things happen much faster. For instance the sheer strength needed to do an emergency go around is a big deal compared to a 172.
 
Last edited:
N1120A said:
Good point, though when SoCal leaves you high, you may end up pulling the MP back enough to get a gear horn anyway ;-)
Click to expand...

I had an instructor who never allowed a student not to verbally acknowledge a warning horn including gear horns.

He said we go out and do maneuvers and teach people TO ignore them.

To fight that, we were required to acknowledge in those maneuvers when the horn blew, what it was and that we were “continuing”.

I’ve done it ever since. Saying out loud it’s going off can shake you from your own stupidity if you let it get that far.
 
denverpilot said:
I had an instructor who never allowed a student not to verbally acknowledge a warning horn including gear horns.

He said we go out and do maneuvers and teach people TO ignore them.

To fight that, we were required to acknowledge in those maneuvers when the horn blew, what it was and that we were “continuing”.

I’ve done it ever since. Saying out loud it’s going off can shake you from your own stupidity if you let it get that far.
Click to expand...

I my CFII had me configure gear down 3 miles to FAF and first flaps 2 miles to FAF. No changes till you see the runway. I use that logic on all gear down situations - when I'm about 6-9 track miles to landing, I'm gear down unless otherwise needed. Treat every approach like an instrument, even if it is a VFR pattern entry. Configure and stabilize, with gear being your first configuration change (unless you fly a plane with a faster flap speed than gear, then you can alter).

As for the verbalizing thing, that is a great idea and I do that despite not having had it in my specific training.
 
N1120A said:
I my CFII had me configure gear down 3 miles to FAF and first flaps 2 miles to FAF. No changes till you see the runway. I use that logic on all gear down situations - when I'm about 6-9 track miles to landing, I'm gear down unless otherwise needed. Treat every approach like an instrument, even if it is a VFR pattern entry. Configure and stabilize, with gear being your first configuration change (unless you fly a plane with a faster flap speed than gear, then you can alter).

As for the verbalizing thing, that is a great idea and I do that despite not having had it in my specific training.
Click to expand...

Heh. That works until some controller switches runways on you and puts you right at the FAF reconfiguring all the avionics. LOL.

Especially easy to have happen practicing approaches VFR. Ask me how I know... lol.

Super embarrassing. Instructor says “Does the airplane seem to not want to slow down as much as usual?”

I learned that day that when the plan gets interrupted there’s still queues telling you something is wrong with the airplane configuration... :)

I should include that particular airframe had no warning horn. But boy was the power low and the speed still high even with the flaps out... :) :) :)

Never forgot that one. One of those perfect storm things where the controller unwittingly created the perfect timed distraction, and the CFI got to scold and then smile.

It’s embarrassing just typing it. But watch out. Rote locations to drop gear can be a liability if the distraction comes at just the perfect time! :)
 
denverpilot said:
Heh. That works until some controller switches runways on you and puts you right at the FAF reconfiguring all the avionics. LOL.

Especially easy to have happen practicing approaches VFR. Ask me how I know... lol.

Super embarrassing. Instructor says “Does the airplane seem to not want to slow down as much as usual?”

I learned that day that when the plan gets interrupted there’s still queues telling you something is wrong with the airplane configuration... :)

I should include that particular airframe had no warning horn. But boy was the power low and the speed still high even with the flaps out... :) :) :)

Never forgot that one. One of those perfect storm things where the controller unwittingly created the perfect timed distraction, and the CFI got to scold and then smile.

It’s embarrassing just typing it. But watch out. Rote locations to drop gear can be a liability if the distraction comes at just the perfect time! :)
Click to expand...

The embarrassing one on gear for me is forgetting to bring it up on IFR training flights. Instructor says "wonder why it is a little hard to climb and why we're slow?"

Unless I've got some major en route slow down, I don't put flaps out till after I put out gear. Another reminder. I'll be WAY too fast then.
 
Two gear "rules" for me (in addition to checklists which are more universal)

1. Have an SOP which becomes a habit. Habits are difficult to break
2. Never unintentionally hear the gear warning.

I have told the story on #1 before. My visual approach SOP is pattern altitude within 3 miles of the airport, coupled with a verbal announcement. We are returning from the last flight of a 10-hr checkout in a Debonair when my instructor starts chuckling. I ask what's funny and he points to my right hand which is hovering over the gear handle and shaking. I had started descending early and we were at pattern altitude much further away, but my habit had picked up one of the two cues and sent my hand to the gear handle without me realizing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top