High Performance

FlyBoyAndy

FlyBoyAndy

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
212
Location
Syracuse, NY
Display Name
Display name:
FlyBoyAndy
Is an airplane with 200 horse power considered a high performance airplane or does it have to be over 200 HP to be considered a high performance airplane?

I'm having a discussion and have showed the other person that the reg states over 200 HP. So in my example I said to him that it would have to be something like 201 HP to be considered HP.

Thanks
 
Over . And no, adding a power flow exhaust doesn't count either.
 
And don't be fooled by the Piper model numbers. A PA-28R-201 Arrow is still a 200 hp airplane and thus does not qualify as "high performance". Years before FAA even established the HP endorsement and its over-200-hp definition, Piper was arbitrarily adding '1' to the PA-28 and PA-32 model numbers to denote airplanes with the new tapered wings.
 
Last edited:
Still don't understand why "high performance" as defined even exists. I have a "high performance" engine (210hp), but the only difference I can see between it and what I learned on is that it's fuel injected. Aren't there fuel injected engines under 200hp? So that's not it. I still have no idea how to run a turbocharged engine (don't need to, at present), So that's not it. Shove the throttle forward, it won't go straight up, so it's not like it's a huge increase in performance.

Don't get the high performance endorsement reason for being, basically.
 
Mistake Not... said:
Still don't understand why "high performance" as defined even exists. I have a "high performance" engine (210hp), but the only difference I can see between it and what I learned on is that it's fuel injected. Aren't there fuel injected engines under 200hp? So that's not it. I still have no idea how to run a turbocharged engine (don't need to, at present), So that's not it. Shove the throttle forward, it won't go straight up, so it's not like it's a huge increase in performance.

Don't get the high performance endorsement reason for being, basically.
Click to expand...

They had to create a definition and that's the best they could come up with the draw a line of demarcation.

I'm sure dturri will be along shortly to give us the history of it.
 
Mistake Not... said:
Still don't understand why "high performance" as defined even exists. I have a "high performance" engine (210hp), but the only difference I can see between it and what I learned on is that it's fuel injected. Aren't there fuel injected engines under 200hp? So that's not it. I still have no idea how to run a turbocharged engine (don't need to, at present), So that's not it. Shove the throttle forward, it won't go straight up, so it's not like it's a huge increase in performance.

Don't get the high performance endorsement reason for being, basically.
Click to expand...

Not that I agree with the logic, but I think the rational is more to establish that you are familiar with the systems typically present in "high performance" engines, e.g. constant speed prop, MP gauge, cowl flaps) rather than the performance differences. Yes, I know there constant speed props on engines under 200 hp and fixed pitch props over 200.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Not that I agree with the logic, but I think the rational is more to establish that you are familiar with the systems typically present in "high performance" engines,
Click to expand...

Yea, but that is what the complex endorsement is for: cowl flaps, prop, gear, etc.
 
Not that FAA asks my advice on this, but I think that an advanced endorsement based on max gross weight (pick a number, say 3,000 pounds and up) would be more significant than merely basing it on horsepower.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Complex is for Wing flaps sir.
Click to expand...


:confused:

Edit: Ok, yeah, wing flaps. Although my instructor stressed the proper operation of the cowl flaps. Most if us who trained in 172/
pa-28 etc., already know wing flaps.
 
Last edited:
A lot more p-factor with 300HP versus 160HP. You shove that throttle in on a go-around without being prepared with the rudder, it's going to get interesting for a bit.
 
SoonerAviator said:
A lot more p-factor with 300HP versus 160HP. You shove that throttle in on a go-around without being prepared with the rudder, it's going to get interesting for a bit.
Click to expand...
Yea. The amount of rudder usage in an SR20 and SR22 is huge
 
that is true.. even on the mooney. Took a while before I was happy with my rudder usage on takeoffs.

otoh, since nearly every plane requires a checkout (either to rent, or by insurance when you go to buy), having a generic "complex" or "high performance" endorsement seems silly. You'll get what you need for a model when you get checked out in that model.

Oh, well. It was easy enough to get in my logbook even I'm not exactly sure why I have it. :)
 
There are some high performance planes that you can't just push the throttle in like a c172. You have to ease it in slowly until you get rudder authority around 40 to overcome p factor. Even with full rudder you will be in grass if you don't. Even worse on ice.
 
Mistake Not... said:
I have a "high performance" engine (210hp), but the only difference I can see between it and what I learned on is that it's fuel injected.
Click to expand...

An even more extreme example is the 172XP. Stock with 195hp needs no endorsement. Change the tach/MP gauge markings and re-adjust the prop and you have 210hp which does need an endorsement.
 
Mistake Not... said:
Still don't understand why "high performance" as defined even exists. I have a "high performance" engine (210hp), but the only difference I can see between it and what I learned on is that it's fuel injected. Aren't there fuel injected engines under 200hp? So that's not it. I still have no idea how to run a turbocharged engine (don't need to, at present), So that's not it. Shove the throttle forward, it won't go straight up, so it's not like it's a huge increase in performance.

Don't get the high performance endorsement reason for being, basically.
Click to expand...
As near as I can figure it, the FAA decided that, at some point, HP engines need more care and feeding. Higher opportunity for overheating and other things. They selected over 200 HP as the demarcation point, probably to some degree arbitrary and to some degree based on existing experience.

This is from the 1973 Final Rule that added the HP requirement (you might not know the definition of "HP" included both what are now HP and complex - over 200 or with retractable gear, etc). May help to answer your question a little.

==============================
One commentator recommended that the 200-horsepower limitation In paragraph (e) of § 61.31 be raised to 250 horsepower. The FAA does not agree. The greatest difference in terms of complexity of systems, control characteristics, and performance occurs between airplanes of more than 200 horsepower and those of 200 horsepower or less. Thus, It is necessary for pilots who have not logged flight time in the higher performance airplanes, to obtain flight instruction in such airplanes prior to acting as pilot in command.
==============================
 
In my old skool turbonormalized airplane you have to advance and retard the throttle verrry smoothly. Can't just firewall it on go around or you'll overboost it. If you reduce too quickly the engine will sputter slightly until fuel & air equilibrate - at which point your heart should start beating again. All this bears some learning but it isn't rocket surgery.

But there are non-"high performance" aircraft that have a manual waste gate turbonormalizer like this too (although many are aftermarket like on the Cardinal). So :dunno:
 
petrolero said:
In my old skool turbonormalized airplane you have to advance and retard the throttle verrry smoothly. Can't just firewall it on go around or you'll overboost it. If you reduce too quickly the engine will sputter slightly until fuel & air equilibrate - at which point your heart should start beating again. All this bears some learning but it isn't rocket surgery.

But there are non-"high performance" aircraft that have a manual waste gate turbonormalizer like this too (although many are aftermarket like on the Cardinal). So :dunno:
Click to expand...
The 200 HP Turbo Arrow, which redlines at 41" MP (not a type) and also readily overboosts is far more complicated from a systems handling standpoint than a 300+ HP Bonanza A36 or a FIKI SR22.

Ruled and regs can only deal with lowest common denominators; practically speaking there's really no way to individualize it without a lot of extra regulation.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I'm sure dturri will be along shortly to give us the history of it.
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
This is from the 1973 Final Rule that added the HP requirement (you might not know the definition of "HP" included both what are now HP and complex - over 200 or with retractable gear, etc). May help to answer your question a little.

==============================
One commentator recommended that the 200-horsepower limitation In paragraph (e) of § 61.31 be raised to 250 horsepower. The FAA does not agree. The greatest difference in terms of complexity of systems, control characteristics, and performance occurs between airplanes of more than 200 horsepower and those of 200 horsepower or less. Thus, It is necessary for pilots who have not logged flight time in the higher performance airplanes, to obtain flight instruction in such airplanes prior to acting as pilot in command.
==============================
Click to expand...

Yep, that's how I remember it. :)

dtuuri
 
Gyroscopic precession is also a thing.

I learned to fly taildraggers in a Cub, then bought a Citabria.

I was hired to ferry a Cessna AgTruck or AgHusky - I forget which. With one seat, the checkout was to read the POH and go flying.

I was in for a rude awakening - that 300 hp or so made a real difference when I lifted the tail on the takeoff roll...and had the nose yaw hard about 30° left. I managed to pull it into the air before taking out any runway lights. Barely. Whew! :yikes:

That was pretty much my first hard intro to gyroscopic precession, and I learned to slowly lift the tail in those guys!
 
FastEddieB said:
I was in for a rude awakening - that 300 hp or so made a real difference when I lifted the tail on the takeoff roll...and had the nose yaw hard about 30° left. I managed to pull it into the air before taking out any runway lights. Barely. Whew! :yikes:



That was pretty much my first hard intro to gyroscopic precession, and I learned to slowly lift the tail in those guys!
Click to expand...


My 145hp Swift will do the same thing. It is a technique thing as much as a horsepower thing.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
N4WJ--1994 Van's RV-4
 
Mistake Not... said:
Still don't understand why "high performance" as defined even exists. I have a "high performance" engine (210hp), but the only difference I can see between it and what I learned on is that it's fuel injected. Aren't there fuel injected engines under 200hp? So that's not it. I still have no idea how to run a turbocharged engine (don't need to, at present), So that's not it. Shove the throttle forward, it won't go straight up, so it's not like it's a huge increase in performance.

Don't get the high performance endorsement reason for being, basically.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's written in blood just like most rules and regulations. It probably went something like this. Oh boy, I got my PPL and then got checked out in the "big iron" a C172. Hey that C182 is just a little bit bigger C172. There were enough "got behind the plane" accidents that the decision was made to require a little further training for faster airplanes.
 
The 200-hp demarcation is arbitrary, but we can cite examples within lines of aircraft that have significantly different personalities across that range...

As luvflyin indicated, the 172 to 182 transition is one of them...significantly more personality change than from a 152 to a 172, IMO.

Another would be the Cherokee line...While a PA-32 is just a bigger Cherokee, there's a significant difference in the handling between that and the PA-28 series.
 
Mistake Not... said:
that is true.. even on the mooney. Took a while before I was happy with my rudder usage on takeoffs.

otoh, since nearly every plane requires a checkout (either to rent, or by insurance when you go to buy), having a generic "complex" or "high performance" endorsement seems silly. You'll get what you need for a model when you get checked out in that model.

Oh, well. It was easy enough to get in my logbook even I'm not exactly sure why I have it. :)
Click to expand...


Such checkouts for rental and insurance are not regulatory. If the FAA mandated endorsements did not exist then someone who just passed their PPL could legally jump in a complex, high performance, tail dragger and go for it. Now that would be "silly". The requirements for these endorsements are amongst the good rules in my book.
 
Maybe what we really need is a high power-to-weight ratio endorsement and each airplane would need to have its power-to-weight ratio listed in the POH and then placarded on the panel. In order to fly an airplane over a certain power-to-weight ratio, you would need that endorsement.

Yeah, kind of convoluted. That is why there needed to be a demarcation based on power alone and yes 201 does seem arbitrary but all such limits are or appear to be to most of us. Why 40 hours for PPL? Why 1500 hours for ATP? Why 50nm for cross country? Why 18,000' for the start of flight levels/Class A? Why, why, why?
 
luvflyin said:
I'm sure it's written in blood just like most rules and regulations. It probably went something like this. Oh boy, I got my PPL and then got checked out in the "big iron" a C172. Hey that C182 is just a little bit bigger C172. There were enough "got behind the plane" accidents that the decision was made to require a little further training for faster airplanes.
Click to expand...

LOL.

I am ashamed to admit that I've never flown a 152. I did my PPL on a 172 - the idea of being as cozy with my instructor as being in the former would require did not appeal to me.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Why 40 hours for PPL? Why 1500 hours for ATP? Why 50nm for cross country? Why 18,000' for the start of flight levels/Class A? Why, why, why?
Click to expand...

Because we have a 40hr work,and they wanted to be able to say you learn to fly in a week.
Most commercial pilots can put in 30 hrs per week,so you can be an ATP in only a year.
Longer cross country would not be possible in some parts of US & territorys
FAA guys are big golfers and 18 seems like a good place to change the rules.
 
SoonerAviator said:
A lot more p-factor with 300HP versus 160HP. You shove that throttle in on a go-around without being prepared with the rudder, it's going to get interesting for a bit.
Click to expand...

Well that depends on how heavy of an airframe you are tugging around.

300HP vs 160HP on the same frame, yep. 300HP on a much heavier plane, not as much difference.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Maybe what we really need is a high power-to-weight ratio endorsement and each airplane would need to have its power-to-weight ratio listed in the POH and then placarded on the panel. In order to fly an airplane over a certain power-to-weight ratio, you would need that endorsement.

Yeah, kind of convoluted. That is why there needed to be a demarcation based on power alone and yes 201 does seem arbitrary but all such limits are or appear to be to most of us. Why 40 hours for PPL? Why 1500 hours for ATP? Why 50nm for cross country? Why 18,000' for the start of flight levels/Class A? Why, why, why?
Click to expand...

I like the power to weight idea
 
EdFred said:
Well that depends on how heavy of an airframe you are tugging around.

300HP vs 160HP on the same frame, yep. 300HP on a much heavier plane, not as much difference.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was trying to keep it simple by not getting into weight/airframe/CG/etc considerations. The endorsement is set a mostly-arbitrary 201+HP threshold, but in general the higher the HP, the greater the consideration of gyroscopic precession/p-factor needs to be. There will usuallt be some mitigating factors to offset the gross effect of the HP increase unless it's in the exact same airframe. I would imagine if you were flying an early-model 35-Bo (sub 200HP), then got into a V35 with 260HP, that extra HP might come as a big surprise to the uninitiated.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Such checkouts for rental and insurance are not regulatory. If the FAA mandated endorsements did not exist then someone who just passed their PPL could legally jump in a complex, high performance, tail dragger and go for it. Now that would be "silly". The requirements for these endorsements are amongst the good rules in my book.
Click to expand...

I have both a complex and high performance endorsement. According to your rule book, I'm now legally able to fly any complex, high performance airplane for which I'm qualified in category, class and type.

Which is dumb. And would never happen. I'd have to get a more extensive checkout than it took to get the endorsements in the first place. A gps is harder to use than a constant speed prop. Where's the RNAV endorsement? An autopilot is harder to use than retractable gear (I have both), where's the autopilot endorsement? I'd probably kill an engine with a turbocharger, since I don't know how to run one, but I'm legal to try. :) Shouldn't there be a turbocharged endorsement? (Maybe there is.. I never looked).

The complex and high performance endorsements stand out as solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. If they're that important, why don't they show up on my certificate? Shouldn't they require a check ride?
 
Mistake Not... said:
I have both a complex and high performance endorsement. According to your rule book, I'm now legally able to fly any complex, high performance airplane for which I'm qualified in category, class and type.

Which is dumb. And would never happen. I'd have to get a more extensive checkout than it took to get the endorsements in the first place. A gps is harder to use than a constant speed prop. Where's the RNAV endorsement? An autopilot is harder to use than retractable gear (I have both), where's the autopilot endorsement? I'd probably kill an engine with a turbocharger, since I don't know how to run one, but I'm legal to try. :) Shouldn't there be a turbocharged endorsement? (Maybe there is.. I never looked).

The complex and high performance endorsements stand out as solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. If they're that important, why don't they show up on my certificate? Shouldn't they require a check ride?
Click to expand...

Not his rule book, the FAA's.

As for the rest of the questions...
NA/NA/no/because they are not ratings/no.
 
Mistake Not... said:
I have both a complex and high performance endorsement. According to your rule book, I'm now legally able to fly any complex, high performance airplane for which I'm qualified in category, class and type.

Which is dumb. And would never happen. I'd have to get a more extensive checkout than it took to get the endorsements in the first place. A gps is harder to use than a constant speed prop. Where's the RNAV endorsement? An autopilot is harder to use than retractable gear (I have both), where's the autopilot endorsement? I'd probably kill an engine with a turbocharger, since I don't know how to run one, but I'm legal to try. :) Shouldn't there be a turbocharged endorsement? (Maybe there is.. I never looked).

The complex and high performance endorsements stand out as solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. If they're that important, why don't they show up on my certificate? Shouldn't they require a check ride?
Click to expand...


Let not go try to turn are great aviation system into some eurotart cluster fark.

As far as cowl flaps, CS props, mixture and gear, it's one thing to be able to operate them in a monkey see, monkey do pattern ops type manner, but being able to really make them work for you smoothly and in more extreme situations is a different thing.
 
EdFred said:
Not his rule book, the FAA's.

As for the rest of the questions...
NA/NA/no/because they are not ratings/no.
Click to expand...

lol. I guess if EdFred is answering what I assumed would be obviously rhetorical questions, the rest of the post was lost as well.

In summary, my complex and high performance "training" was so general as to be useless, and from what I can tell, also very typical. It does NOT prepare me for any of the cases mentioned in any of the objections to my "silly" comment. The FAA could do away with them completely, and in any form, and planes would not start dropping from the skies.
 
Mistake Not... said:
lol. I guess if EdFred is answering what I assumed would be obviously rhetorical questions, the rest of the post was lost as well.

In summary, my complex and high performance "training" was so general as to be useless, and from what I can tell, also very typical. It does NOT prepare me for any of the cases mentioned in any of the objections to my "silly" comment. The FAA could do away with them completely, and in any form, and planes would not start dropping from the skies.
Click to expand...

No, but lots more bellies would be scraped, and probably a few more runway lights would be taken out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top