Silly Question About High Performance Aircraft

easik

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 24, 2017
Messages
235
Display Name

Display name:
easik
The FAA defines a high performance aircraft as "an aircraft with an engine of more than 200 horsepower"
Now what if the aircraft has an engine exactly 200hp? then it is not considered high performance or is it?

Thanks.
 
The FAA defines a high performance aircraft as "an aircraft with an engine of more than 200 horsepower"
Now what if the aircraft has an engine exactly 200hp? then it is not considered high performance or is it?

Thanks.
Correct

Edit: Correct, 200 hp is not considered HP
 
Last edited:
Am I reading the same question?
Now what if the aircraft has an engine exactly 200hp? then it is not considered high performance or is it?

He didn't answer his own question and cannot be correct.

So, I'll answer his question. IT IS NOT.
 
Negative. 201hp and greater is HP. This is why you can fly an Arrow (PA28R-200) without having a HP endorsement.
 
Negative. 201hp and greater is HP. This is why you can fly an Arrow (PA28R-200) without having a HP endorsement.
True, but just to clarify, the 200 in the PA28R-200 refers to the Hershey Bar wing.

With Pipers, the first two digits reference the hp, and the third is the wing.

A PA28R-201 has the tapered wing but still only 200hp.
 
Last edited:
True, but just to clarify, the 200 in the PA28R-200 refers to the Hershey Bar wing

Time for some thread drift since the question has been answered.

I was surprised (some time ago) when I learned that Cessna 152's are 100hp and 172's have many different HP's some less, close to, and greater than 172.
 
Time for some thread drift since the question has been answered.

I was surprised (some time ago) when I learned that Cessna 152's are 100hp and 172's have many different HP's some less, close to, and greater than 172.

What surprised you?
 
Time for some thread drift since the question has been answered.

I was surprised (some time ago) when I learned that Cessna 152's are 100hp and 172's have many different HP's some less, close to, and greater than 172.

C152 has 110hp
 
True, but just to clarify, the 200 in the PA28R-200 refers to the Hershey Bar wing.

With Pipers, the first two digits reference the hp, and the third is the wing.

A PA28R-201 has the tapered wing but still only 200hp.
Thanks for the clarification, although I only referenced the 28R-200 because that’s what we have.
 
Time for some thread drift since the question has been answered.

I was surprised (some time ago) when I learned that Cessna 152's are 100hp and 172's have many different HP's some less, close to, and greater than 172.
150’s are 100hp with the O-200. 152’s are typically 110hp with the O-235, unless it’s a Sparrowhawk conversion which ramps it up to an impressive 125hp!

:D
 
All Mooneys M20 through M20J have 200 hp or less, and do not count as HP. Even though my 180 hp M20C is faster and will fly farther than a C182 on much lesss fuel, speeds up much quicker in the descent and must be flown and landed with much greater airspeed control . . .

Beginning with M20K, all Mooneys have at least 210 hp and may have 310 hp. These all count as High Performance. Letterwise, current production models are M20U (280 hp) and M20V (280 hp, twin turbo), both can be upgraded to 310 hp.

Why? Because some sort of divider was needed to separate things when High Performance and Complex were split into separate endorsements. No matter where the division is set, someone / something will always be just above and just below, with no apparent logic for including one and not the other.
 
Coming from initial training in Pipers, the models included the horsepower. (with the wing change being a +1 to the HP) So I was surprised.

So you was thinking a 172 had 172 hp? How about a Gummsn AA5? A Mooney M20? A Beech 18? :dunno:



:D;)
 
150’s are 100hp with the O-200. 152’s are typically 110hp with the O-235, unless it’s a Sparrowhawk conversion which ramps it up to an impressive 125hp!

:D
The O-235-L2C used in the 152 from the 1978 through 1982 model years was rated at 110 hp. For 1983 they switched to the O-235-N2C, rated at 108 hp.

Why, I have no idea. o_O
 
Coming from initial training in Pipers, the models included the horsepower. (with the wing change being a +1 to the HP) So I was surprised.

The PA28-140 had 150hp. I guess they had already printed the advertising literature when they found out that it barely leaves the ground with 140hp.
 
I was surprised (some time ago) when I learned that Cessna 152's are 100hp and 172's have many different HP's some less, close to, and greater than 172.

I get you Ravioli!

Having logged zero Piper time and being a high wing kind of guy (RV10 notwithstanding) I never knew squat about the Piper naming convention. First I ever heard that the first 2 numbs are HP (with some exceptions for the cognoscenti).

Nothing frustrates me more than reading something about a Piper when only the model number is used. Do I look it up? No.

I logged my initial glider flying behind a C-150 with 150hp, C-150 tow plane that is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
The PA28-140 had 150hp. I guess they had already printed the advertising literature when they found out that it barely leaves the ground with 140hp.

The orignal Cherokee had 150 horsepower. A few years in, Piper came out with the -140, intended for use as a trainer. Before it went into production, they bumped the horsepower up to 150 but held on to the -140 model number.
 
The orignal Cherokee had 150 horsepower. A few years in, Piper came out with the -140, intended for use as a trainer. Before it went into production, they bumped the horsepower up to 150 but held on to the -140 model number.
The first PA-28 to be certified and go to market was the four-seat PA-28-160 in mid 1961, followed a few months later by the PA-28-150. Despite somewhat lower performance, the -150 proved more popular because it could use less-expensive 80-octane fuel. The PA-28-180 came along in late 1962, and the -235 at the end of 1963.

Piper had planned a new two-seat, low-wing trainer (PA-29 Papoose) to replace the Colt, but its plastic-composite construction was not ready for prime time (or even direct sunlight, as it turned out), and it was scrubbed. To get a trainer to market as quickly as possible, Piper took the rear seats out of a PA-28-150, moved the rear bulkhead forward by one station and eliminated the baggage door, and put a cruise prop on it which derated power to 140 hp (2450 rpm), and voila, the PA-28-140 "Cherokee 140" was introduced in early 1964. MGW was initially limited to 1,950 lb., which seemed plenty for a two-seater.

upload_2018-10-13_6-32-18.png

Within a year, though, Piper added optional snap-in rear seats (the "2+2 Cruiser" option package), repitched the prop so power was equivalent to the PA-28-150 (2700 rpm), and raised the MGW to 2,150 lb., also equivalent to the Cherokee 150.

D0B542D4-656F-47BD-9274-5987C6EC7AFB.jpeg

The "2+2" Cherokee 140 (intended for the flight school market) and full four-seat Cherokee 150 and 160 were built side-by-side until 1967, when the -150 and -160 were discontinued. Beginning in 1964, though, the Cherokee 150, 160 and 180 had the restyled fiberglass cowl that made them easily distinguishable from the -140.
 
Last edited:
It gets better. Fly a plane like a Seminole with 2-180 hp engine or a Seneca with 2-200 hp engines it still is not HP.

Really pathetic when an ERAU CFI comes to the flight school without a HP endorsement after spending $80k.
 
Am I reading the same question?


He didn't answer his own question and cannot be correct.

So, I'll answer his question. IT IS NOT.
Lol thanks for clearing that up.
 
True, but just to clarify, the 200 in the PA28R-200 refers to the Hershey Bar wing.

With Pipers, the first two digits reference the hp, and the third is the wing.

A PA28R-201 has the tapered wing but still only 200hp.

Gotta disagree with you there. The earlier Arrows were PA28R-180 with 180HP. When they went to 200HP, it became PA28R-200 to designate the 200HP. Piper later added the "1" to their designations when they changed the wing, e.g. PA28-161. Prior to the change, the HP number had nothing to do with the wing.
 
Gotta disagree with you there. The earlier Arrows were PA28R-180 with 180HP. When they went to 200HP, it became PA28R-200 to designate the 200HP. Piper later added the "1" to their designations when they changed the wing, e.g. PA28-161. Prior to the change, the HP number had nothing to do with the wing.
So you are saying that there were PA28R-180s with tapered wings, or did you misread my post?
 
Piper chose not to call the 150HP PA28's -150 because they feared it would be confusing with the Cessna model.
 
So you are saying that there were PA28R-180s with tapered wings, or did you misread my post?

No, my point is that the full three digits refer to the HP on Cherokees prior to the tapered wing. It was not like Piper had the system you postulate prior to the tapered wing. The 200 refers solely to the HP, it has nothing to do with the wing.
 
I still don't know an A300 or 777 get off the ground with so little HP for all that weight. ;)

It's all in the design of the wing. ;)
 
The orignal Cherokee had 150 horsepower. A few years in, Piper came out with the -140, intended for use as a trainer. Before it went into production, they bumped the horsepower up to 150 but held on to the -140 model number.

The original Cherokees were all 160 hp. The first airplane I owned was a 1961 Cherokee 160, serial #30 off the line.
As @Pilawt noted, Piper started building the 150 hp version with the lower compression ratio Lycoming 0-320 so owners could burn the less expensive red fuel.

Even Cessna had its moments. A 170 or 180 is a taildragger, the 172 and 182 being the respective tricycle-gear equivalents of those airframes. But the 150/152 does not follow that pattern. :confused: :p
 
And building on the hex joke... My RV-6A is not 106 HP. It is 160 HP.
 
As @Pilawt noted, Piper started building the 150 hp version with the lower compression ratio Lycoming 0-320 so owners could burn the less expensive red fuel.
Yep. Piper offered the same 150/160 hp option over the last few years of Tri-Pacer production, as well.

The higher-compression 160 hp version of the O-320 became scarce in new airplanes in the late 1960s and early 1970s (the Twin Comanche was one exception). But it came back into vogue in the mid 1970s when 80 octane fuel was phased out, eliminating almost all the difference in operating cost between the 150 hp and 160 hp versions. Moreover, the high-compression engine had fewer plug-fouling issues with the new 100LL fuel.

Even Cessna had its moments. A 170 or 180 is a taildragger, the 172 and 182 being the respective tricycle-gear equivalents of those airframes. But the 150/152 does not follow that pattern. :confused: :p

Looking for consistency in Cessna's model number protocol will drive you nuts.

A retractable 172 is a Model 172RG. A retractable Cardinal is a Model 177RG. So of course a retractable 182 is a ... nope, it's a Model R182. But a Model R172 is a fixed-gear 172 with a bigger engine. And don't confuse the Model R182 with the Model 182R (or an R172 with a 172R). Or the Model 182T, or a turbocharged Model T182. You could also have a fixed gear Model T182R, but the turbo'ed retractable is the Model TR182. Still with me?

A Model P172 was a 172 with more horsepower, but a Model P206 had the same engine as the other 206's but with nicer seats and no cargo door. And a Model P210 was a 210 with pressurization.

Put an 'A' in front of a Model 150 or 152 (A150/A152) and you've made it aerobatic. Put an 'A' in front of a 185 Skywagon or 188 Agwagon and you've made it with a bigger engine. Put an 'A' in front of a 182 and you've made it ... in Argentina!

:confused:
 
The O-235-L2C used in the 152 from the 1978 through 1982 model years was rated at 110 hp. For 1983 they switched to the O-235-N2C, rated at 108 hp.

Why, I have no idea. o_O

Really bad plug fowling with the L2C, worse than the C150 even which was the opposite of what was supposed to happen.
 
Back
Top