Hi Performance???

[atpcliff]

Hi!

I just wanted to get the definition of High Performance.

I'm not at home, and don't have access to the regs. I tried looking the definitions up on faa.gov, but couldn't find High Performance.

If anyone can post the def (or PM/Email), I'd appreciate it. I'm transferring my paper logbook to computer in a hotel (I'm supposed to be on my days off!), and am just trying to clean up a few items. I'm almost done!

Cliff
GRB

 

[sbav8r]

CFR 61.31 (f) "An airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower."

Note: more than 200 horsepower. I fly a Piper Arrow with 200hp that does not count as high- performance.

 

[bigD]

Also note the "...with AN engine...".

I fly a Duchess with two 180 HP engines, thus it's not high performance.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

However a Seneca II that is rated for 200 hp per side at takeoff but 215 per side at 12000 ft is considered high performance.

 

[RedheadCFI]

RE: High Performance

High performance...

Anything over 200 horsepower right guys? Sure, that is the answer for high performance but what makes an airplane complex? Does the fixed gear 182P w/a complex prop constitute as a complex or does it need those retractable stems?
I'm just throwing this out there I truthfully have never read into that much but the thought just came to mind.
-Nick

 

[avbug]

By complex prop presumably you mean a controllable pitch propeller. That does not make it a complex airplane. To be complex per the definition of 14 CFR 61.31(e)(1), an airplane must have retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller. (seaplanes don't need the gear).

 

[bobbysamd]

High Performance "Endorsement"

Also note the "...with AN engine...".

I fly a Duchess with two 180 HP engines, thus it's not high performance.

(emphasis added)

180 + 180 = 360. 360 hp > 200 hp, last I checked.

That part of the reg is really, really, stupid. Think about it. Someone could get their multi in a Seminole or Duchess, instruct in it to build enough multi for the commuters, show up at the interview, and maybe be hired without ever getting a "high-performance" endorsement in his/her logbook. Not that the FAA gives a d@mn, but I, personally, would find it embarassing.

 

[avbug]

While the total horsepower in that case does exceed 200 hp, it is inadequate for the purposes of obtaining a high performance endorsement under the current definition. At least one engine must be capable of more than 200 horsepower. Because each engine is not rated for more than 200 horsepower, the airplane is not high performance.

One cannot add the aggregate total horsepower to come up with a figure that satisfies the regulation.

 

[bobbysamd]

High-performance v. complex

While the total horsepower in that case does exceed 200 hp, it is inadequate for the purposes of obtaining a high performance endorsement under the current definition. At least one engine must be capable of more than 200 horsepower. Because each engine is not rated for more than 200 horsepower, the airplane is not high performance.

One cannot add the aggregate total horsepower to come up with a figure that satisfies the regulation.

I understand. I just think that it's ridiculous and absurd. But, as always, that's only my $0.02 opinion.

 

[Buckeye]

Here is one......

I am curious if someone went from flying a Duchess or a Piper Seminole with a 180 horsepower a side to flying a Regional Jet would they be in violation of not having a high performance endorsement. The only reason I ask this is because last time I checked the reg stated horsepower and jet engines are rated in thrust. I realize if they were hired into a turboprop the would be screwed since the engine is rating in shaft horsepower. Just my 0.02 worth