High Performance and Cat, Class, Type

WDD

WDD

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
8,855
Location
Atlanta / Marietta
Display Name
Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
Home Airfield
KPUJ
So... should be simple but I'm overthinking this.

I'm getting trained in a Skylane for my High Performance endorsement.

I have 100 hours in Skyhawk and Tiger.

My new training is in the following:
CATEGORY: Airplane – Engine-driven, fixed-wing
CLASS: Single Engine Land
TYPE: C182

Therefore, I have 0 hours in this TYPE / C 182.

About right? Rating applies to the Pilot, not the plane. Rating is High Performance, Multi, etc.
 
Category-airplane
Class-single engine, land
Type-N/A (make and model would be C182, but “type” as used in the regs is reserved for aircraft requiring a type rating.”

the above are ratings. High performance is an endorsement.
 
Last edited:
Wait - isn't an Airplane considered High Performance if it is over 200 hp? Therefore, isn't High Performance a type of aircraft as well as a description of an endorsement given a pilot?

What is "Yep" ?
 
What is the question you're trying to answer?
 
No. High Performance is not a type of aircraft. Neither is complex, nor is conventional gear, nor is high altitude. They are just endorsements
Aircraft type in FAA context is 12,500 lbs and above.
Type rating for a CL65, LJ25, B737, 747, A320, etc...

182 is
Category: Airplane
Class: Single Engine Land
Type: N/A
 
I'm completing my Flight Check form background section. This flight check will give me a High Performance endorsement. I've not flown a High Performance plane before.

The form is asking for

Aircraft Used: C182
Time in This Type:
  • Total xxx
  • As PIC xxx
 
WDD said:
Wait - isn't an Airplane considered High Performance if it is over 200 hp? Therefore, isn't High Performance a type of aircraft as well as a description of an endorsement given a pilot?
Click to expand...
yes, as are airplane, single engine, and land.
What is "Yep" ?
Click to expand...
Artificial Intelligence at its finest. ;)
 
WDD said:
I'm completing my Flight Check form background section. This flight check will give me a High Performance endorsement. I've not flown a High Performance plane before.

The form is asking for

Aircraft Used: C182
Time in This Type:
  • Total xxx
  • As PIC xxx
Click to expand...
In this context, yes, type would the the C182.
 
Well - that was easier than I thought. I was thinking it would take 5-10 hours. Got the High Performance endorsement and checked out in the C 182 in 2.7 hours. Skylane vs Skyhawk IMHO is so much easier to fly. Hitting and keeping altitude super easy - landings are stupid easy. I see why the C 182 has such a fan club. Thirty more hours in the log book (to get to 150) and I'll see about checking out the 182 RG and get the Complex endorsement.
 
flyingron said:
It probably takes longer to learn the differences in landing the 182 than it does to figure out how the blue knob works.
Click to expand...
The main difference on landing the 182 for me was how easy was. Keeping the right pattern speeds, sink rate, and round out/flare/touch down speed was just drop dead stupid for me.

Skyrys62 said:
So, now what are your thoughts on the 182 vs the Tiger?
Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges for me. Skylane is a lot smoother. But its is like driving a SUV vs a sports car though. Love the Tiger though. I'll probably be renting both in the future.

Maybe it's just the way I'm wired that made the Skylane a good experience for me. For example I just bought a new vehicle in Feb, and I bought an SUV vs a sports car - so that tells you what I lean to with regards to the ride that I like.

Also, I seem to lean to over control a bit, especially in the pattern. Had to work a bit on round out and flaring. The heaviness of the Skylane elevator vs Skyhawk may be helping me with that.
 
WDD said:
The main difference on landing the 182 for me was how easy was. Keeping the right pattern speeds, sink rate, and round out/flare/touch down speed was just drop dead stupid for me.
Click to expand...
He mentioned it for a reason. They are not at all difficult to land. As you found, they are actually very stable and easy. But they are nose heavy, a combination of the big engine and fuel tanks a bit more CG-forward. Many pilots moving up from 172s are used to entering the flare and going to idle power. The result is what is apparently the single most common 182 maintenance problem - a damaged firewall from the nose banging down. There are two ways commonly taught for dealing with it - carrying power to touchdown or reducing power before the flare - but the basic concept is to avoid precipitously reducing power in the flare.
 
Interesting. Didn’t seem to have any issue keeping nose off of pavement on landing. I always carry some power into the round out, power back to full idle, let it settle, and then flare as needed. Seemed to work. I’ll keep an eye on it. Thanks
 
midlifeflyer said:
He mentioned it for a reason. They are not at all difficult to land. As you found, they are actually very stable and easy. But they are nose heavy, a combination of the big engine and fuel tanks a bit more CG-forward. Many pilots moving up from 172s are used to entering the flare and going to idle power. The result is what is apparently the single most common 182 maintenance problem - a damaged firewall from the nose banging down. There are two ways commonly taught for dealing with it - carrying power to touchdown or reducing power before the flare - but the basic concept is to avoid precipitously reducing power in the flare.
Click to expand...

I'm idle before the flare in a 182. I still have yet to experience this nose heaviness and slamming the nose into the ground on touchdown that everyone talks about. I never noticed it moving from 172 to 182. Didnt notice it in the PA28 to PA24 transition either.
 
EdFred said:
I'm idle before the flare in a 182. I still have yet to experience this nose heaviness and slamming the nose into the ground on touchdown that everyone talks about. I never noticed it moving from 172 to 182. Didnt notice it in the PA28 to PA24 transition either.
Click to expand...
I think it’s more about the quality of your potty training. Most pilots Just don’t pull the yoke back far enough, and even if they do, they can’t pull with both hands (throttle and yoke) at once.

I demo’d a tri gear Maule once, and while I didn’t think it took tremendous talent to land it, the salesman commented that he’d never seen anybody land it on the mains before.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I think it’s more about the quality of your potty training. Most pilots Just don’t pull the yoke back far enough, and even if they do, they can’t pull with both hands (throttle and yoke) at once.
Click to expand...

Not really, some of the older 182s have a smaller horizontal stabilizer/elevator. One I've flown will land on the nosewheel with the elevator at the aft stop (at idle power and full flaps).
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I'm idle before the flare in a 182. I still have yet to experience this nose heaviness and slamming the nose into the ground on touchdown that everyone talks about. I never noticed it moving from 172 to 182. Didnt notice it in the PA28 to PA24 transition either.
Click to expand...
My procedure is the same as yours, with the same result.
 
dmspilot said:
Not really, some of the older 182s have a smaller horizontal stabilizer/elevator. One I've flown will land on the nosewheel with the elevator at the aft stop (at idle power and full flaps).
Click to expand...
The only old one I’ve flown was the first production 182...not much room to spare, but touched down on the mains.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The only old one I’ve flown was the first production 182...not much room to spare, but touched down on the mains.
Click to expand...

That's different also, the movable stabilizer and narrower fuselage affected the elevator aerodynamics differently.

The widebody (omnivision) 182 + small elevator combination was only made for 3 years.
 
dmspilot said:
That's different also, the movable stabilizer and narrower fuselage affected the elevator aerodynamics differently.

The widebody (omnivision) 182 + small elevator combination was only made for 3 years.
Click to expand...
So the terminology I used... “more about” rather than “all about” would make my answer accurate.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So the terminology I used... “more about” rather than “all about” would make my answer accurate.
Click to expand...

Your statement "most pilots just don’t pull the yoke back far enough" implies all 182s have enough elevator authority to land at idle on the mains first and it's the pilot's fault for not using all of the elevator available, which would not be an accurate implication.
 
dmspilot said:
Your statement "most pilots just don’t pull the yoke back far enough" implies all 182s have enough elevator authority to land at idle on the mains first and it's the pilot's fault for not using all of the elevator available, which would not be an accurate implication.
Click to expand...
No, it implies that most pilots don’t pull the yoke back far enough regardless of what they’re flying.

Yes, there is a small subset of airplanes where there just isn’t enough elevator authority, but they probably won’t pull the yoke back any farther in those.
 
midlifeflyer said:
There are two ways commonly taught for dealing with it - carrying power to touchdown or reducing power before the flare - but the basic concept is to avoid precipitously reducing power in the flare.
Click to expand...

Or carrying a slightly steeper glide angle at idle the whole way down knowing you need a bit of energy to flare and hold the nose up. :)

Which... is gonna be good practice for the day the engine actually quits. And one can stop relying on power to actually make the landing spot chosen after only a few attempts at it. :)

Still the same result. No power change causing a pitch change you have to remember to move your yoke for. After a while in 182s, you’ll just naturally pull the yoke with the power change and retrim if you actually carried the right amount of (small!) excess airspeed for it.

Especially needed with full flap, of course. Drag builds quickly if you let it.

When practicing, one must be prepared to push a CHUNK of power back in quickly or go around.
 
dmspilot said:
Not really, some of the older 182s have a smaller horizontal stabilizer/elevator. One I've flown will land on the nosewheel with the elevator at the aft stop (at idle power and full flaps).
Click to expand...

My STOL kit equipped one will land flat as a pancake with full aft yoke if you aren’t flying fast enough to have elevator authority, also.

It’s a little balancing act or... you cheat and get behind the curve with power.

As mentioned above I try not to cheat for practice. But a really really short field, I’d drag it on and chop. But make darn sure it’s on the mains before the chop.

Only really applies to the STOL version but it’s fun.
 
WDD said:
Wait - isn't an Airplane considered High Performance if it is over 200 hp? Therefore, isn't High Performance a type of aircraft as well as a description of an endorsement given a pilot?

What is "Yep" ?
Click to expand...

Correct! My Mooney is 200 HP so it requires no high performance endorsement. If it were 201 HP it would require it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Of course. BTDT. Going to idle 5 miles before the flare is definitely "reducing power before the flare." ;)
Click to expand...

Haha truth!

I just get annoyed at the airline training schools dragging pipers in from ten miles out. LOL.

But you know our controllers here. They’ll often just turn those of us not being that silly inside them and let us pass them in the pattern loops. Ha.

“Your traffic is over the north shore of the reservoir, can you make short approach?”

Hell yes I can. No need to tour south Aurora and get halfway to FTG in this pattern... LOL. Have fun over there ATP... haha.
 
WDD said:
Well - that was easier than I thought. I was thinking it would take 5-10 hours. Got the High Performance endorsement and checked out in the C 182 in 2.7 hours. Skylane vs Skyhawk IMHO is so much easier to fly. Hitting and keeping altitude super easy - landings are stupid easy. I see why the C 182 has such a fan club. Thirty more hours in the log book (to get to 150) and I'll see about checking out the 182 RG and get the Complex endorsement.
Click to expand...

Think of a 182 as a 172 on steroids with a couple extra controls (prop and cowl flaps). Oh, and you'll quickly find in a 182 that elevator trim is your friend, a very necessary friend. That said, I really like the 182. Very comfortable cross country bird.

Why 150 hours before going for the complex endorsement? I got mine (18 years ago) after only 100 hours and that was an insurance requirement for the club's Arrow - 100 hrs TT to solo.
 
Skyrys62 said:
So, now what are your thoughts on the 182 vs the Tiger?
Click to expand...

I've flown both. I bought a Tiger. Much better handling, same speed (fixed) for much lower cost. The 182 is only good if you need weight or use crazy short strips and have STOL
 
EdFred said:
I'm idle before the flare in a 182. I still have yet to experience this nose heaviness and slamming the nose into the ground on touchdown that everyone talks about. I never noticed it moving from 172 to 182. Didnt notice it in the PA28 to PA24 transition either.
Click to expand...

I’ve never experienced it either but I will say the 182 I have now has the sportsman STOL and VGs. The difference is very noticeable! Way more elevator authority! I think the overall handling of the plane is crisper. I wouldn’t have another 182 without STOL and VGs.
 
Ghery said:
Why 150 hours before going for the complex endorsement?
Click to expand...

Insurance requirement. I’m lucky to be able to fly the skylane fixed gear - as the other place to rent at this airport needs 150 hrs for just a high per performance non rg rental.
 
WDD said:
Does the STOL and VGreduce your cruise speed ?
Click to expand...

it probably does but it also got a 285hp pponk. I have no idea how much speed I lose but it’s still quite a bit faster than a stock 182.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top