high performance endorsement (rant)

that is certainly true for the Bell 206, it flies exactly like the Bell 47 except you just roll up the throttle and let the governor do all the work. the "turbine transition" was a complete and total joke.
 
When I moved back in '14, I wanted to get my commercial since I was in an apartment and my wife was 600 miles away. I was bored . . . But the stinking University would only teach me in their 172s, which would give me zero benefit when flying my Mooney (180 hp). Had they been reasonable, I would now be a CP with no HP endorsement.

But they insisted, so I kept my money and combined my next flight review with an HP endorsement. Flying the 182 was a snoozer compared to my little plane. Yeah, a little more right rudder on takeoff, adjust the cowl flaps and look, no impressive climb rate. Descending to land, the plane hardly accelerated at all.

It did get a little interesting when the alternator died just at sunset, and I made an acceptable landing with partial flaps and no radio. But the green light gun worked well to give me both landing and taxi clearance. It was interesting taxiing in the dark, with no lights, at an unfamiliar airport.

My few hours in an A36 were much more challenging to manage, that TN stuff is amazing. Just gotta know the numbers and be quick setting power. Other than that, it flew a lot like my Mooney, except the extra 105 HP turned much more fuel into a little more airspeed (~14 gph LOP for ~160 knots, up from my current 9 gph and 140 knots). Maybe the Bo was hard because I wasn't HP-endorsed yet? :p
 
Y'all who want to do away with the high performance endorsement just need to read up on 14 CFR part 11 on how to petition the FAA to change the rule. Venting on the internet won't do much, unfortunately.
 
The HP breakpoint seems even more contrived with something like a Stearman...220hp but it sure doesn't feel like it!
 
Stearman said:
The HP breakpoint seems even more contrived with something like a Stearman...220hp but it sure doesn't feel like it!
Click to expand...
That's because Stearman's are heavy, draggy and overbuilt. I have the same engine in my Waco and I'm airborne in less than 400' and climbing like a bat out of hell. Try that in a Stearman.
 
jaybee said:
Funny as a Commercial Helicopter pilot with no HP endorsement I flew an 800 hp Wright radial engine equipped S-55 Sikorsky. Also flew the Bell 47G3B2A with supercharged 280 horse engine and weighted tip blades. Both of those were considerably more of a handful and more complicated than any C182 I've been in.

I find the +200 hp HP requirement to be preposterous and I don't think a waiver for a Commercial pilot is a bad idea at all considering in the Helicopter world we don't need such a thing.

Scratch that... just figured it out... helicopter pilots are just that much better pilots than starch wingers :p
Click to expand...
Just curious.... If you were pic would you need a type rating for that? I know some Sikorsky's you do, but not sure about the 55.
 
No sir the 55 is well below 12,500lbs, 8300 off the top of my head if I remember right
 
An awful lot of bellyaching over nothing here. I did the HP and Complex endorsements back in 2001, mixing time in the Arrow and the 182 to get them done. Got the complex first. Finished the HP in the 182 one morning and then flew across the state in the Arrow with my wife that afternoon. Satisfying the insurance requirement of 10 hours dual in the Arrow (no previous time in type) and 100 hours TT took more time that the HP endorsement and the complex would normally have taken. Hey, I was flying airplanes. No complaints here.
 
Heh. Someone should point out that a 182 on a hot day up here isn't producing 200 HP and becomes a low performance airplane.

And then someone not used to that crashes it.

So we need a "high performance airplane that won't perform that well today" endorsement. Haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top