High performance endorsement

Feh

Feh

Pre-Flight
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Messages
80
Location
Ill-annoy
Display Name
Display name:
Foxtrot Echo Hotel
Looking to get this soon, so asking the breadth of knowledge here…

Whats are some of the typical proficiency checks done by an instructor when getting this endorsement?
 
Not a CFI.

Control during takeoff roll (right rudder), control during go-around (positive control pre-trim and right rudder), staying ahead of the airplane (it’s faster) and proper airspeed control in pattern (slow down, stay within flap speed limitations).
 
Mine was basically a rental checkout. Stalls, steep turns, different types of landings. Extra emphasis on take offs and especially go-arounds, as these high power operations are really the biggest difference other than the blue knob and MP gauge.

I was taught all the "don't set rpm's lower than MP" nonsense, but I didn't know any better at the time. It was about an hour in the air and a couple tenths on the ground.
 
You have to log ground and flight instruction.

Ground
Fuel systems; carburetor vs fuel injection
Super charger vs turbo charger
Instrumentation; CHTs, EGTs, MP etc
Theory behind constant speed prop
Emergency procedures
Normal operations.
Use of performance charts and tables

Flight
Preflight procedures
Run up procedures
Climb/enroute/descent procedures
Emergency procedures

Proficiency is a judgment call by the CFI. Length of instruction depends on amount of study done by learner ahead of time.
 
A general guideline, but not limited to…
Most of the things on the Private check ride (steep turns, slow flight, all the different stalls, short & soft takeoffs/landings, emergency procedures).
I like to fly the plane light and near gross, if possible, because there is usually a noticeable difference.
Demonstrate knowledge and use of the constant speed prop, and cowl flaps.
Power off landings, landings with and without flaps.
Knowledge of O2 systems in general and demo use if one is available for that plane.
If instrument rated, approach procedures and a discussion of weather, especially icing.
 
Universal will be the care and feeding of the larger engine, the advance planning that comes with increased speed, and the increase in left turning tendencies especially on takeoff. If you haven't done it already, the interrelationship of throttle and prop control if that's how it's equipped.

Beyond that it depends a lot on the high performance airplane you are learning in and your prior experience. A 172 to 182 for example, will take less time and new knowledge than, say, a 172 to a Bonanza. If you have experience in many different types, the next one becomes easier.

in terms of proficiency, it's much like any other transition to a different airplane, no matter how simple. ACS maneuvers, takeoffs and landings of various types.
 
If the plane is high perf but not complex (eg SR22T), I imagine this becomes more of a transition/checkout I presume?
 
Feh said:
If the plane is high perf but not complex (eg SR22T), I imagine this becomes more of a transition/checkout I presume?
Click to expand...
It's always a transition/checkout. Landing gear may be part of the definition of "complex" but its not the only special system in a single lever turbocharged engine with FIKI systems.
 
Last edited:
Depends largely on what you've been flying before. Coming from an SR20 should be no big deal. Coming from a 172, and it's going to take multiple hours. An SR22T, while not "Complex" is still pretty dang complex.

When I did mine, I was going from a PA-28-181 to a PA-28-236...no big deal.
 
My High Performance was just a checkout. I went up with my instructor from my PPL in a 182. Just remembering cowl scoop, how to manage constant speed prop, and staying ahead of the airplane. It was a lot less of a big deal than I thought it would be. Next up is my complex endorsement in the school's arrow.
 
Jim K said:
An SR22T, while not "Complex" is still pretty dang complex.
Click to expand...

Yes. Although there is only a simple power lever where the FDEC does all the work, the other complexities of a Cirrus take time to learn. There is the AC control, seat warmers, numerous cup holders, power seat controls, and of course the on board cappuccino operation along takes an hour of ground school.
 
I guess I steal of VTOL it would be VL :)
 
The Cirrus has some systems that require some work to understand especially the Perspective models. The high performance check out is rather simple as others have pointed out. The turbo is capable of flying in the flight levels which requires makes the check out a little more involved. Running the turbo is really simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Feh
PaulS said:
The Cirrus has some systems that require some work to understand especially the Perspective models. The high performance check out is rather simple as others have pointed out. The turbo is capable of flying in the flight levels which requires makes the check out a little more involved. Running the turbo is really simple.
Click to expand...
True proficiency (particularly IFR) in flying a modern avionics package may be the biggest part of transitions these days. Not only because of their own complexity but because of the distraction it can cause to flying the airplane. I don't know how often it happens but avionics distraction has been identified as a contributor to loss of control.
 
Just from my experience. If you already have complex, it's really simple. If not, then potentially some time learning about the constant speed prop, theory and operational. Other than that, if you already know how to use the rudder it's mostly that power on stalls might be a bit steeper. I did mine in a Dakota, which to me kinda flies you would expect a Suburban to.
 
Mine was a PA28 ==> C182

No ground instruction at all.
One take off, one stall, one landing. 0.5 and a signature in the log book.

Though I was already a CFI at the time.
 
Jim K said:
Mine was basically a rental checkout. Stalls, steep turns, different types of landings. Extra emphasis on take offs and especially go-arounds, as these high power operations are really the biggest difference other than the blue knob and MP gauge.

I was taught all the "don't set rpm's lower than MP" nonsense, but I didn't know any better at the time. It was about an hour in the air and a couple tenths on the ground.
Click to expand...

Going from a 172 to the 182 it was nothing special. A few extra controls (prop, cowl flaps), but otherwise nothing special. One other thing you will learn when transitioning to a 182 - trim is your friend. A big friend. Otherwise, it was a long time ago...

Over square operation only came up once, during a check ride for the FAA in the club's Arrow. The CFI I flew with at that time bought into the over square nonsense. I paid him no attention as prop/manifold pressure settings in the POH called for them. It is nothing to pay any attention to.
 
For me, this was more like a checkout in a different plane than a new endorsement, but it's still in my logbook so it really doesn't matter I guess. I already had a complex endorsement from a 177RG and got my high performance in a 182RG. To be honest, they both fly very similar to one another. I basically got a current BFR and hp endorsement at the same time with the ability to rent a different plane when I was done. Your experience may differ, but this endorsement is a bit of non-event in my opinion.
 
My HP/Complex transition was from a C172 to T-6A. It required 4 weeks of ground training and 2 hours of "cockpit fam," then a 1.5 that included T/O landings, go-arounds, etc. The beast did have a very effective rudder boost that helped with the LTT. One day I was out with an IP and lost that rudder boost. We were (self) limited to 180 Kts because that was all the right rudder the two of us could muster. You live, you learn, you die, and forget it all.
 
I really enjoy the posts that sound something like, "I did one of the easiest high performance transitions known to mankind (C172 to 182 or PA28-1XX to PA28-23X) so they must all be that simple."
 
Credit card limit check.
 
Honestly, other than certain aircraft specific quirks, the HP endorsement is really nothing for most. In most cases the focus is more on the constant speed prop controls which seem to come into play around 200 HP. If you happened to transition from a PA 28-181 Archer to a PA 28-235 Dakota with a fixed prop (rare but they exist), it would be next to nothing.

Even the complex endorsement isn't all that hard, other than managing to put the !#%# gear down!
 
HP endorsement in a 182 was about 45 minutes ground and maybe two hours of flight. I had already studied on my own, including reading and knowing the POH front to back and having good habits going in - proper rudder use and staying ahead of the plane.
 
Jim K said:
Mine was basically a rental checkout. Stalls, steep turns, different types of landings. Extra emphasis on take offs and especially go-arounds, as these high power operations are really the biggest difference other than the blue knob and MP gauge.

I was taught all the "don't set rpm's lower than MP" nonsense, but I didn't know any better at the time. It was about an hour in the air and a couple tenths on the ground.
Click to expand...

I like to do pretty much this, but add some engine management (CHT temps).
And you can sub
 
172 to 206 had to do 10 hours of transition training according to the insurance company. Did all the flight maneuvers several times and a bunch of landings. Pretty much after 4 hours the cfi was just along for the ride.
 
Ghery said:
The CFI I flew with at that time bought into the over square nonsense. I paid him no attention as prop/manifold pressure settings in the POH called for them. It is nothing to pay any attention to.
Click to expand...

You can call it nonsense if you like, but the reality is, it is a rule of thumb with quite a few exceptions.
However quite a few POH's mirror this rule.
So if you haven't bothered to look in the POH to see what acceptable power settings are then using the OverSquare rule is a good place to start.
Read the POH and you may or may not have more acceptable options for power settings..
I have flown as many as 8 different types of aircraft in the same day. I don't have all the acceptable power settings for all the aircraft I fly memorized.
But I do tend to pull the POH out of the pocket pretty regularly to see what is acceptable.


upload_2022-3-14_15-30-51.png

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the help and insights.

All of my flying has been on a PA28-151 so I’ll go through the endorsement and training to be proficient.
 
brcase said:
You can call it nonsense if you like, but the reality is, it is a rule of thumb with quite a few exceptions.
However quite a few POH's mirror this rule.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...

Quite a few exceptions mean that it is NOT a rule. You are correct, read the POH.
 
Ghery said:
Quite a few exceptions mean that it is NOT a rule. You are correct, read the POH.
Click to expand...

You mean when there are more exceptions to the rule than adherence to it, it's not a rule of thumb anymore? :eek:
 
Make sure your CFI is really up to the task. I recently moved and my new CFI is definitely 'on edge' when I am doing slow flight in my Lance. My previous CFI had a lot of time in PA32 so he and I really had some fun slow-flight and power-on stalls. The new CFI does not like the sight picture during power-on stalls and slow flight and insists that I quit sooner.

This endorsement will be one of the "fun" ones with the correct CFI.
 
Did complex in an Arrow and HP in a 182. Really not much to it. It is just an airplane just a few more things to keep track of. I did them one winter and had the guy do a flight review while we were at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Feh
I don't remember ever getting a high performance endorsement. Maybe it was when I was checked out in a C-205, since it had a O-470 and CS prop.

I flew one of those twin engine champs (Lancer) and it was in no way a high performance airplane, despite being technically a multi-engine airplane
 
Salty said:
Hmm. Does an Apache with two 160 horse engines qualify as high performance? That would be kinda funny if it did.
Click to expand...

LOL, no because says an engine with more than 200hp, not an aircraft with more than 200hp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top