Complex and High Performance checkout
- Thread starter ASpilot2be
- Start date
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
No. It is not.
PA-28-201
PA = Piper Aircraft
28 = airframe model #
201 = Two meanings
1) 200 series is the horsepower rating.
2) the "1" in the last digit refers to the tapered wing design.
This holds true for the PA 28 150/151, 180/181, and the 200/201
PanJet
Well-Known Member
The 200 HP Seneca's (Seneca and Seneca II) are not high performance. Also, IIRC all Seneca II's are turbocharged, but they are all still only 200 HP. In fact I believe the only non-turbo Seneca's are the original ones.
It's the Seneca III's and newer that are 220 HP, therefore high performance.
PanJet
Well-Known Member
No, just because they are turbocharged doesn't mean they'll put out more horsepower (at least within their limits). Like I said in my last post, all Seneca II's are turbocharged, yet they are still rated at only 200 HP, so they are not high performance. The only thing turbocharging does for them is allow them to maintain 200 HP all the way to like 12,000 ft. critical altitude (can't remember exactly what it is for the Seneca's). Even if they could produce more than 200 HP, high performance is based on rated horsepower.
As for the original post, you'll need to find something like a 182RG or a Bonanza or Saratoga or something if you want to kill two birds with one stone since the Arrow is not high performance.
Cruise
Well-Known Member
Alrighty......thanks for clearing that up.
The Seneca II is rated at 200 HP at seal level, but at a higher altitude, it can get more than 200 HP out of it. If it were turbo normalized it would keep 200hp until a certain altitude, but the Seneca is turbo charged.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
The Turbo Arrows are also 200 HP. They fly like they have more, but they are still only rated as 200.
Unless there's an STC for an engine upgrade, I not aware of a "high performance" (current FAA definition) Arrow.
Now, if you got an endorsement for one before April 1997, then you indeed got a HP endorsement since the definition was different. For example, I got my HP endorsement in a Cutlass in 1994, as silly as that may sound.
Berkut
Well-Known Member
"Turbo-normalized" and "turbo-charged" are not mutually exclusive terms. A turbo-normalized engine is still turbo-charged.
PanJet
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but this is wrong. You do not gain horsepower with altitude with any system, you only maintain it.
The only difference between turbo charging and turbo normalizing is how high of manifold pressure they can sustain. A turbocharged engine will have manifold pressures higher than atmospheric at sea level, whereas turbo normalized will just keep the engine at sea level pressure. Other than that there is no difference. If you want a source here it is: http://www.aopa.org/pilot/bonanza/turbo_primer.html
Besides, none of this matters since high performance is determined by rated horsepower, and the Seneca II is rated at 200 HP.
FlyOrDie
New Member
Well said.
My dad owns a Seneca II and I have some of the performance charts on my hard drive.
Anyways, he told me it can produce more horse power at a higher altitude, because you can use a higher manifold pressure setting. You're limited to something like 39", which is only like half throttle at sea level. When you get higher, you can go full throttle and still be below 39". Therefore, the engine is limited to only like 55% power (or something) at sea level, and 100% power can only be achieved above PA 5,000 (or something like that). I'm not sure whether that 200hp rating is at sea level, or what, but you can definitely put out more horsepower at a higher altitude than at sea level.
Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
What? When did I say it did?
Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
The percent power is based off of the MP setting and the RPMs not where the throttle is at. You could push the throttles in further and produce more MP and a higher power output but this isn't really making it a HP aircraft.
FlyOrDie
New Member
An engine can never produce more power than its maximum manifold pressure limits... well at least for very long. The R-2800 radial is limited to 59.5" for 2 min for its 2400hp takeoff power setting. Turbo charging or supercharging allows an engine to maintain or increase manifold pressures above normal atmospheric to produce more horsepower. Your statement implies that the engine can produce more horsepower at altitude than it can at sea level.
Throttle position on engines with fixed or variable wastegates, has little do with actual horsepower output. For example I flew a P210 with a fixed wastegate and takeoff power was somewhere around 60% throttle position but the manifold pressure was at its maximum. When I set takeoff power in the DC6 the throttles are not firewalled but the engines are still producing 2400 hp each. If the aircraft has an automatic wastegate like a Piper Malibu then you would firewall the throttle and assuming the automatic wastegate is functioning properly you would get 42 inches. The only time 100% throttle equals 100% power is in normally aspirated engines at sea level and standard temperatures, engines with automatic wastegates, and turbo charged or super charged engines at their critical altitudes.
For example a normally aspirated IO-360 200hp Arrow engine will produce 200 hp on a standard day at sea level, but if you move the airplane to for example Denver on a hot August day that same engine will produce a frightening smaller amount of power. If that same engine was turbo charged assuming density altitude was not greater than the engine's critical altitude you could still produce 200 hp.
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
you guys are killing me 
And anyway, when they measure the rated horsepower of an engine they do it without a prop and with straight stack exhausts... so your 200hp Arrow probably only puts out 190hp anyway
The early Ford Trimotors had 200hp engines on the wings and one 220hp engine in the nose... is it high performance?
And anyway, when they measure the rated horsepower of an engine they do it without a prop and with straight stack exhausts... so your 200hp Arrow probably only puts out 190hp anyway
The early Ford Trimotors had 200hp engines on the wings and one 220hp engine in the nose... is it high performance?
Berkut
Well-Known Member
This is where it gets interesting.
As a couple people have already said, there's no real relationship between throttle position and percent power. Half throttle doesn't mean half power, etc.
I would go by the type certificate myself, whatever it says.
As a couple people have already said, there's no real relationship between throttle position and percent power. Half throttle doesn't mean half power, etc.
Actually, the Seneca II does put out more power at altitude. It puts out 200HP at sea level, and 215HP at 12,000 feet. That makes it an interesting plane to use as an example when talking about the high performance endorsement.
I would go by the type certificate myself, whatever it says.
Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
So max continuous at altitude is more then max allowed for takeoff?
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
The early Ford Trimotors had 200hp engines on the wings and one 220hp engine in the nose... is it high performance?
Yep!