Pa28r & hp

z987k

z987k

Well-Known Member
I hear this all the time. For some reason people think the Arrow III(PA28R-201) is a high performance airplane. The 201 does not mean it's 201hp, it means it's 200 hp and the wings are tapered. That is what the 1 is for. Just like the PA28-181 vs the 180. Even the 201T is rated at 200hp. Since when did people start thinking the IO-360 made 201 hp?

If I'm somehow wrong, I'd love to know how, because I am told or hear this on about a daily basis.
 
Thank you! I knew an instructor who insisted this while I was training and tried to talk down to me infront of the owner about how stupid I was. Low and behold, not hp.

Same guy won't let student pilots log pic on solos but that's another thread.
 
DPApilot said:
Thank you! I knew an instructor who insisted this while I was training and tried to talk down to me infront of the owner about how stupid I was. Low and behold, not hp.

Same guy won't let student pilots log pic on solos but that's another thread.
Click to expand...

I read that as "same guynwho LETS student pilots log..." haha. I was think, "But they're supposed to..."
 
That used to be a common error but I like to think everyone knows better now.

Many of us, myself included, were grandfathered into the high performance sign-off from when only a complex sign-off was necessary. Of course the 180, 200 and 201 Arrows were very popular for that. Seems like that lead many instructor astray.
 
I wish more people would understand that, it's pretty simple. The POH/ AFM still lists it as 200hp and the regulation states greater than 200...

Here's one that I've heard discussed. The Skyhawk XP with a Continental 360 in it, rated at 195 hp. There is a STC allowing the maximum take off RPM to increase providing 210 hp for take off, then reduced for continuous use.

Would you consider that to be a high-performance airplane?
 
DPApilot said:
Thank you! I knew an instructor who insisted this while I was training and tried to talk down to me infront of the owner about how stupid I was. Low and behold, not hp.

Same guy won't let student pilots log pic on solos but that's another thread.
Click to expand...

Won't LET them? but, he can't STOP them from logging it!

Who are these idiots? I need to get back into instructing and set some of these idiots straight.
 
CFI A&P said:
I wish more people would understand that, it's pretty simple. The POH/ AFM still lists it as 200hp and the regulation states greater than 200...

Here's one that I've heard discussed. The Skyhawk XP with a Continental 360 in it, rated at 195 hp. There is a STC allowing the maximum take off RPM to increase providing 210 hp for take off, then reduced for continuous use.

Would you consider that to be a high-performance airplane?
Click to expand...

Don't forget the note for beech sierras that says takeoff horsepower can be as much as 5% higher than rated horsepower.
 
CFI A&P said:
I wish more people would understand that, it's pretty simple. The POH/ AFM still lists it as 200hp and the regulation states greater than 200...

Here's one that I've heard discussed. The Skyhawk XP with a Continental 360 in it, rated at 195 hp. There is a STC allowing the maximum take off RPM to increase providing 210 hp for take off, then reduced for continuous use.

Would you consider that to be a high-performance airplane?
Click to expand...

I think I would, since the new STC modified engine is producing 210 hp. Even a Cherokee 235 probably doesn't produce full power on take-off out of most places, and you never probably run it at full power anyways. So if the engine can produce 210, even if you can't do it all the time, I don't see why it wouldn't meet the requirements.

The only hard part that I see is proving (later on) in the logbook that the plane you were flying had the STC and wasn't the normal 195hp variety.

I think the whole HP endorsement for over 200hp is absurd. I think there should be an endorsement, but maybe the HP should be set a little higher. I think anyone could jump into a 182 or Cherokee 235 and fly it w/o any problems, this assumes a basic aircraft checkout of course. I don't know where the hard number should be, what do you guys think?

I also don't like that twins (like a seneca), which have 200hp per engine are not considered HP, under the current definition. If a cherokee 235 is HP, I think something like a Seneca should be as well. Again, I would vote for a higher number, one that actually represents a high performance airplane, but I was just ranting on this as well. :)
 
I did my commercial training in a PA28R-200 and I didn't really think it was all that much more than a C172. A little more noticable p-factor and right rudder needed on take-off, but I agree that anyone should be able to just jump in and wouldn't have too much trouble.

I'm flying a BE36 right now and 300hp its much more noticable. When you take off or do a power-on stall you really got to stomp that right rudder to keep it coordinated. Maybe something closer to 300hp would be a more suitable high performance cut-off?
 
Chucco said:
I did my commercial training in a PA28R-200 and I didn't really think it was all that much more than a C172. A little more noticable p-factor and right rudder needed on take-off, but I agree that anyone should be able to just jump in and wouldn't have too much trouble.

I'm flying a BE36 right now and 300hp its much more noticable. When you take off or do a power-on stall you really got to stomp that right rudder to keep it coordinated. Maybe something closer to 300hp would be a more suitable high performance cut-off?
Click to expand...

Good points! I think that engine management is a big part of the endorsement too. You can pretty much run a 182 like a 172 and not have too many problems, you can't do the same thing with a 210.
 
z987k said:
I hear this all the time. For some reason people think the Arrow III(PA28R-201) is a high performance airplane. The 201 does not mean it's 201hp, it means it's 200 hp and the wings are tapered. That is what the 1 is for. Just like the PA28-181 vs the 180. Even the 201T is rated at 200hp. Since when did people start thinking the IO-360 made 201 hp?

If I'm somehow wrong, I'd love to know how, because I am told or hear this on about a daily basis.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right.
 
Exactly.

I have only been instructing for about a month and a half now, but I have already heard 3 people tell me that they got their hp endorsement in our PA28R-201. Only one of them still did not believe me when I corrected them, so I had to pop out the POH that says that is is 200hp, as well as the reg that states MORE THAN 200hp.

Now...if their endorsement was not done in some thing with more than 200hp, is it still valid? What kind of legal trouble could they run into down the road?
 
Callador said:
Good points! I think that engine management is a big part of the endorsement too. You can pretty much run a 182 like a 172 and not have too many problems, you can't do the same thing with a 210.
Click to expand...


Disagree. The 182 has counterweights, ramming the throttle to the firewall with your foot on a 172, while bad form Peter Pan, probably wont cause any real damage, not so on the 182.
 
tlewis95 said:
Now...if their endorsement was not done in some thing with more than 200hp, is it still valid?
Click to expand...
As I recall, the reg is pretty cut and dry... " Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a high-performance airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane"

If you haven't met the requirements of the endorsement, the endorsement is not valid. Whether anyone besides internet regulation nerds cares, I don't know.
 
tlewis95 said:
Exactly.

I have only been instructing for about a month and a half now, but I have already heard 3 people tell me that they got their hp endorsement in our PA28R-201. Only one of them still did not believe me when I corrected them, so I had to pop out the POH that says that is is 200hp, as well as the reg that states MORE THAN 200hp.

Now...if their endorsement was not done in some thing with more than 200hp, is it still valid? What kind of legal trouble could they run into down the road?
Click to expand...


Correct the mistake and I'm sure no one will worry about it.
 
z987k said:
I hear this all the time. For some reason people think the Arrow III(PA28R-201) is a high performance airplane. The 201 does not mean it's 201hp, it means it's 200 hp and the wings are tapered. That is what the 1 is for. Just like the PA28-181 vs the 180. Even the 201T is rated at 200hp. Since when did people start thinking the IO-360 made 201 hp?

If I'm somehow wrong, I'd love to know how, because I am told or hear this on about a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Piper holds much of the blame. The original upgraded Cherokes were designated by their horsepower (180 or 235) When the Warrior came out, it was the PA28-150. Archer was PA28-180 and Dakota was PA28-235, and so on. People just assumed- and Piper was only too happy to let them assume- that the difference between a PA28-200 and a 201 is horsepower, when it's really the tapered wing vs the old hershey-bar wing. Piper really didn't do enough to make that clear
 
Mike H said:
Piper holds much of the blame. The original upgraded Cherokes were designated by their horsepower (180 or 235) When the Warrior came out, it was the PA28-150. Archer was PA28-180 and Dakota was PA28-235, and so on. People just assumed- and Piper was only too happy to let them assume- that the difference between a PA28-200 and a 201 is horsepower, when it's really the tapered wing vs the old hershey-bar wing. Piper really didn't do enough to make that clear
Click to expand...


You should sue them... it's really a clear cut case! ;)

Late model PA-28-140's had 150hp engines.... One should never assume ;)
 
z987k said:
I hear this all the time. For some reason people think the Arrow III(PA28R-201) is a high performance airplane. The 201 does not mean it's 201hp, it means it's 200 hp and the wings are tapered. That is what the 1 is for. Just like the PA28-181 vs the 180. Even the 201T is rated at 200hp. Since when did people start thinking the IO-360 made 201 hp?

If I'm somehow wrong, I'd love to know how, because I am told or hear this on about a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Cool, good to know. I can admit that I thought the PA28RT-201 was HP.
Though in my defense, it was the owner of the PA28RT'201 that told me that it had 201 HP while we were cruising around.

I thought it was safe to believe him. :laff:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top