Pa28r & hp

trafficinsight said:
Late model PA-28-140's had 150hp engines.... One should never assume ;)
Click to expand...

I thought that all of the PA28-140's had the 150 horsepower from the factory. I wasn't aware they made a 140 horsepower model.

But, in the future, it is entirely possible that there will be high performance Arrow's. There is talk that Lycoming may STC their IO-390 for the PA28R line, like they have for some of the Mooney line, which would bring horsepower up to 210.
 
at the airports I fly out of, even a nomally aspirated Skylane only puts out about 75% power on take off. That's just under 180 hp.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I thought that all of the PA28-140's had the 150 horsepower from the factory. I wasn't aware they made a 140 horsepower model.

But, in the future, it is entirely possible that there will be high performance Arrow's. There is talk that Lycoming may STC their IO-390 for the PA28R line, like they have for some of the Mooney line, which would bring horsepower up to 210.
Click to expand...


The early early ones were derated but I doubt that there are any left in that configuration.

And I hope they do, the arrow with a little more power would be neat ;)
 
trafficinsight said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did say pretty much run... I have lots of time in both, and it isn't rocket science to run a 182, even the 182RG is very straight forward. I haven't flown a 182 RG Turbo, and in that case I would imagine bad things happening if you flew it just like any other naturally aspirated airplane. I don't think you need a special endorsement to fly a normal 182, just a little time around the patch like any airplane learning about the quirks. Same could be said for a C175, where you could do much more damage just yanking back the power, but that only has 175 HP, so I guess that is ok. See what I'm getting at?
 
Callador said:
I don't think you need a special endorsement to fly a normal 182, just a little time around the patch like any airplane learning about the quirks. Same could be said for a C175, where you could do much more damage just yanking back the power, but that only has 175 HP, so I guess that is ok. See what I'm getting at?
Click to expand...


See now I think you shouldn't be "yanking" anything on any airplane regardless of horsepower ;)

And judging by the number of collapsed 182 nose gears I've seen, they ought to require a type rating for it ;)
 
Callador said:
I also don't like that twins (like a seneca), which have 200hp per engine are not considered HP, under the current definition.
Click to expand...

The Seneca (Seneca II at least) is another great point of contention over the high performance issue, since it can generate 215 HP per side above 12,000 feet.
 
Part 61 used to say "An airplane with more than 200 hp" but for some reason they changed it. There are petitions to change it back.

Beech Duchess: 360hp - not high performance....
Cessna 182: 235hp - high performance....

go figure.

And the Seneca II is high performance. I don't know why there's so much contention over it, but yeah there is.
 
trafficinsight said:
See now I think you shouldn't be "yanking" anything on any airplane regardless of horsepower ;)

And judging by the number of collapsed 182 nose gears I've seen, they ought to require a type rating for it ;)
Click to expand...

hehe, very true!!! But I have seen a lot of people batter that old GO-300 to death! :)
 
adk said:
The Seneca (Seneca II at least) is another great point of contention over the high performance issue, since it can generate 215 HP per side above 12,000 feet.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I didn't know that about the Seneca II, I just have time in the I. The battle rages on... :)
 
adk said:
The Seneca (Seneca II at least) is another great point of contention over the high performance issue, since it can generate 215 HP per side above 12,000 feet.
Click to expand...

The Continental TSIO-360E in Seneca II's are rated at 215HP though. It's high performance.

The Arrow is not high performance because the engines are rated at 200hp and the POH clearly states what the 1 is for. Piper has been adding the 1 since at least the 70's. None of these are hard, you look in the poh and it says what it's rated at. This is what I'm having a problem with. If a CFI tells me I can have a HP endorsement from an arrow, and he's flown the arrow a lot, then clearly he has never read the poh in all his time flying that airplane. Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top