Type rating question

[z987k]

Maybe calories.

Or catpower.

 

[BobDDuck]

Or catpower.

Probably not the best measurement to use. Good singer though.

 

[sweeps]

They measure different things so it's kind of tough to make the conversion. However the general rule is that 105 pounds of thrust is equal to 1 hp.

Should that say 10.5? That would make a whole lot of jets not high performance if it was 105 to 1.

 

[BobDDuck]

Here's an article on it, although it doesn't come up with the 105 figure.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0195.shtml

 

[Volkl5star]

Don't most, if not all airlines require a HP sign-off prior to hire even as SIC? If all you needed was a type to act as PIC then the HP requirement probably wouldn't be needed.

 

[dasleben]

Don't most, if not all airlines require a HP sign-off prior to hire even as SIC? If all you needed was a type to act as PIC then the HP requirement probably wouldn't be needed.

No, I flew a full year in RJs without a HP signoff.

 

[statusseeker1]

Don't most, if not all airlines require a HP sign-off prior to hire even as SIC? If all you needed was a type to act as PIC then the HP requirement probably wouldn't be needed.

No. I'd imagine the HP endorsement is aimed at rich people bring forced to get at least basic instruction in a HP aircraft before they fly it all over the place.

 

[sweeps]

Here's an article on it, although it doesn't come up with the 105 figure.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0195.shtml

Thanks, I skimmed through it, and it seems to vary greatly. In one example they give, the ratio would be about 1.58 times the thrust gives you horsepower. So a Mustang would have something like 1400 hp equivalent for the 900lb thrust engine? Rough numbers and all but it seems to make sense I guess. I'll read it a little more in depth later.

 

[sweeps]

No, a 135 or 121 check counts as your high altitude endorsement.


This. There's nothing about high performance in Part 3.

I was talking about the high performance, not high altitude endorsement. After re-reading I think I answered my own question about the part 91 operation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are flying anything part 91 only, no matter if you have the type or not, you still need the endorsements because you would not have the PIC proficiency check?

 

[z987k]

I was talking about the high performance, not high altitude endorsement. After re-reading I think I answered my own question about the part 91 operation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are flying anything part 91 only, no matter if you have the type or not, you still need the endorsements because you would not have the PIC proficiency check?

Not if you've done a 135/121 check in a pressurized aircraft in the past at any point.
You are right, you just plain need the high performance endorsement regardless, except I have no idea how that applies to jets and/or SIC.

 

[Houston]

I was talking about the high performance, not high altitude endorsement. After re-reading I think I answered my own question about the part 91 operation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are flying anything part 91 only, no matter if you have the type or not, you still need the endorsements because you would not have the PIC proficiency check?

That is my understanding as well.

I'm glad you raised the question. It was an excellent and through provoking discussion.

 

[sweeps]

Not if you've done a 135/121 check in a pressurized aircraft in the past at any point.
You are right, you just plain need the high performance endorsement regardless, except I have no idea how that applies to jets and/or SIC.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes I don't know if anyone knows how it actually relates to jets, or at least can cite a reg or something. I would assume an SIC doesn't need it because they're obviously not the PIC.

 

[Polymox]

They measure different things so it's kind of tough to make the conversion. However the general rule is that 105 pounds of thrust is equal to 1 hp.

Completely impossible. That would mean a 115000 lb thrust GE90 is equivalent to a 1095 hp PT6A.

 

[Polymox]

Thanks, I skimmed through it, and it seems to vary greatly. In one example they give, the ratio would be about 1.58 times the thrust gives you horsepower. So a Mustang would have something like 1400 hp equivalent for the 900lb thrust engine? Rough numbers and all but it seems to make sense I guess. I'll read it a little more in depth later.

This passes the sanity check.

 

[///AMG]

I missed out on my high performance endorsement back in the day because the Piper Arrow variant I was flying had 200 SHP, which wasn't 201 or whatever to meet the requirements. As such, I am not legal to PIC any high performance aircraft. Would I be able to show a CFI my logbook and get a pity sign off, or would I have to go out and do a practical? What say ye legal/FAR experts?

 

[Pilot Fighter]

I missed out on my high performance endorsement back in the day because the Piper Arrow variant I was flying had 200 SHP, which wasn't 201 or whatever to meet the requirements. As such, I am not legal to PIC any high performance aircraft. Would I be able to show a CFI my logbook and get a pity sign off, or would I have to go out and do a practical? What say ye legal/FAR experts?

Don't try to make any sense out of the FAR. You'll be pleased to know that you don't need a rotorcraft rating to fly an experimental helicopter but an F-18 driver needs an HP endorsement to tame a 182.

 

[z987k]

I missed out on my high performance endorsement back in the day because the Piper Arrow variant I was flying had 200 SHP, which wasn't 201 or whatever to meet the requirements. As such, I am not legal to PIC any high performance aircraft. Would I be able to show a CFI my logbook and get a pity sign off, or would I have to go out and do a practical? What say ye legal/FAR experts?

I think we could work something out where you take a pilot for a ride in your airplane... give the endorsement based upon observing you meeting all the requirements.