Define High Performance

TTail · Post by **TTail** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:34 pm

Could somone please define high performance aircraft according to the CARS. I'm trying to dig it out here online on TC's site. I know its speed related as oppossed to engine horsepower as it is down here in the US. I've been away from Canadian airspace too long!

Thanks

ice ice baby · Post by **ice ice baby** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:43 pm

I know anything that has a VNE of 250 kts or more is considered high performance as well as any aircraft that has a stall of 70? or 80kts? I don't remember off the top of my head what the stall speed is or in what configuration (dirty maybe.)

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:44 pm

I couldnt find it in CARS 101, so someone please correct me if Im wrong.

High Perf= Vso>80 knots and/or Vne> 250 knts.

bee tee · Post by **bee tee** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:45 pm

Off the top of my head I think its

1. Vso of 80 KIAS or more
2. Vne of 250 KIAS or more

The numbers could be slightly different, +/- 10 KIAS, but I'm sure its those two speeds that are involved. Note you only need to satisfy one of those two, not both (I think).

Aeros · Post by **Aeros** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:15 pm

400.01 (1)

high-performance aeroplane", with respect to a rating, means

(a) an aeroplane that is specified in the minimum flight crew document as requiring only one pilot and that has a maximum speed (Vne) of 250 KIAS or greater or a stall speed (Vso) of 80 KIAS or greater, or

(b) an amateur-built aeroplane that has a wing loading greater than that specified in section 549.103 of the Airworthiness Manual;

TTail · Post by **TTail** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:26 pm

Aeros wrote:400.01 (1)

high-performance aeroplane", with respect to a rating, means

(a) an aeroplane that is specified in the minimum flight crew document as requiring only one pilot and that has a maximum speed (Vne) of 250 KIAS or greater or a stall speed (Vso) of 80 KIAS or greater, or

(b) an amateur-built aeroplane that has a wing loading greater than that specified in section 549.103 of the Airworthiness Manual;

Does that part suggest that a 2-crew required aircraft is NOT considered High-Performance regardless of its numbers?

bee tee · Post by **bee tee** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:23 pm

A two crew aircraft is different from high performance. TC has a list of what is multi-crew and what isn't.

As far as I know, (I could be wrong), the Beech 1900 is a multi crew aircraft in Canada, but in other countries this is not so; some countries don't require two crew members to operate the above mentioned a/c.

You need 200 hours to fly a high performance aircraft, that is if you pass the necessary stuff to fly the a/c.

To fly multi-crew, you need 250 plus the IATRA.

An example of a high performance a/c is if let's say a doctor or a lawyer purchases a Beech Bonanza, takes it down to the US, installs a turbine engine, and wants to fly the a/c. Obviously, a turbine Bonanza takes more skill to fly than a 140HP PA28. The Bonanza is still not a two crew airplane, but it becomes a high performance a/c, and hence the requirement.

Hope that helps.

[/quote]

I_Drive_Planes · Post by **I_Drive_Planes** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm

I don't believe that adding a turbine to a Bonanza would make it high performance, as it has nothing to do with the Vne or Vso.

bee tee · Post by **bee tee** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:14 pm

I think a turbine Bonanza has a Vne of more than 250 KIAS. If it doesn't, oops, my bad. (It will cruise at 230-240 KTAS)

A P51 Mustang has a Vne of more than 250 so its a High Performance Aircraft, requiring only one pilot. I hope thats a better example.

Sulako · Post by **Sulako** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:32 pm

An MU-2 is a high-performance aircraft. It only requires one pilot in Canada and Vne is 250.

TTail · Post by **TTail** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:33 pm

sooooo a 2 crew aircraft such as a B757 is NOT a high performace a/c according to the CARS, correct?

Tango01 · Post by **Tango01** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:37 pm

A 757 is not high performance because it requires a MFC of 2.

TTail · Post by **TTail** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:40 pm

Anyone off the top of their head remember the Vne's or Vso's of:

Najavo
C340
BE58

Thanks again for the info guys & gals

Louis · Post by **Louis** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:47 pm

Navajo PA-31-310
Vso 70 KIAS
Vne 236 KIAS

TTail · Post by **TTail** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:01 pm

Thanks Louis.

I'm trying to taylor my logbook software for canadian standards and when I moved down here from Canada years ago, I left everything behind including my POH's. I don't have that much time in the PA31 to begin with so I vaguley remember those numbers

Thanks again, now 2 to go!

zaac · Post by **zaac** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:05 pm

Do you need the actual numbers or whether or not they're high performance?

TTail · Post by **TTail** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:07 pm

the latter will be fine

TTail · Post by **TTail** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:08 pm

I already know about the BE58 since the Navajo is not!!

zaac · Post by **zaac** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:12 pm

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... t42102.htm

TTail · Post by **TTail** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:17 pm

That chart is great. Thanks zaac I appreciate it. Damn how come I couldn't find that online, and I dabbled for an hour with the CARS. Guess I'm not as swift at skimming through the CARS as I used to be.

zaac · Post by **zaac** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:20 pm

You're welcome. Some of us C-172 pilots are pretty swift, eh!

TTail · Post by **TTail** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:22 pm

thats right! Do you instruct? When I was an instructor thats when I knew my CARS the best!

zaac · Post by **zaac** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:28 pm

No. I haven't flown in quite some time. Too many kids and all. I'm saving for my 172 checkout though and am planning to fly up to Cold Lake for their airshow this summer.

TTail · Post by **TTail** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:34 pm

That sounds like fun. I miss flying for pleasure like that. All the more reason to look forward to someday maybe purchasing my own small aircraft down the road. Thanks again for the link to that chart. Ironically the 3 aircraft in question are all NON high performance in Canada, yet all 3 ARE considered high performance in the USA!

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:42 am

Why according to that chart is the BE99 considered high performance? It's been awhile but the numbers I remember are 226 and something in the low 70's.