Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:14:50 -0800
From: Eric Westland <ewestland@altavista.net>
Subject: COZY: Complex/High Performance?

We had a discussion sometime back on whether a 200 HP Cozy with
retractable nose gear was a complex and/or high performance aircraft.  I
can't find  it in the archives, neither can Marc (we both looked where
we thought it might be).  Anyone remember when we discussed this or
where it might be so I can re-read it?

Thanks,

Eric Westland

From: "John Stricker" <jstricke@odsys.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Complex/High Performance?
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:18:20 -0600

Eric,

I don't recall the discussion, but we've been kicking this around in the IFR
group with other aircraft.

Whether or not an a/c is complex is in the FAR's

FAR 61.31 (e)

(1)    Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may
act as pilot in command of a complex airplane (an airplane that has a
retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller; or, in
the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller), unless
the person has

So no, it is NOT a complex a/c as it does not have flaps.  Most also do not
have a controllable pitch propeller.  Just because it is a retract does not
make it complex.

High Performance is also defined in 61.31 (f)

(1)Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may act
as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane with an
engine of more than 200 horsepower), unless the person has

So unless you have 201 horsepower, your Cozy is NOT high performance.

I just got my multi in a Twin Comanche (PA30-160) a while back and while the
TC is definitely complex it is NOT high performance, even though it has a
total of 320 hp it does not have an engine of more than 200 hp.  According
to the part 61 FAQ and other sources I've found, this change was
intentional. (Although a bit warped, IMHO)

John Stricker


jstricke@odsys.net

"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain
just to become a vegetarian"



From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Complex/High Performance?
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:52:59 -0600

Eric,
When only 1 out of 3 wheels retract, and you can't be sure whether you
engine puts out 195, 200, or 205 hp, I think you can classify it any way
you want.
Nat

----------
> From: Eric Westland <ewestland@altavista.net>
> To: Cozy Builders <cozy_builders@canard.com>
> Subject: COZY: Complex/High Performance?
> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 11:14 PM
> 
> 

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:03:42 -0500
From: "Johnson, Phillip" <phillip.johnson@lmco.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Complex/High Performance?

I remember being involved in a discussion within this group some years
ago re this subject matter. I recall that the choice of the word "and"
was significant in the statement:

.......an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, AND a
controllable pitch propeller; .........

My recollection was that the aircraft needed to be equipped with all
three of the following before it must be called complex:

	1) retractable landing gear
	2) flaps
	3) a controllable pitch propeller

There was also a discussion about Canadian definition of high
performance. In this case the most significant factor was the wing
loading. I can't remember the exact figure for wing loading but if the
aircraft is not equipped with flaps then above 14.? lbs. per sq. ft
constitutes high performance. With flaps the figure is increased to
approximately 20lbs per sq. ft. (Sorry about the lack of precision.)
Basically the Canadian Cozy III & IV are both high performance. Some
people have argued that since the elevator is a slotted flap and that
the flap is extended during landing, the aircraft is equipped with
flaps. I posed this with my inspector this last weekend and he thought
that this was a bit tenuous.

Phillip Johnson

From: "John Stricker" <jstricke@odsys.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Complex/High Performance?
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:00:11 -0600

Wayne,

I cut and pasted right from my '99 AIM/FAR CD-ROM.  This also agrees with
the answers in the part 61 FAQ.  There are several questions regarding twins
with combined hp over 200 and the answer is the same.  The a/c MUST have A
engine with greater than 200 hp to be Hi-Performance.

The Arrow is, and always has been, a complex trainer because it has flaps, a
controllable pitch propeller, and retractable gear.  But the 200 hp Arrow is
not a high performance a/c.  Unless the a/c is a seaplane, it must have ALL
THREE things to be considered complex by the FAA.  This question/distinction
comes up quite often now as to what a/c is legal to use for the Commercial
Practical Test.

The rules have been made very clear now with the re-write, but in many cases
make less sense.  For example, you can now use a complex twin to demonstrate
those parts of the PTS for the commercial ride, even though you don't have a
Multi-Engine rating provided the DE agrees to be the PIC for that portion of
the test and IS appropriately rated.

Strange Goings Ons in the Reg Writing Department of the FAA, Methinks.

John Stricker

jstricke@odsys.net

"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain
just to become a vegetarian"

-----Original Message-----
From: L. Wayne Hicks <lwhicks@erols.com>
To: John Stricker <jstricke@odsys.net>
Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: COZY: Complex/High Performance?


:John Stricker wrote:
:>
:> Eric,
:>
:
:>
:> So unless you have 201 horsepower, your Cozy is NOT high performance.
:>
:--->
:
:Uhhm, are you sure about the 200-201 part?  I recall the FAA modifying
:this to now say 200 and up.  They did this to keep the Arrow as a
:complex trainer.
:
:Wayne Hicks
:Cozy IV #678
:Chapter 10

