On Mar 7, 12:05 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Natalie writes:
The number of engines doesn't matter. By the way a twin with two
HP wouldn't be HP either.

High-performance, complex ... when did the FAA set these standards? It must
have been when the Wright brothers were around if they are this low. To me,
an F-16 is high performance, not a Baron. And a Space Shuttle is complex (or,
arguably, a large jet airliner).

In real life, most of it makes sense.

For example, the high-performance part is related to how much plane
you can safely handle, although perhaps it should've been tied more to
top speed instead. Under, say 120kts, most pilots (even students) can
keep up with the airplane. But if you go faster, then you have to
think ahead much more, and that takes experience. Obviously yes,
this is true in spades for F-16s

There's also the extreme example of a prop airplane with a 1000HP
engine, that'll twist you like a corkscrew if you don't know what to
do.

The "complex" definition is another example of checking someone's
experience and knowledge, although perhaps it should've been broken
down separately into retractable and controllable-prop requirements.
But a lack of knowledge isn't necessarily dangerous.

Multi-engine, OTOH, really requires training to stay out of trouble.

Tailwheel endorsement is another example of license add-ons.

Kev