In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Big John wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:47:32 -0800, cavalamb himself
wrote:

jan olieslagers wrote:
jan olieslagers schreef:

Morgans schreef:

"Rich S." wrote

Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design!
)))

Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one
pilot on board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet?

Dunno. I would have thought it better than that.

Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new
designed twin.

Anyone else have an opinion on the subject?

Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes:
The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me.
I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is
to come down safely, not to go up.

And then again, 400 fpm isn't that bad after one engine quits.
Few single-engined planes can claim such a figure!

Such stuff...

Where did you get that misguided notion?



Take off at Denver in the summer in a 150 and see what your rate of
climb is.

Is that even possible? :-)

Depends on how late at night you try.