Lost One Yesterday

I have about 500 hours in light twins, mostly in a Baron. They are a great
handling airplane, and mine has known ice. No it does not fly as nicely or
is as responsive as a Bonanza or Extra, but it is a stable IFR platform that
cruises at 175K. I have no problem flying it over Lake Michigan. Dual
electrical systems and vacuum supplies are also nice- in other words the
same arguments of single versus twin.

Yes, you do have to stay on top of it if you lose an engine when you're
rotating. I did a number of these at Flight Safety, and it was clearly a
worthwhile experience. Losing an engine during other times of flight is more
of a procedural problem than an true emergency.

Besides, flying upside down isn't a challenge- it's recovering that can be
difficult.

("Dan Luke" wrote)
I'd as soon sit on a toilet full of snakes as fly again with either of
them.


"Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes."

http://homepage.mac.com/j.socha/video/video.html
Flying snake movies - Gliding footage at bottom


Montblack

wrote

That is pretty much my take on light twins. If you lost an engine on
takeoff at low altitude you are better off chopping both throttles and
landing it. Only turbine twins typically have enough power to climb
out on a single engine without having to operate near VMC.

Do they have enough power to get safely above VMC, if the nose is brought
down, so only a 100 or 200fpm climb rate is achieved?
--
Jim in NC

Montblack wrote:

"Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes."

nice. I was thinking the same thing, Indy.

"Montblack" wrote:

("Dan Luke" wrote)
I'd as soon sit on a toilet full of snakes as fly again with either of
them.


"Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes."

Heh! I thought that one would draw some comment. It's an expression my dad
used to use; I think he picked it up in the Air Force.

http://homepage.mac.com/j.socha/video/video.html
Flying snake movies - Gliding footage at bottom

Cool.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Dan Luke" wrote)
I'd as soon sit on a toilet full of snakes as fly again with either of
them.


"Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes."

http://homepage.mac.com/j.socha/video/video.html
Flying snake movies - Gliding footage at bottom


Montblack


It is quite a word picture!

It also reminds my of my feelings about a Twin Comanche owner I knew about
25 years ago. He was quite comfortable with his own assessment that there
was no need to maintain proficiency in single engine operations--he needed
only to climb out 10 knots above the recommended speed.

A ride was never offered, and would not have been accepted.

Peter

wrote in message
That is pretty much my take on light twins. If you lost an engine on
takeoff at low altitude you are better off chopping both throttles and
landing it. Only turbine twins typically have enough power to climb
out on a single engine without having to operate near VMC.

It's been a while since I've flown a B-55, but I do remember that with just
1 person onboard, the single-engine performance at sea-level is adequate.
Poor technique and/or the fuel selectors being on the aux tanks is more
likely to be the cause.

D.

That is pretty much my take on light twins. If you lost an engine on
takeoff at low altitude you are better off chopping both throttles and
landing it. Only turbine twins typically have enough power to climb
out on a single engine without having to operate near VMC.

Do they have enough power to get safely above VMC, if the nose is brought
down, so only a 100 or 200fpm climb rate is achieved?
--
Jim in NC


I left this question wait until evening, mostly in the hope that one of the
multi-engine instructors on the group would pick it up and respond--so as
not to leave it for a lowly former student pilot. (sigh)

In any case, the answer to the question as specifically phrased is probably
"no". However, that may be trivial, since AFAIK it should mainly apply in
the special case of a "go" decision with an engine failure at rotation--many
twins be flown successfully from that situation and the parameters should be
covered in the POH. My recollection is that is was covered for the 301D, as
an example.

There are some considerations:
1) For most light twins, V-speeds are only published for maximum
permitted weight, but will actually vary with weight and CG.
2) For most light twins, VMC is only published for standard sea level
density altitude, but will vary with density altitude.
3) Light twins are not required to have a single engine ceiling above
standard sea level, although many do. However, twin owners are generally
quick to point out that a twin with one engine operating will typically have
a favorable "drift down" profile when operating above the single engine
ceiling.
4) Some (perhaps many--I don't know the statistics) light twins have a
best twin engine angle of climb speed less than VMC, and some _may_ have a
best twin engine rate of climb speed below VMC as well. (That possibility
scares the crap out of me!)

In the scenario suggested by the question--of an in flight failure at VMC
during the initial climb--it would probably be necessary to lower the nose
sufficiently for a 100 to 200 fmp NEGATIVE climb to achieve the best rate on
climb speed. It could also be necessary to temporarily reduce power on the
operating engine in order to regain yaw control--especially if you were not
VERY quick with the rudder.

The best source that I know of for good information on the actual correct
procedures is to attend one or more of the FAA seminars. The so-called
"Pilor/Controller" forums are frequently hosted by the local Safety Program
Coordinator for Flight Standards--who are very accomplished pilots in
addition to their other qualifications. They really are the ones to ask,
and they are not involved in enforcement during the years that work as
Safety Program Coordinators.

To find an event near you, visit http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/default.aspx
and enter your zip code and the distance you are willing to travel. You
will gain excellent information, meet your fellow pilots and enthusiasts,
and also be elegible for credit under the "Wings" program.

Peter