I really think you can get 700nm with extended IFR reserves with the 200 gallons you get with the big tank versions of the 401/402. As for OEI performance at max gross, I only have 100 hours in a 401, but I think it will do what he wants.
But it won't make the clearway gradient, not the ODP gradient.
Repost from earlier:
But it won't make the clearway gradient, not the ODP gradient.
AlexB2000, you need to tell us what load and for what distance. My Seneca II will make the LINDZ departure at KASE if I mange weight correctly, OEI from 200 AGL.
As for the "runway analysis", any multi pilot needs to be able to do that, without an external company to hold your hand. That's just basic.
I think you're not understanding what companies like APG and Jeppesen do. For example, the alternate IFR departure procedure at ASE effectively eliminates the obstacle clearance considerations departing KASE and turns it into just another airport, albeit one at 7800' msl with a 8000' runway. It's what allows the airlines to operate out of there. The APD is an emergency procedure to be used in the event of an engine failure. I took a moment and superimposed the one that APG provided us one our last trip to ASE. There is more to it than this, but you can see how flying that arc will keep you out of the rocks. This procedure is only applicable for IFR departures in IMC. In VMC, if you loose an engine, you're going to still "see and avoid" the rocks and hang a left turn at the river and follow it down the valley to GJC.
It's an emergency procedure. As PIC you can deviate as necessary for safety of flight. It's also something that you need to be trained in and be ready to switch to in the event of an engine failure. However, it's what enables the airlines to operate out of ASE on IFR departures in IMC. It is also used by savvy 135 and 91 operators as well. There aren't very many aircraft that can meet the climb gradient requirements OEI without a serious reduction in takeoff weight. Significantly reducing those weight restrictions justifies the cost of the service. Of course, there are many other airports out there where these techniques come in handy. The last time I checked with APG it cost us $75 per month for their services. We flew in and out of ASE hundreds of times over the years and it made economic sense to us, but of course your mileage may vary.
Nope. The published departure gradient is based upon all engines operating. The alternate procedure is an emergency procedure that you'd switch to in the event of an engine loss. However, the regs (Part 121 and 135 operators) and common sense (Part 91 operators) tell you that you've got to have the performance to keep your nose out of the rocks. The alternate IFR departure procedure is essentially the IFR version of following the Roaring Fork down the valley. If you're always going to be departing in VFR conditions it's not necessary. When all engines are operating and it's VFR, the question becomes "At today's takeoff weight and OAT can we make the required climb gradient with all engines operating." If it's IMC you've still got to meet the climb gradient, but if you can't see the terrain how are you going to avoid it? You either have to out climb it or you've got to have a route that you can fly to avoid it if you lose an engine.
Climb rate OEI in a C-401/402 should be the same at 10K as it is at SL since the engines are full rated to well above that. Gradient won't be as good, since TAS at Vyse is higher, but it still should be enough for 200 ft/nm.
High cruise, maybe, but not at 180 KTAS. I'm thinking we burned about 32-35 gph in cruise, but it's been a long time.
Nor will any other piston twin short of something certified under Part 25 or the CAB predecessor to that (like a DC-3).