Pi1otguy
Pattern Altitude
Wondering about the KVGT crash today. Are most light twins able to maintain level flight on one engine? If not, is there a specific reason why it design consideration why?
Wondering about the KVGT crash today. Are most light twins able to maintain level flight on one engine? If not, is there a specific reason why it design consideration why?
if the plane weighs under 6000lbs it is not required to be able to maintain altitude on 1 engine.
in my experience, it can really depend on the conditions of the day (weight of plane/ payload/ fuel / density altitude/ temp)
And pilot. From my limited experience, single engine ops on a light non-turbo twin (Seminole) are dicey. They climb like a quadrapeligic grandmother on quaaludes.
And pilot. From my limited experience, single engine ops on a light non-turbo twin (Seminole) are dicey. They climb like a quadrapeligic grandmother on quaaludes.
After further review, it's 1.5% at 5000 feet for light twins. Ref: 14 CFR 23.67(a).Ron, I think It's 3 degrees. For USAF Heavies, we are required at least 250' per nm. That translates in our book to about 3.3 degrees I think.
Manufacturers of light twins with gross weights <6000 pounds with stall speeds less than 61 knots m
need only determine the engine-out climb or descent rate, they don't have to prove that it can maintain level flight;
Bob Gardner
THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT
Actually, there is a requirement for light twins to be able to climb on one engine at ....
After further review, it's 1.5% at 5000 feet for light twins. Ref: 14 CFR 23.67(a).
(2) For each airplane that meets the requirements prescribed in §23.562(d), or that has a VSOof 61 knots or less, the steady gradient of climb or descent at a pressure altitude of 5,000 feet must be determined with the—
(i) Critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;
(ii) Remaining engine(s) at not more than maximum continuous power;
(iii) Landing gear retracted;
(iv) Wing flaps retracted; and
(v) Climb speed not less than 1.2VS1.
Separate requirements.But if you continue to 23.67(b), it appears that Bob is right...
Greetings all, new to PoA, and picked up on this thread. The Navajo at VGT should have been able to maintain altitude back to the airport. One report was that the SE service ceiling is about 13000MSL. He was solo with about 200gal of fuel on board.
He had a reported fire on one engine and was making his way back. There was one unconfirmed report that the second engine also failed so he did not make it back.
BTIZ, VGT Pilot
Seems to me a contributor to this board put his Baron 55 into the woods when it had a heater fire once upon a time.I have personally watched a light twin go down in flames because the pilot tried to get to an airport rather than shut down the affected engine and land on the first available piece of dirt. It's just another example of folks making bad decisions in light twins that they'd never make in a single.
Seems to me a contributor to this board put his Baron 55 into the woods when it had a heater fire once upon a time.
Details, details. When I heard the tale I was at the time.I think it was a 58P and from what I remember the 'only tree in kansas' can't be considered a wooded area but im sure he can straighten us out.
Obviously he was trying to fly between two trees to shear the wings off, and lessen the impact of the crash...I think it was a 58P and from what I remember the 'only tree in kansas' can't be considered a wooded area but im sure he can straighten us out.
Short of airplanes with remote extinguishers in the engines, I've never seen a fire checklist that didn't end with LAND IMMEDIATELY. To me that does not mean waiting for an airport.
From where he was in the valley.. it was just as far to a suitable landing in the desert or any open area.. as it was to get back to the airport.Thanks for the info... I think fire is a "get it down NOW wherever" rather than a "get back to the airport" scenario. (Right, Chip? ) Yikes.