Then stallie you have the 10-15Kt buffer I'm suggesting in that aircraft..a B58 Baron hs 4 kts between Vy (104) and Vyse(100)...I can't remember the exact numbers for all the piston twins I've flown but from memory the Islander was 65 for just about everything but we climbed them out at 90 odd.
Speed is life in an assy twin...if you have extra altitude as well great but speed is the important one...higher speed means less control deflection/less drag/ better short term performance, while you get your sh1t in a nice pile.
Bik, I wasn't aware the Cessna 210M/N was a piston twin
As I stated in my last post...if there is a (engine) manufacturers limit then follow it. That does not mean a pavlovian reduction to some artificial 'METO' power setting at 1000' is appropriate!!
The Baron's MCP is full throttle/2700rpm, pulling power at 1000' to 25/25 is not required by the manufacturer and is merely what generations of pilots have been led to believe is right and good....it's not right and it's not good for the engine.
Why is it that pilots believe that a crash is inevitable in a Piston twin if one fails below some arbitrary speed/altitude? I would suggest that it is partly a hang over from the early days of light piston twins when it was fairly true and partly because pilots don't actually explore the FM but tend to allow well intentioned advice and old wives tales to dictate how they will fly and react to certain scenarios.
Early twins like the Commanche, Apache, Seminole etc certainly left you with few options but how many of those are still being used for commercial ops these days.
Barons, Islanders, Chieftains, C404s, Aerostars are the common aircraft piston types and Twin Otters, Kingairs, Conquests are the predominant turbine equivelents that, while turbine powered, are still FAR 23 and therefore don't have those reserves of performance that 'gaurantee' flying away from an engine cut at V1.
Flown properly they all will though!!
All that changes is the decison point...V1 in a FAR 25 type and, basically 'gear up' in FAR 23 type. Before those points you reject the takeoff...in the former you will (probably) stop within ASDA while in the later you takes what ya get!!!
I have had engine failures in the worst place, just airborne/gear up in the C402 and Aerostar...in the Cessna I was just under MTOW and in the Deathstar I was 'just'
over...both times I flew away, completed a circuit and landed 'uneventfully'. Mates have had engine failures in all manner of piston twin and done the same...one 'significanty' over MTOW on a C404...he got around the circuit and landed ok...shaking with adrenaline overdose but essentially OK.
The common thread with all of us was a system of intial and recurrent training within a 'Supplemental' Airline/Reg 203 organisation...not so common these days...the piston twins have all been handed to barely viable charter outfits with less than impressive training...either initial or recurrent.
A Baron 58 will, according to it's performance graphs, be capable of a 'postive' rate of climb on one engine, with the other feathered, flap up and GEAR DOWN up to 1600' PA and 40deg C at MTOW. With the gear up it should climb at bettter than 2.5% at MTOW, MSL and 30DegC.
And I don't believe that holding the dead engine up with 5deg bank does all that much either....theory says you then need less rudder because you brought the drag line closer to the longitudinal axis but you have also reduced the verticle component of lift...I tend to think this is one of those things that has passed into folk lore and is perpetuated by the old wives network.
Certainly when sh1ts were trumps I never remembered to do that and it seemed to make no apprecable difference. Ball in the middle/wings level/full power/speed at blue line...if it climbs great..if not look for somewhere soft for a touchdown at Vmca +...I think you will be pleasantly surprised at how well they go on one.
In FAR 25 you are 'gauranteed' 2.4% minimum (twin engine) in the second segment provided you meet certain WAT limits...you would be amazed how often even airlines tend to assume more than is deemed acceptable by the pilots in order to do flights with viable commercial loads...various airlines that operate wide bodies in and out of Kathmandu is one example that I have personaly witnessed having had to design a special procedure for the Part 25, generally overpowered, Falcon I operated in and out of there.
So in Part 25 you are 'gauranteed' acceptable performance..in Part 23 you are not....but study your AFM and see what performance you can expect under various WAT scenarios...why throw away a perfectly good aeroplane for no reason other than "But I was told..."
Even a Duchess I flew recently on a IF renewal would climb at 2.5% (SE) with two fat bastards
and lotsa fuel...nice little aeroplane.
Chuck.