I have no knowledge of the specific mishap so my comments are generic only. Likewise I have not flown or been involved with KingAir 200s so allow for that as well.
Some observations ..
Are there any such fellows or ladies on here for me to ask?
Lots of such folk abound within PPRuNe so ask away ..
just after rotation, the left engine quits
An extremely critical situation. Adherence to the POH procedures, as a rule, will provide for the best chance of a successful outcome.
Immediate concerns are -
(a) DH
(b) OAT (for a turbine)
(c) GW (extremely critical to OEI climb capability)
(d) CG
(e) actual speed at the time of failure compared to target takeoff safety speed and Vmca
(f) Vmca may become quite vicious as the actual speed approaches the real Vmca for the conditions. Directional control difficulties increase very rapidly.
(g) presuming that your mishap aircraft is certificated to Part 23 (refer
TCDS A24CE), while acknowledging that turboprops generally fare better than pistons, things will still be interesting, depending on the above conditions.
(h) if near Vmca, it is absolutely critical to adopt the POH technique .. unless the 5 degree bank requirement is specifically not required (and that would be most unusual) the bank is critical as the actual Vmca varies significantly (and rapidly) with bank variations .. bank into the operating engine (within reasonable limits) will improve the handling by reducing the actual Vmca. It does, on the other hand, not do all that much for climb gradient which, in general, is maximised at a bank angle around 2-3 degrees.
(i) if the POH configuration is not achieved, OEI climb gradient can be assumed to deteriorate severely ...
It is the critical engine, because both propellers rotate clockwise, viewing from the rear.
This is the general situation. At high angles of incidence, the net thrust vector will move outboard on the starboard propeller which increases directional control difficulties when contrasted to a starboard power loss. In the latter case, the port propeller thrust vector moves inboard.
the pilot kept the landing gear down and flaps extended
Possibly not a good idea unless the intention was an immediate landing. Given that you refer to a parallel runway, I presume that was the pilot's intent.
He leveled out, but just after that his left wing dipped and he crashed
Speculation only on my part - depending on speed control and manoeuvring loads, the aircraft may have fallen foul of a Vmca/stall situation with the port wing stall margin compromised further by the roll input to achieve the parallel runway heading.
loss of the lift of the accelerated slipstream
Clearly there will be a reduction in lift in the region normally swept by the slipstream. This is much more pronounced on larger four-engined turboprops such at the various Lockheed products. However, the POH procedures will have been developed with this effect being part of the flight test trials. Hence, providing that the handling techniques follow that recommended in the POH, the effect ought not to be overly critical in the scheme of things.
This loss of lift .. a more dramatic roll to the left, especially at low speeds.
Granted, but this will have been material in determining POH procedures.
added drag of the left dead engine and wing causes a strong left yaw.
Perhaps not so much a wing consideration but, certainly, on many turboprop installations if the propeller either is not feathered or NTS-ing .. the situation becomes very critical very quickly. See for instance the discussion on the Brasilia mishap at Darwin some years ago - (
here).