Not true John Boy
Afraid we shall have to continue to disagree, then.
So it must meet 20.7.1b up to 13,500lb.
I would need to review the STC paperwork in the AFM FMS to form a view. However, a couple of points ..
(a) the original US TC doesn't claim other than FAR23 .. unless I have missed something in a read through ..
(b) citing 20.7.1b is all fine and beaut .. but it is an operational requirements document, not the certification animal. Looking at (a) and (b), and noting that I haven't had the luxury of a looksee through the STC paperwork, perhaps you can detail the manner in which the performance has been improved to meet your claims ? Not saying it hasn't .. just that I am curious.
Certainly, the OEM POH gives various OEI climb gradient capabilities (including to FAR25) but there is a big leap from the typical GA grey area below Vyse and related configuration - caveat, my file POH doesn't include the present mishap aircraft so I am taking a bit of a leap in faith here, I guess.
Sure, its not going to get 6 or 7% on one engine like a jet
There would be many heavy jet pilots who would like to strap that sort of aircraft to their tails .... now, how about with a commercial payload ?
but it DOES meet the requitements and when handled correctly (which sim training should ensure) it WILL fly away nicely.
Caveat - my comment doesn't apply to the present mishap but should be viewed as generic.
(a) simulators are only as good as the model fidelity and the data which goes into the programming .. ergo.. perhaps ...
(b) are you suggesting that this capability covers a critical failure on the ground ? ie that the aircraft might emulate/comply with FAR25 requirements ? If so, at what sort of weights ? I am only too happy to be surprised ...
I don't believe in this grey area
How remarkable. I certainly do for this class of aircraft and smaller ...
Yes but the performance grey area you refer to is not so small in some of the crappy piston twins flying around currently.
Which is why I cited the current FAR23 requirement. The average piston twin at commercial weights and a failure below Vyse (with the associated configuration) and a couple of hundred feet under your belt .. probably isn't going anywhere in a hurry .. other than down.
My position in that class with a critically low/slow failure was always to plan on closing the throttles and crashing the best I could more or less straight ahead .. generally, one is better off crashing at low speed right way up rather than at higher speed and upside down.
Certainly, that was the essence of my pre-takeoff briefing on GA I/F renewals. I note that neither ATOs nor DCA examiners were ever game to put my very definite implied threat to the test by simulating a low height failure ... not to mention that they would have feared gross physical assault after the event ..
I would commend Max's observations in post #494 ... for those who don't know who he is .. the post represents the voice of a LOT of experience.