Engine failure in a twin - how soon do you land?

[Grum.Man]

I doubt anything that gets written here is ever going to dispel your irrational anxiety about twin engine airplanes.
Every airplane out there will try to kill you if you do not respect its limits. And they ALL have limits, even the much vaunted Cirrus (as so many unfortunate Cirrus pilots and passengers learned early on).

There's ample possibility the pilot that could not fly the twin within its limits in a single engine configuration, when it really counted, might not have walked away if it had been a single either.

In the August 2002 edition of Flying, Peter Garrison published an instructive Aftermath column about an A36 Bonanza pilot that suffered an engine failure after a bearing spun and the crankshaft broke in two places. The pilot had 6000 ft of altitude and needed only 3500 vertical feet to reach the nearest airport, which is where he headed when the controller vectored him. The pilot did everything right to begin with: immediately slowed the plane at constant altitude to best glide speed, however, by 1800 ft AGL he was at 88 kts, at 1200 ft down to 81 knots, held the airplane momentarily at ~1000 ft at 77 kts, temporarily trading airspeed for altitude, and then decelerated steadily to 60 kts at 200 ft. The pilot and his daughter in the front seat did not survive, the two rear seat passengers did.

We were all taught in private pilot ground school that being appreciably faster or slower than the best glide speed brings the airplane down more steeply. So why do pilots make that mistake?

Ironically, the very year and month the above referenced article was published, the accident described below occurred. And three years later, to the month, Flying published Garrison's equally instructional article below. This fatal Malibu engine loss accident is not one of the two others I am personally familiar with. One of those was almost a repeat of the one below - trying to stretch the glide.

Tell me again how much more "dangerous" twin engine airplanes are compared to high performance singles, when an engine fails.
It is not the planes that are dangerous.
But as I wrote at the beginning of this post, nothing is ever likely to change your belief system.

The Cub is the safest airplane in the world; it can just barely kill you.

— Max Stanley, Northrop test pilot.​

What is chiefly needed is skill rather than machinery.

— Wilbur Wright, letter to Octave Chanute, 13 May 1900
​

I was always afraid of dying. Always. It was my fear that made me learn everything I could about my airplane and my emergency equipment, and kept me flying respectful of my machine and always alert in the cockpit.

— General Chuck Yeager
​

Prepare for the unknown, unexpected and inconceivable … after 50 years of flying I’m still learning every time I fly.

— Gene Cernan
​

If an airplane is still in one piece, don't cheat on it. Ride the bastard down.

— Ernest K. Gann​

View attachment 75793 View attachment 75794 View attachment 75796 View attachment 75797 View attachment 75799 View attachment 75800

So true. Spend some time on Kathryn's report reading accident articles. Most of the crashes people survive. Most of the crashes are from errors in piloting/planning. Majority of the fatalities are a result of a stall spin into the ground or what otherwise could have been a survivable circumstance. Going into the trees straight and level always beats lawn darting it into a soft field.

 

[SoonerAviator]

. . . the POH of the first twin I learned in (a Duchess) only promises about 250 fpm of climb, and that's with gear and flaps up.

To be fair, I've heard the Duchess only promises 250fpm climb with both engines as well.

Wow. 135 people in a King Air?

Clown Car Airlines!

 

[Radar Contact]

That's a great example of how flying a twin doesn't make you safer in an engine out.

I'm not sure anyone has said or thought that by the mere fact of having a second engine, you are automatically safer in all cases 100% of the time. You've heard both @Lance F and @James_Dean mention in this thread that they shut one down and landed at an airport. I'll add to that in that I had a partial loss in a Seneca at night/IMC where if I'd been in a single I'd have been in very bad shape considering the area. It still matters what you (the pilot) does when you lose it.

This was the most important part of the NTSB report "The procedures for landing with an inoperative engine included an approach speed of 111 knots with excessive altitude, landing gear down within gliding distance to the field, and wing flaps down when landing was assured."

"All three landing gear actuators were observed in the extended position. Portions of the flaps that were not compromised due to fire and or impact damage were extended approximately 40 degrees."

 

[Tantalum]

I'm not sure anyone has said or thought that by the mere fact of having a second engine, you are automatically safer in all cases 100% of the time. You've heard both @Lance F and @James_Dean mention in this thread that they shut one down and landed at an airport. I'll add to that in that I had a partial loss in a Seneca at night/IMC where if I'd been in a single I'd have been in very bad shape considering the area. It still matters what you (the pilot) does when you lose it.

For sure! But there is, or at least I had one, a presumption for a long time that, and I think many non aviators have it too, that two engines is automatically safer.. which it really isn't. People die and survive engine failures in multi and single engine planes, the occasional anecdote doesn't really prove one way or the other

In a sense, you are also twice as likely to have an engine failure in a twin.. so with enough flying you're more likely to have to deal with the eventual loss of power in one engine

 

[MauleSkinner]

For sure! But there is, or at least I had one, a presumption for a long time that, and I think many non aviators have it too, that two engines is automatically safer.. which it really isn't. People die and survive engine failures in multi and single engine planes, the occasional anecdote doesn't really prove one way or the other

In a sense, you are als

Nothing is “automatically” safer. It takes training, proficiency, and recency to be safer, whether you’ve got one engine or two.

 

[Tantalum]

Nothing is “automatically” safer

..true, but given a proficient pilot some equipment is going to be safer. I would say parachutes, known icing, etc., are objective things on an aircraft that should increase your survivability for when weather is not as planned, things break, etc. A second engine, apparently though, is not in the camp

But that's just my thought process. It won't keep me out of a twin, I'll own my Aerostar some day, but if full loaded and over the mountains I lose an engine that second engine is not going to bring me much more piece of mind than a parachute, if any

 

[jsstevens]

..true, but given a proficient pilot some equipment is going to be safer. I would say parachutes, known icing, etc., are objective things on an aircraft that should increase your survivability for when weather is not as planned, things break, etc. A second engine, apparently though, is not in the camp

But that's just my thought process. It won't keep me out of a twin, I'll own my Aerostar some day, but if full loaded and over the mountains I lose an engine that second engine is not going to bring me much more piece of mind than a parachute, if any

It's not a silver bullet (but really neither is the parachute). The key is to practice OEI regularly and often so that you are proficient in OEI operations. Then it's definitely safer than not having the extra engine. There are cases where it is, cases where it's worse (always because of pilot error I'd argue) and cases where it doesn't matter. And it's hard to measure because shutting down an engine (or even losing one unexpectedly) doesn't get in the stats if it's a successful outcome. Much like losing a engine in a single doesn't become a stat if you glide down and land successfully on an airport. Pulling the chute still gets you in the stats-even if you are not injured in the landing.

John

 

[deyoung]

Caveat: I have zero multi time and my answer might be different with more experience there, but that said... I'm landing at the first airport I can get to with a reasonably long paved runway.

Because I'm chicken. And I'm fine with that. If there are any further surprises in this scenario, they are only going to be unpleasant ones.

As they say, I'd much rather be on the ground wishing I were in the air than vice versa.

 

[James_Dean]

..true, but given a proficient pilot some equipment is going to be safer. I would say parachutes, known icing, etc., are objective things on an aircraft that should increase your survivability for when weather is not as planned, things break, etc. A second engine, apparently though, is not in the camp

But that's just my thought process. It won't keep me out of a twin, I'll own my Aerostar some day, but if full loaded and over the mountains I lose an engine that second engine is not going to bring me much more piece of mind than a parachute, if any

You’ll feel differently after your training. The plane will perform. Will you when the time comes is the question.

 

[N1120A]

DA62




..the only answer

Lol, no. They still have those ****ty controls. Also, a Baron will definitely perform with one engine.

Read the accident info link you sent.. pretty crazy that a 421 can't land on one engine.. sounds like the pilot did just about everything right up until the last few moments.. can a 421 not maintain level flight on one engine at 700 msl? Why even bother with a twin then? Really makes the case that twin <> safe

PS, just curious why you answered that he would have been safer going to a class Charlie or class Bravo airport? It seems like based on the aircraft's performance (or lack there of) and his abilities he would have come up about 1/2 mile short at any airport.. am I missing something that made the untowered nature of this airport more dangerous?

It appears the mention of the use of the word "excessive" implies that on one engine the plane is more or less in a semi controlled fall

1) The 414 and 421 are not the greatest performers. They are extremely comfortable, simple for what they are and sufficient.

2) The guy's big problem was probably the trees. Class C and B airports, and most Class Ds as well, usually don't have the same kind of obstacle issues. Also, services mean something.

The POH performance charts make it clear that weight makes a substantial difference in single-engine climb performance. So does altitude, with normally-aspirated engines, but the DA-62 is turbocharged.

By the way, I forgot to mention this until I went back and edited my post (while you were writing your reply): I was talking about a Duchess, which is a lot lower horsepower than the Cessna 421 that was being discussed. Of course, the weight is a lot lower too. I don't know what the numbers are for the 421, but my understanding is that the FAA's certification requirements for piston twins don't demand all that much in the way of single-engine performance.

You couldn't pay me to fly a Duchess. I'd rather need to glide a single. The 414/421 are kinda poor performers for what they are, but can be safely operated single engine. You just have to keep them clean until landing is absolutely assured.

 

[Palmpilot]

You couldn't pay me to fly a Duchess. I'd rather need to glide a single. The 414/421 are kinda poor performers for what they are, but can be safely operated single engine. You just have to keep them clean until landing is absolutely assured.

When I took my multiengine training, I was limited to the rental planes available.

 

[Lance F]

I’d just like some amplification on “421/414 are not the greatest performers”, and “simple for what they are” and “the 414/421 are kind of poor performers for what they are”. I don’t want to be thin skinned, but what are you comparing this type to for such statements? An F22?

 

[N1120A]

I’d just like some amplification on “421/414 are not the greatest performers”, and “simple for what they are” and “the 414/421 are kind of poor performers for what they are”. I don’t want to be thin skinned, but what are you comparing this type to for such statements? An F22?

Oh, compared to a Baron or an Aerostar, to start. They are lovely airplanes, but built around comfort and relative simplicity and ease of operation. An engine out with them is a pretty marginal proposition, even considering how big those engines are.

 

[mirage00]

Huh? What’s marginal?

 

[Lance F]

An engine out with them is a pretty marginal proposition, even considering how big those engines are.

This simply isn’t true. I’ve shut down an engine and landed OEI in a 414 and then a 414A in the last couple of months. Total non events. Certainly not marginal. Done pretty realistic sim work (RTC in Tampa) on 414 engine failure on take off. They’ll climb out safely at max gross and 90dF conditions. I don’t have book numbers in front of me, but I’d be very surprised if a Baron has better OEI performance than a 414/421. An Aerostar is faster, but I’d be glad to compare OEI performance there too.

Not sure how the 414/421 would be any simpler or more complicated for that matter than any other cabin class, pressurized, turbocharged piston twin.
Have you ever flown one?

 

[mirage00]

Well at least he got one thing right... “they are lovely planes”

 

[bobmrg]

Read the accident info link you sent.. pretty crazy that a 421 can't land on one engine.. sounds like the pilot did just about everything right up until the last few moments.. can a 421 not maintain level flight on one engine at 700 msl? Why even bother with a twin then? Really makes the case that twin <> safe

PS, just curious why you answered that he would have been safer going to a class Charlie or class Bravo airport? It seems like based on the aircraft's performance (or lack there of) and his abilities he would have come up about 1/2 mile short at any airport.. am I missing something that made the untowered nature of this airport more dangerous?

It appears the mention of the use of the word "excessive" implies that on one engine the plane is more or less in a semi controlled fall

"pretty crazy that a 421 can't land on one engine..."

I've landed a 421 with one prop feathered.

Bob

 

[schmookeeg]

This simply isn’t true. I’ve shut down an engine and landed OEI in a 414 and then a 414A in the last couple of months. Total non events. Certainly not marginal. Done pretty realistic sim work (RTC in Tampa) on 414 engine failure on take off. They’ll climb out safely at max gross and 90dF conditions. I don’t have book numbers in front of me, but I’d be very surprised if a Baron has better OEI performance than a 414/421. An Aerostar is faster, but I’d be glad to compare OEI performance there too.

I have zero 400 series time, so please don't think I'm supporting the assertion that they don't climb -- but facts interest me, even when they are comparative e-peen-measuring facts. So, in furtherance of that, plus to keep what has been a fun thread going -- here are the stock graphs for my D55. Pray, continue. I'll pop some more corn.

 

[mirage00]

Here is the 421C

 

[schmookeeg]

Welp, sorta as expected, 421 has NA 55 beat in every quad. Someone should dig up the obscure 56TC numbers now just to stretch that original assertion into plausibility.

 

[Tantalum]

"pretty crazy that a 421 can't land on one engine..."

I've landed a 421 with one prop feathered.

What was your load like?
And apparently so have others, but accident data proves that this is an area people severely struggle with, especially, as this also highlights https://airfactsjournal.com/2012/04/considering-a-twin/ , you are a lower time average flyer.. and most people I talk to fly well under 100 hrs a year, since most people I know fly strictly for pleasure, which translates to 1-4 hrs per month

An engine failure in a single is straightforward, best glide, find a place to land, troubleshoot. In a twin, that's a far more advanced process just to keep the thing flying on one engine, and it seems that many pilots may not be cut out for it.. is that a fault of the plane, or the pilot? That debate is out.. are motorcycle vs car safety differences due to the machine, or the rider? It does seem to me however that there is an inherent safety flaw with a design that has redundancy but massively increases your workload when that redundancy is put into place, where if you don't do it just right it's not just a missed approach, it's an inverted plane spinning into the ground, and that engine really isn't doing much other than sort of helping you fly if you can't go around with it or maintain level flight when configured to land

 

[Tantalum]

This simply isn’t true. I’ve shut down an engine and landed OEI in a 414 and then a 414A in the last couple of months. Total non events. Certainly not marginal. Done pretty realistic sim work (RTC in Tampa)

Thanks, always cool and insightful to talk to actual operators, a few observations from me, a "twin skeptic" (read, not hater):
-you are but one sample size. That's like me saying I've driven through plenty of snowstorms (I have) and never had an accident. That won't change the fact that driving down that same road I'll pass 3 cars in the ditch
-it seems you might be doing this commercially (?) and/or have a ton of time in them and do some legit training, etc. and proper proficiency work. That's fantastic, and makes you a safer operator. But someone who's flying 40 hrs a year and barely staying legally current is likely going to get killed when one of their engines dies.. after all, you are twice as likely to have an engine failure in a twin that 40 hr per year person is arguable safer losing an engine in a 182 and doing a best glide and subsequent mush into trees than trying to wrestle an OEI twin back down, and potentially spiraling it in

I have zero 400 series time, so please don't think I'm supporting the assertion that they don't climb -- but facts interest me, even when they are comparative e-peen-measuring facts. So, in furtherance of that, plus to keep what has been a fun thread going -- here are the stock graphs for my D55. Pray, continue. I'll pop some more corn.

Thanks! Hope you have your pop corn ready, because I mean that graph proves it, other than "it looks cool" (which is 100% justifiable in aviation and cars) or "has cabin class and I don't want to / can't afford upfront turboprop costs" what really is the appeal of a piston twin? That POH data shows me that if I lose an engine climbing out of Big Bear (L35) in the summer I will have a NEGATIVE climb rate.. so I'm going into the lake, either splashing in and potentially flipping, getting hurt, etc., or spiral diving it in. I'll take the BRS every day in that case

View attachment 75881 View attachment 75880 Here is the 421C

Thanks! So basically, you lose an engine over the rockies or Sierra Nevadas in the summer and you are at max gross (I mean the whole reason you bought a twin is for some kind of meaningful useful load) then you are proverbially F*d! Note that those graphs are also flaps and gear up and not turning (okay, 5* bank)..! So at some point you are going to have to TURN THE PLANE, be high on approach, commit to the landing, and get yourself configured.. and your near perfect execution may still end up killing you. Seems like a coin toss in my book for most pilots with the odds tipped against you

 

[schmookeeg]

Thanks! Hope you have your pop corn ready, because I mean that graph proves it, other than "it looks cool" (which is 100% justifiable in aviation and cars) or "has cabin class and I don't want to / can't afford upfront turboprop costs" what really is the appeal of a piston twin? That POH data shows me that if I lose an engine climbing out of Big Bear (L35) in the summer I will have a NEGATIVE climb rate.. so I'm going into the lake, either splashing in and potentially flipping, getting hurt, etc., or spiral diving it in. I'll take the BRS every day in that case

I can only speak to my own decision process, obviously, but here is mine:

1. I 100% agree that twins need more care, training, feeding, and respect. Also if I flub a OEI go-around, I die. I was trained to never do those. Because I can count on some performance (holding 6, 8, 10 thousand feet altitude), I'm able to choose the best weather for my OEI approach. I'll be choosing the highest ceilings where I can get them, so that a go-around is ridiculous.

2. Having lost an engine in a single, having *the option* of another motor gives me some peace. I am one of the few twin drivers I know who considers a Cirrus "equivalent level of safety" to a twin, and for reduced cognitive load, I'd trade my baron for either an SR22 or P337 if given the option.

3. If I am not "up" to the challenge of managing a twin on an OEI, I can still make it into a single with no engine by pulling the throttle on the good engine and "finding that place to land" -- twins glide too. Not well, but they do.

4. There is a reason I favor colemill/HP upgraded planes, and there is a reason I like having aux tanks -- so I can leave them empty and enjoy the extra performance cushion. That graph above explains both. My plane has an 1,880lb useful load. It's rare I have more than 2 people up in her. If I only fill mains (2.5 hour endurance), then we'll weigh about 1,000 under gross. Even the stock Baron could climb out of Leadville at 120F when that light. I'd hate circling big bear lake on OEI, but it can be done, and I'd be planning my fuel/people load accordingly. BRS beats twin in these scenarios.... *if* you can get to 400 AGL. A light twin can fight its way out of the bowl starting from 0 AGL *if* kept light. You will also spend 10-15 minutes doing it and the plane will be trying to kill you the entire time. Not fun, but... *possible*

5. Managing an engine-out isn't some huge constant fiddly process. I've never seen a twin without 3-axis trim. You'll configure, you'll set trim, and you can send your attention to the good engine and keeping it purring, find that class D airport with the nearby bar that has 24 taps ( ), and mention to center/approach that you're wounded and claim priority.

6. I fly ugly planes. I don't care what they look like. I do very very much enjoy the fistful of throttles and the noise twins make. It's visceral.

I wrote this foolishness in the for-sale ad for my last baron:

Additionally, a few words about the Colemill conversion.

My attorney (who flies a Piper) once sneered that "With 600 Horsepower, I could make a toilet fly". While true, this, friends, is no toilet. This is the Beechcraft Baron.

Once you have taxiied a Colemill Baron over the numbers, taken a breath -- your last for the next few moments, and briefed some details about go-no decisions, something primal clicks in your brain. A wave of peace and focus surrounds you. You study the throttle quadrant. You watch your disembodied hand instinctively grab the throttles. Your bicep tenses. They glide forward. You crack a bestial grin. You are become the ubermensch.

The airport environment fades to the blackest of your unconcern. The runway ahead brightens, beckons, aches for your powerful and brief caress. The twin locomotives of your chariot snap taut, and unleash hell. Zeus's own personal hand presses you firmly but fatherly back into your seat. He gives you a fist bump with the other before acceleration chucks him rearward and out of the cabin. Six hundred thoroughbreds snort and strain and jerk you forward. Their heart's cry rends the air behind you at 2,850 RPM, converting liquid brontosaurs into an enormous Jurrasic Stomp. You ride that explosive shockwave up, up, into the sky that you now command. With the flick of your mind, the Colemill Baron delivers you to any point in the sky, with a purposeful obedience not found in the wheezing, underpowered planes of the proletariat...

It's worth it to me. I completely understand others not coming to the same conclusion. They're expensive, fussy, intense things to own and operate and understand. When the chore of it outweighs the satisfaction of it, I'll be trading it out for something else, I promise.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

$0.02

- Mike

 

[Tantalum]

Thanks @schmookeeg for the itemized response, planes and boats are as much about rationality as they are about desires, romance, and just visceral needs. I'm no stranger to that, my car is entirely impractical by I enjoy it. An Aerostar would have many faults, but I'd love to own one.. as would I enjoy owning a 337, etc. If I had Musk money I'd have a proper aircraft collection with many propeller beasts. But I'd also keep a TBM9XX as my personal plane since practicality will have to have a place in my life

6. I fly ugly planes. I don't care what they look like. I do very very much enjoy the fistful of throttles and the noise twins make. It's visceral.

No such thing... I secretly wish there was a four engine GA option available, apparently Cessna did have a 620 (310 X 2), but wasn't very attractive. How cool would owning one of these be?

with a purposeful obedience not found in the wheezing, underpowered planes of the proletariat...

Love it! ..you and your bourgeoisie luxuries

 

[Palmpilot]

What was your load like?
And apparently so have others, but accident data proves that this is an area people severely struggle with, especially, as this also highlights https://airfactsjournal.com/2012/04/considering-a-twin/ , you are a lower time average flyer.. and most people I talk to fly well under 100 hrs a year, since most people I know fly strictly for pleasure, which translates to 1-4 hrs per month

As that article suggests, the solution to the struggle is to commit to an adequate level of recurrent training.

An engine failure in a single is straightforward, best glide, find a place to land, troubleshoot. In a twin, that's a far more advanced process just to keep the thing flying on one engine, and it seems that many pilots may not be cut out for it.. is that a fault of the plane, or the pilot?...

I would say that it's the fault of inadequate recurrent training rather than not being cut out for it.

And by the way, "many" people screw up engine-out landings in singles, too!

 

[charheep]

Since I have no multi time or real knowledge, besides the fuel system, is there anything that both engines share? Are there other things that would affect both engines if it were to fail or get contaminated?

 

[Lance F]

that 40 hr per year person is arguable safer losing an engine in a 182 and doing a best glide and subsequent mush into trees than trying to wrestle an OEI twin back down, and potentially spiraling it in

This made me laugh a bit. Besides my recent two precautionary multi shutdowns, I did experience an engine failure (dual mag failure was the cause) in my Mooney several years ago. Total failure at 9,000' over eastern VA on a beautiful VFR afternoon. I can tell you without reservation that was an extremely stressful 10 or 11 minutes to get it safely on the ground. The two twin OEI events were absolutely ho-hums. No wrestling involved.

I've never flown part 135 or 121. I take my flying and training seriously and do fly more than the average part 91 pilot.

 

[Tantalum]

I take my flying and training seriously and do fly more than the average part 91 pilot.

And I think therein lies the answer.. to a proficient and capable person that second engine will help.. but everyone *thinks* they're above average while not everyone is, and I would conjecture that for the average (1hr to 4hr per month) pilot having a second engine to babysit is more of a liability than a safety

You are privileged to have the time and financial freedom to fly a big twin safely, cheers

 

[deyoung]

I did experience an engine failure (dual mag failure was the cause) in my Mooney several years ago.

What caused both to fail at the same time? I'd have thought that would be awfully unlikely (thus the reason for having two in the first place).

 

[Lance F]

What caused both to fail at the same time? I'd have thought that would be awfully unlikely (thus the reason for having two in the first place).

Both sets of contacts wore to zero gap within 11 seconds of one another and consequently no spark was generated . Yes, very unlikely but it happened. I totally changed my approach to and attitude about mag maintenance after the event.

 

[IK04]

I have witnessed and performed some single-engine approaches and landings in both a C-421 and a PA-23-150 Apache. Both were successfully landed using the same procedures and technique.

As Schmookeeg stated above, you can pull the power back on the good engine and land power off in a twin, too! In fact, that method works pretty well in the Apache, since the "good" engine isn't really helping much with three people onboard...

 

[Tantalum]

As Schmookeeg stated above, you can pull the power back on the good engine and land power off in a twin, too! In fact, that method works pretty well in the Apache, since the "good" engine isn't really helping much with three people onboard...

What is the glide like on a twin with zero engines producing power?

Both sets of contacts wore to zero gap within 11 seconds of one another and consequently no spark was generated

Is that just sheer bad luck or was there some underlying issue that may have caused both to fail during a near statistical impossibility?

 

[IK04]

What is the glide like on a twin with zero engines producing power?

Not nearly a scary as power off in a C-210! Yikes!

 

[schmookeeg]

What is the glide like on a twin with zero engines producing power?

"Pathetic"

 

[Tantalum]

"Pathetic"

I would agree, lol!... so let's say you are at 5K and you have zero engines... this time because you exhausted fuel, you will be able to get about 10 nm of glide out. That's not atrocious.. but certainly not spectacular

There could be a tremendous training benefit to being able to take an aircraft really through all it's paces

 

[schmookeeg]

Actually, I was just thinking about this. 120kts is MORE than the Vmca speed of 99kts, so there is zero reason you'd prefer to glide if you have a good mill. I wonder why they bothered publishing that.

It's been a long time, what's a 172 glide at? Maybe 2nm is not as pathetic as I assumed.

 

[Lance F]

Is that just sheer bad luck or was there some underlying issue that may have caused both to fail during a near statistical impossibility?

Hard to know for sure. The Bendix 3000 mag has one cam for both mags. Assumption was inadequate or improper cam lubrication.

 

[TCABM]

..
You are privileged to have the time and financial freedom to fly a big twin safely, cheers

The proficiency responsibility associated with moving up to a twin is logarithmic. Unfortunately, it only take a minimum standard to be ‘qualified’.

More so than any other aviation platform, the piston will severely punish non-proficiency.

 

[deyoung]

It's been a long time, what's a 172 glide at? Maybe 2nm is not as pathetic as I assumed.

My Cherokee-235 doesn't do any better than that -- probably a bit worse.

 

[Palmpilot]

Actually, I was just thinking about this. 120kts is MORE than the Vmca speed of 99kts, so there is zero reason you'd prefer to glide if you have a good mill. I wonder why they bothered publishing that.

It's been a long time, what's a 172 glide at? Maybe 2nm is not as pathetic as I assumed.

I just checked a 172S POH, and it glides about 1.5 NM per thousand feet AGL. The fact that a Baron does better may be due to having retractable landing gear.