Disclaimer: Some don't like it when a poster says something and then refuses to respond to follow-up comments. In a recent post someone asked to be warned about this at the beginning of the post. This is that warning. I come here to learn and sometimes pass on some thoughts about things that I have learned that some might benefit from. Beyond that, I don't have whatever gene it is that makes people want to engage with strangers on the internet.
You will hear pilots say that some aircraft do not fly the same with a dead engine as they do with power at idle. About a year ago I got up the courage to test this in my experimental aircraft. While above my uncontrolled airport, and with a ton of altitude, I pulled my mixture all the way out until the engine completely stopped producing any power. The 3 bladed prop was still spinning.
The result was nothing like the 30 years of practicing simulated engine outs with the power at idle. The descent rate and loss of altitude were more extreme. My initial reaction was shock. I was expecting something different, but not this radical.
I have heard some Cessna and Piper pilots who have tried this say there was not much difference.
However, I wonder if for some experimentals the real engine-out experience is far more dramatic than they would expect from years of practicing power-at-idle engine outs?
I understand why practicing mixture-to-idle is not a recommended practice, but I think for experimentals it might save a life.
I might have been in a world of hurt if I was at pattern altitude and had a real engine failure for the first time in my plane. My shock factor and the excessive altitude loss would not have given me the time to do anything "normal" to save the situation. In other words, if you train for a certain scenario, and when it happens the basis for that training is not there, it may take an exceptional pilot to overcome this challenge. In all my years of flying I have learned that I am not an exceptional pilot.
www.latimes.com
