Single-engine Endurance and Performance

[Cole5Oh5]

you wanted to do it at 25/25, or reduced power.
Not the wise thing to do. POH says max power. Do that, you can stay up.

[Ernie Martin]

The issue of power and extended endurance is precisely the question. These engines are not rated for extended operation at full (i.e., take-off) power. If your closest landing is 1 or 2 hours away, you want to go to full cruise power, which is the top of the green band or 25/25. I believe that the engines are designed to operate at this power for extended periods. Can we start with that? Do you all agree or disagree? Then, will it maintain 5,000 ft at 2/3 load on a warm day?

I think this aircraft -- and all twins -- are designed to do that. Am I wrong?

In a single-engine aircraft, you have to promptly find a landing spot if the engine quits. Are we saying that our second engine simply extends briefly (5 - 15 minutes) the time we have to pick a landing spot?

Ernie

[skymstr02]

Originally Posted by Cole5Oh5

you wanted to do it at 25/25, or reduced power.
Not the wise thing to do. POH says max power. Do that, you can stay up.

Thats max continuous power (25/25), not full power.

On my O-2, I am able to maintain 4K, configured single engine, rear engine operating, near full gross wt.

And what the hell is blue line on a center line thrust airplane?

[Ernie Martin]

Come on, people. No more views? I'm seeking your opinion whether or not you ever did this. It's real simple and probably at the core of why you bought a Skymaster. The choices are:

1. Yes, a 2/3 loaded Skymaster on one engine will maintain 5,000 ft even on a hot day. That's what twins are supposed to do.

or

2. No, you will bleed altitude to maintain a safe speed. It's just like a single, where you've got to start looking for a place to put it down as soon as you lose an engine, except here you have more time to look.

Please vote.

Ernie

[tropical]

The best rule of thumb in any multi engine aircraft is once you have lost an engine land as soon as practical.

[Ernie Martin]

Thanks, I recognize that. But that's hard to do when you're over water and the nearest airport is one hour away. And the issue is more than academic, because mitigating steps can be taken: if I knew that I can't maintain altitude, then I will fly at higher altitudes* or with lighter loads. Please choose from my earlier memo, do you think it's 1 or 2?

Ernie

_______________
* I now fly at around 5,000 ft, based on prevailing winds, convenience and another factor mentioned on the next sentence, but I'd go to 10,000 ft if I knew that I can't maintain altitude (the extra 5,000 ft would gain me 50 extra minutes aloft if the loss is 100 ft/min). But if there is a fire on board (my third consideration) it would take twice as long to ditch. That is why, in part, this is important: no sense flying higher (a fire/smoke drawback) if the aircraft can maintain 5,000 ft with one engine.

[tropical]

Load your aircraft up and duplicate the circumstances you mention and go out and try it.

No 2 aircraft are the same, nor are two different pilot's abilities.

You're looking for a blanket answer.

[Ernie Martin]

It's not easy to find enough people for 2/3 load who are willing to endure this simulation. And I don't seek a blanket answer, just people's opinions until I test it.

Ernie