Almost all piston twins will climb on one engine if the airplane is clean
and above Vyse. Turboprops, unless they are Part 25 certified, don't cllimb
well on one engine at gross either. I have never heard of a non-Part 25
turboprop that would climb 1000fpm on one engine at gross although perhaps a
400LS could do it. Even a Piaggio Avanti can only do 753fpm on one engine.
Usually the manufacturer just sets the gross weight at a level where the
single engine performance is barely adequate. Training flights are usually
way below gross weight.

The real point of my post was that turbine engine failures are so rare that
even if every one resulted in a fatal accident, they would still have a
lower fatal accident rate then piston twins. It doesn't matter what happens
after an engine failure if the engine doesn't fail in the first place. So,
from an engine failure standpoint, you would probably be safer flying a King
Air 90 without a multi rating than flying a Baron with annual simulator
training.

Mike
MU-2



"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
Training and experience are definitely factors ("Professionally" flown
vs
owner flown) but an engine failure, under the same circumstances, in a
piston popper might well be no big deal in a turbine.

I can't say for sure, but I don't think all that many piston engines
have
full feathering props. Add the complexity of mixture control (and
even
carb
heat in some) and there's more work when that much more frequent
failure
occurs.



AFAIK all piston twins have feathering props. You probably meant
autofeathering though.

I hadn't even thought of auto-feather, but I was under the impression that
most piston twins wouldn't go to full feather (it's been 15 years since I
flew a piston popper twin).

Most of the safety difference is probably training
and the reliability of turbine engines.

Agree, but I'd say that loss of a piston engine would be much more
hazrardous than losing a turbine under the same circumstances (weather,
load, etc.) since a turbine usually has much more power available in the
remaining engine than a piston. And, yes, under high loads, the margins
are
equally BAD.

If you are ten times less likely to
have an engine failure, you are a lot less likely to have and engine
failure
related accident.

Indeed, but, too, SEROC in a piston is possibly a negative number, while
in
a turbo-prop it might be 800-1000fpm. Handled the same way, I can see that
what is a landing short of the runway in a piston twin would be a
non-issue
in a turbine.

I wonder how big the gap is between the two types, from Vsse to Vsi/Vso
(not
sure I'm phrasing that right).