One, the chart you're showing does not include any aftermarket GWI STC. Second of all, I've never seen a 421C with 2500lb useful. More like 2200 with aftermarket GWI STC (VGs), so really a 2050lb useful for performance chart calculations. Knock away 900lb and we're flying on fumes. Any decent wind in Denver coming in over the mountains and that 200fpm instantly becomes -200fpm. Correct me if I am wrong on any assumption here.

Two guys, winter coats and ski gear and baggage is 600lb, That leaves 91 gallons of fuel. That's not enough to go anywhere.

This is as stupid as saying an engine failure in a single will cause a hole in the ground, as many in the general public believe.
Mike C.

The math police are at the door. Better flush your calculator down the toilet.

Mike C.

My understanding is that the STC has to meet the original climb performance.

The VGs do this by making the wing and tail more efficient at lower speeds, less drag. So even with the higher gross weight, you still get book performance for the original gross weight.

Mike C.

My understanding is that the STC has to meet the original climb performance.

The VGs do this by making the wing and tail more efficient at lower speeds, less drag. So even with the higher gross weight, you still get book performance for the original gross weight.

Mike C.

421 wasn't certified under part 23, it was CAR 3.

The STC was certified under the "no worse" performance doctrine. I don't believe you even get new performance charts because of that. It will do as well or better than the original.

I'd much rather be in a 421 at KTEX than, say, a T210, especially if I KNEW an engine was going to fail! At gross and ISA, can still get 150 FPM, 500 lbs down, 270 FPM. That's enough to fly away safely.

Mike C.

You are making an absolute statement, which I can categorically state is absolutely wrong.
What is the purpose of two engines in most aircraft?
-- System's redundancy
-- Airplane size (need to carry more people/things)
-- Safe landing in case of engine failure

Backup batteries, all electric avionics, dual alternators... all have mitigated the twin engine advantage for systems redundancy.

We are talking about something that a single engine airplane can handle, so this is not a requirement for the proposed flights.

Lastly, landing safely. How does the parachute not answer this question over 99% of the USA? I can see the case over water that the chute does not help. But over land?

Tim

Redundant propulsion mostly.

Redundant systems for pressurization, electrical power, air pressure, air conditioning are additional benefits.


Pulling the chute is not a "landing". It is a crash with less lethality, hopefully, than the alternative, if properly deployed.

A second engine is a landing, if properly handled.

I'll take landing over crashing any day, regardless of the supposed lack of lethality of the chute.

The chute is not a safety device, it is a utility device. The primary utility is affecting the judgment of the pilot so he feels able to take more dangerous trips that might be better suited to a more capable aircraft.

The second engine on a twin has a similar effect and with similar results, too. I'd never had taken my 210 on the Q100 over the gulf. In my MU2, I did, though not without some thought even so.

Mike C.

Awful lot of assumptions in that post presented as hard fact...

Mike C.

A landing is anything you can walk away from. That is the criteria I use, and it is a common criteria.

For YOU, the chute is not a viable option as a safety device. And that is YOUR opinion. Note only do I disagree, I would state the market disagrees and most Cirrus pilots disagree.

You keep making the assumption that a second engine will get you home just as effectively. Based on the number of accidents with twins, I would think you have over estimated the skills of most pilots. A chute option eliminates this pilot proficiency skill. Further, from a personal stand point, when chute deployment has a 95% or higher success rate, I will take that over the 90% guarantee landing.

It is all about playing the odds, and the emotional weight we give the odds.

Tim

Do you tell your passengers that?

NTSB calls them accidents if there was substantial damage. A chute pull is an accident.


The chute has a success rate of about 30%.

That is, it eliminates only about 30% of the fatal accidents it COULD have prevented, mostly because it was never used or it was deployed outside a very limited envelope.

And that's not counting the fatal accidents it ENCOURAGED to happen that would not have otherwise existed had the pilot not taken comfort in having it.

Mike C.

William,

The 900lb comment was arbitrary. I typically operated my 421 900 under gross. Since your friend's is a pig, you might have to go 500 under gross. If you would offer the waypoints, we could calculate actual numbers.

I think you will find this trip is NO PROBLEM for a 421C.

Best,

While you are counting those extra incidents, how many additional accidents were caused by a pilot having comfort of a second engine and taking the comfort from it?

Tim

If you fly the airplane within the design limits, who needs the chute?

That's like having a fire extinguisher that says not to use it on a hot flame.


A commercial airliner suffers an inflight engine shutdown about once a day.

Avherald lists two of them today, both twins, a 757 and an E145.

You never hear about them...

I don't know any resource that tracks this for GA.

Mike C.

If you fly the airplane within the design limits, who needs the chute?

That's like having a fire extinguisher that says not to use it on a hot flame.


A commercial airliner suffers an inflight engine shutdown about once a day.

Avherald lists two of them today, both twins, a 757 and an E145.

You never hear about them...

I don't know any resource that tracks this for GA.

Mike C.