pokey9554

Your memory does serve you correct.

727gm

He said Seminole at gross weight, standard day. Don't have the manual, but pretty doubtful.

At sea level with two persons and less than full fuel the PA-44 will go around and climb OK. If you choose your airport, and conditions, good training can be had. It climbs better at sea level than many ragged-out "gross-weight" Cessna 150's do on a hot summer day...

You would want to reduce the flaps right away to get rid of the drag, "Go-Around/Mix/Props/Throttle/Flaps 10", without changing pitch force much. The difference between clean stall speed of 57 kts, and flaps-full stall speed of 55 kts is only 2 knots, so "lose the drag" - virtually no effect on stall margin. Then positive rate, gear up, flaps up, etc...

If you want to do this in an areas, or at times, where the performance does not yield safe climb rates, then the question is academic. As a light twin, it has lost 50% of its POWER, but about 80% of its climb performance. If it's cool, light A/C, and no obstacles, low altitude, S.E. performance could yield an acceptable climb rate for training. But of course you will have checked the single-engine climb rate in the manuals so you can make that determination before going flying....but blanket statements about light twins are not really helpful.
CE-310 was great.... Apache was negative climb rate....

Red Forman

My old DPE that gave me my MEI ride asked, "you are single engine on short and final when a bus full of small children pull out onto the runway, do you go around? No, today children are going to die!" The old man was trying to make a point and it was pretty funny.

N9373M

Toss the student out. Save lives.

Luv2Rotate

Hmm, We were always taught with SE approaches to only put in Flaps 10 gear down a dot above glide slope intercept (less drag) until you have the runway in sight then you go flaps 20 or 30 and land. You can easily land a light twin with flaps 10 and have plenty of time to roll out unless its 2000' field.
Now, if you go missed all you have to do is gear up wait for speed to increase then clean up the flaps after speed is at "blue line".

STLaviator

I don't have my old Seminole POH with me, but I remember it says that Piper does not recommend or encourage single-engine go-arounds in any configuration (I'm sure they bolded and underlined and all-caps'd many of the words in that sentence). But the manual did state that if you were flying a single-engine approach, to fly it with an airspeed of no less than 90 kts with flaps extended to no more than 25 deg. According to Piper, that would be the configuration most likely to give you the best performance if you absolutely had to perform a single-engine go-around.

As an experienced MEI with another skilled pilot in the other seat, I demonstrated what a single-engine go-around would look like. We flew 90 kts, gear down, flaps 25 deg, with one engine simulating zero thrust. Made a longer downwind than usual to have a long straight-in final. Initiated the "single-engine" go-around at 800ft AGL. During the go-around, we lost approx 600 ft and bottomed out our descent around 200 ft AGL. It took us about 2 miles from initiating the go-around to get back up to 1,000 ft AGL. This was in a hot/humid July with the aircraft carring about half-tanks of fuel.

SVA402

I actually had an argument with a fed regarding this. I told him that I would do it so long as we executed the go around before setting landing flaps. He said that the whole idea of a go-around is to do it last minute, unexpectedly. I told him it was unsafe and I would not create a possible emergency just to simulate one. He said he couldn't argue with that.

dephicon

Well said.

wizepilot

I demonstrated this on my MEI ride some years ago with an FAA Inspector aboard in a R model C-310, turbocharged. This is in the midwest, warm day (85 degrees). At altitude, 3k if my memory serves me right, the airplane would not do it. Three aboard, warm day, approx. 75% fuel on board. The best I could get was a 150 fpm rate of descent. Now, on a cool or cold day, you may, and I repeat MAY, just get lucky. This was in 1979 folks, things were a lot different then. Not the airplanes so much, just what the FAA would or would not let you do. Oh the good old days!

skypimp92

Thanks for all the input guys. The only reason I asked the question, is during my multi-engine commercial check ride. The examiner asked me this question. I just wanted to pass the question along to see what other pilots thought. That is all i meant by this question. Thanks for all the responses. Also, I did pass my check ride

-Ken