I think the odds are that every time you touch the throttle you have a chance.
IMHO
GT

qmdv wrote:Let me be the first to second guess:

1 Should have bought a 182 (or even a Maule)

2 Being more serious, would a left hand turn to land on the other runway have been better. I had an instructor that would ask, where do you go in an engine out.

No bent metal so he did really good. I have no Mooney time but I bet it is tougher to dead stick than a high wing Cessna.

Tim

Actually, a Mooney 201 has a relatively clean airframe. Best L/D is supposed to be 12.5/1. Might be a hair over that with the prop stopped (not windmilling). In any case it has a better glider ratio than a high wing Cessna. I have around 1400 hours Mooney time and 25 hours in Cessna - - I'll take the Mooney to dead stick!

Had to dead stick the Mooney into KTVL once (about 6400' MSL). It really wasn't an issue, declared an emergency and smoothly rolled it onto Rwy 36 . . . though an experience I wouldn't care to repeat. Having 800 hours glider time sure helps take the edge off a dead stick landing - - assuming, of course, one has a good safe place to head for and the altitude to make it. Conservative rule of thumb with the Mooney is you can glider 2 miles for each 1000 AGL. Conservative rule of thumb with my ASH26E is if you can see it you can reach it - - curvature of the earth can be a problem causing you to gain too much altitude. (glide ration is about 51/1)

BTW, I left my gear up until I absolutely positively knew I had that runway made on final. No sense adding extra drag early on. I modulated glide slope with the speed brakes, they extend and retract quickly so can be used much like the spoilers on a glider.

Texasnick,

That is one of those "urban aviation legends". In fact, the Air Safety Foundation did a study a few years ago, and found that most engine failures occur in cruise flight NOT in takeoff. In fact, that data was corrected to compensate for the amount of time we spend in each of those activities, and engine failures still occured more frequently in cruise flight than in takeoff and initial climb.

My point was merely to get people to think about engine failures when operating low level, as well as right after takeoff. Many pilots spend a lot of time planning what they'd do after an engine failure on initial climb, which is a good thing. But then, many of those same pilots fly around at very low altitude without a thought to the risks involved, or what they'd do THERE in the event of an engine failure.

My point is, BOTH scenarios are worth considering. But you're a lot less likely to have an engine failure in initial climb than in cruise.

MTV