Now I want a twin...

[Parker_Woodruff]

A properly flown twin operated by a proficient pilot within its limitations is inherently safer than a single; but that's the kicker – many aren't. I'd guess that the majority of the non-professional light twin drivers and many of the "pros" would be safer in a single. It takes a lot of effort to gain the necessary proficiency and even more to maintain it. That's dang tough to when your recurrent training involves little more than a flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you’re only flying a 50 to 100 hours a year. That is simply not enough and the accident record proves it. Our 121 brothers fly up to about 1000 hours a year and they get recurrent training every 6 months. That ought to tell you something.

True statements. Insurance companies' rates for twins would agree with your "many aren't" comment.

[cliffy]

What Ward said!

[RobertGary1]

If a twin flown by a competent pilot were safer than a single than those twin owners who are required to attend recurrent formal training would receive lower rates than singles. But that is not the case.

 

-Robert

[Skybrd]

I think most Mooney pilots could fly a Twin Comanche with a little practice. They land like one, as you need to get the airspeed correct on approach. Concerning VMC, just rotate after reaching it. If you loose an engine keep the speed above VMC. Loosing an engine on singles at takeoff is deadly too. I like both planes and the T Commanche is probably the lowest cost twin for the performance. Concerning insurance the Comanche is higher, I got mine from Avemco, the Mooney from AOPA. Enjoy flying before they restrict us or take away our airspace. Remember Sky King show and his twin airplanes, the Songbird..

[kerry]

You could try to get a cri cri.  There's one for sale on Barnstormers.  It's a twin that seems more affordable to fly compared to a Mooney.

[DaV8or]

There is one other significant consideration that needs to be considered in the single vs twin discussion. With few exceptions, the FAA mandates that all certified single engine aircraft have a stalling speed no greater than 61 knots. There is no such requirement for multiengine aircraft. A few multiengine aircraft are light enough to come in with a stall speed less than 61 knots, but many aircraft designers take advantage of higher wing loadings to increase a light twin’s performance.  This results in twins having stall speeds significantly higher than the equivalent single engine airplane. Take the Beech A36 Bonanza and the Baron 58. Essentially, they are single and multiengine versions of the same airframe, with more or less comparable performance and capabilities. The Bonanza has a stall speed of 59 knots and the Baron, a stall speed of 73 knots. Now remember, if you double the stall speed, you multiply the kinetic energy four times. The survivability of a crash is a function of how quickly the kinetic energy is dissipated. In the event of an off field landing in a twin, you could easily have nearly twice the kinetic energy to dissipate. If you’re lucky you’ll have a flat smooth surface, but throw in some rocks, trees, etc. and you quickly see why survivability in an off field landing in a twin could be problematic. Something for the “if I lose an engine I’ll just pull the throttle on the other one and land straight ahead crowd” to consider seriously.

 

This is the scary part to me. The one engine flying you to the scene of the crash does so at pretty good speed. You are still in the same airframe you are in the single. They don't beef it up or make it more crash worthy in any way. The same issue keeps me out of the speedy two seat experimentals. The high landing speeds in a cabin that fractures on impact scares me. I also don't believe twins are spin tested either. People bitch about the Cirrus not being spin tested but somehow it's OK in the Baron.

 

So being a mediocre, low time per year pilot, no twins for me. I'll stick to my VFR, daytime zig zag flight plans, darting from safe landing area to safe landing area. No direct over the mountains or ocean for me. Having said all that, if I lived in the south east and flight to the Caribbean was more practical, I would look seriously at a 337 Skymaster. I know the safety record for these is no better than any other twin, but I still think my chances with my limited skills are better off with this plane.

[bd32322]

Btw, why is it difficult to identify the dead engine (i have zero twin hours)? With an engine monitor, you should be able to tell and they should have a design that automatically flags an abnormal engine and fires a big red light

Then there is the yaw string, which I saw getting used a lot when I took instructional flights in gliders and helis. Given two indicators of a bad engine and the rudder pressure, it should be possible to identify the failed engine quickly.

It should also be possible to automate this with yaw sensors incorporated into the engine monitors - just a thought

[DonMuncy]

I think that many pilots feel a very real need to do something RIGHT NOW when an engine stops. So they don't take the few seconds it takes to assess which one quit.

[carusoam]

Don,

What is the procedure?

I assume something like avoiding a stall on departure in my Mooney, lower the nose immediately?

Or is single engine ops not as obvious as silence, at first?

I think I would go turbine first over twin. Either one requires me to have won another lottery...

Thanks,

-a-

[DonMuncy]

It is obvious that you have lost power and the plane yaws toward the lost engine. The easiest way is to correct for the yaw. Then I was taught "dead foot = dead engine". That is, whichever foot you are using, the other engine is the one that died.

What you do first depends on where you are. If you are in cruise, you just feather the dead engine and start to figure out where and when you will land. If you are near the "single engine minimum speed", you immediately lower your nose and decrease the power to the good engine.

The real danger is being at high power and low speed, where the good engine pulls you over into an uncontrollable roll/dive.

If you are very low and slow and can't afford to lower the nose and decrease power (like on takeoff), you can only pray.

[carusoam]

Thank you Don.

I'll be a high power single engine guy until I need to be a lower powered single engine guy...

I'm OK with that.

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

Don,

What is the procedure?

I assume something like avoiding a stall on departure in my Mooney, lower the nose immediately?

Or is single engine ops not as obvious as silence, at first?

I think I would go turbine first over twin. Either one requires me to have won another lottery...

Thanks,

-a-

 

me too...single engine turbo prop before twin for me.  Single engine piston for now and the unforeseeable future.  I'm ok with that.

[chrisk]

I'd love a twin.  But realistically, I don't want the fuel and maintenance bills.   I'm also not sure I fly enough to be proficient in an engine out emergency.  I'd probably be better off trying to get a field approval for a ballistic chute.

[Alan Fox]

I am sure I am not diligent enough to be safer in a twin.... I just bought and sold a C-310 , have no interest in training or flying in it.....Still felt safer in the Mooney , than the Bonanza , but I think that is because I have much more time in Mooneys.....

[fantom]

I'd probably be better off trying to get a field approval for a ballistic chute.

Only if you enjoy wasting lots of time and money.

[chrisk]

Only if you enjoy wasting lots of time and money.

That too goes along with owing a twin.

[ryoder]

I'd love a twin.  But realistically, I don't want the fuel and maintenance bills.   I'm also not sure I fly enough to be proficient in an engine out emergency.  I'd probably be better off trying to get a field approval for a ballistic chute.

Sounds like it's time for a Cirrus. Also, many light sport two sweaters have ballistic chutes.

[rbridges]

I am probably way too cheap to own a twin. I am just attracted to them emotionally. I like the two seat Derringer. That looks like fun.

 

The acquisition cost is relatively low.  I've seen 310s for sale at a lower price than my mooney, but the idea of engine overhaul x2 AND new prop x2 kinda takes the wind out of my sails.  

[Bob - S50]

I'd love a twin as a step up at some point.  Not right now, but at some point.  If I do a twin, it would be a pressurized twin, which changes the game completely.  Then you have to look at the single engine turboprops.  Except, for the cost a twin vs a turboprop, it's still a huge difference.

 

Twin:

C340

C414

C421

Baron 58P

P Navajo

Aerostar (700P 701P 702P SuperStar)

 

Lots to choose from

 

Maybe a share of a King Air C-90?

 

 

Turboprop singles:

TBM 700

Meiridian (Piper)

JetProp (Piper Malibu/Mirage conversion)

PC-12 (too pricy)

 

Turboprop twin:

King Air?

Piaggio Avanti?

 

 

Maybe a piece of the turboprop twin?

 

Anything outside of the older pressurized twins pistons gets pretty pricy pretty quickly.

 

-Seth

I'm still hoping for a C340A in the not too distant future, but keep the J too (with partners for both).  Just two of us? Take the Mooney.  Four or more?  Take the Cessna.

 

For me, the turboprops are too expensive, $500k plus.

 

Same with the bigger piston twins, C414, C421, Navajo, Duke, etc.

 

If I'm going to buy a twin, I don't want another 4 seat airplane which many light twins are (Seneca, Twin Comanche, etc).

 

The idea of FIKI and pressurization for under $250k sounds very inviting to someone who lives in the Pacific Northwest and has to deal with mountains and icing every year.

 

To put in 6 people and bags, I figure you have to plan on 1200 pounds before you add fuel.  At 27 - 33 GPH for 190k +/- cruise, one hour of reserve, and maybe 10 gallons extra for the takeoff and climb, you need a bit over 100 gallons on board just to fly for 400 miles or so.  That means you need about an 1800 pound useful load.

 

I looked at Aerostars.  The only one that would meet those specs are the 702P's and they cost about $350k+.  The 601's and 602's have useful loads around 1500#.

 

I looked at Baron 58P's.  They can be had for a reasonable price and some have a useful load around 1700-1750.  That might be do-able.  They are less expensive than the C340A.  They have a great system for loading the rear seat passengers.  However, most are not FIKI, many do not even have boots on them.  The pressure differential is either 3.7 or 3.9 psi depending on which model you get.

 

My first choice is still the C340A.  Many have FIKI.  Almost all have boots and hot props.  They only lack a hot windshield to be legally FIKI.  I could live with that.  Cabin pressure is 4.2 psi which is better than the Baron.  I think a good one could be had for under $250k.  With VG's (which almost all now have) useful load varies from about 1700 to nearly 2000# with many at or over 1800#.  Also, with the VG's, VMC is less than stall speed so if you are airborne, just step on the good engine (which will be obvious) and keep flying while you look for an airport.

 

Bob

[chrisk]

Sounds like it's time for a Cirrus. Also, many light sport two sweaters have ballistic chutes.

Where is the unlike button when I need it!  

 

Anyway, one of the reasons people go with twins is the perceived safety of having two engines.  Especially when flying at night, over hostile terrain, or in IMC.   If one engine has a mechanical, you can probably make it to a airfield without an off field landing. Of course if fuel exhaustion is the cause, two engines does nothing to help.  Anyway, I suspect a Mooney with a chute would be safer than any of the twins, except perhaps for flights crossing oceans.

 

Also, I'd be happy to trade my 231 for a Cirrus SR22-G3 turbo.  --I'd sell the Cirrus, buy a Bravo, and put a pile of money in the bank. 

[Conrad]

Who said twins need to be expensive?

 

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_954393_1961+Piper+Aztec.html

[carusoam]

Expensive to maintain...

Expensive to operate...

Expensive to train in...

Wait until the fuel price stays down for a while. See if that has an effect...

-a-

[aviatoreb]

Who said twins need to be expensive?

 

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_954393_1961+Piper+Aztec.html

 

Haha - $12k.  That thing is barely worth the scrap aluminum.  There's an airplane will not fly again.  I am sure the owner just wants that patch of grass back.

[BigTex]

I want to see the "before" picture. By looking at the ground around that plane, it must of taken some time to find it under all the foliage.

[chrisk]

Now this one doesn't look so bad.  http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1777560.html   But it could use a 25K make over on the avionics.