Twins are No Safer Than Singles

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

I've owned 12 singles and six twins so I think I have their relative differences down.

That's a total of 24 engines?  How many cylinders was that?

Seriously - that's a lotta airplanes.

I tend to develop attachment inertia.  I get used to what I have and I get attached to what I have been upgrading, so I upgrade it some more, get used to it some more and pretty much its a self enforcing feedback loop.  I have had this airplane for a little over a dozen years I think.

[GeeBee]

The bottom line like most things is, "it depends". I've flow 4, 3, 2 and one engine and even "no engine"

An FAR 23 light twin below blue line is for the most part a single engine airplane with its two power plant in two packages. Until blue line is reached on takeoff, the pilot is better off pulling back the good engine and landing straight ahead. An FAR 25 twin is no better than any other airplane until it reaches V1, engine failure necessitates an abort, which in and of itself is high risk, but necessary, just as landing straight ahead in a single.

Equally so, if you are over the mountains out of drift down alternate range and the terrain is higher than your SE service ceiling, which airplane are you better off in? Answer is neither, one just gives you more time to plan your funeral.

In like manner many early biz jets, such as the GII had the range to go LAX-HNL. However lose an engine at the ETP and you're still going swimming. Loss of  pressurization and without extra supplemental O2, you're going swimming.

A twin may give you more options and more system robustness. For instance, dual vacuum pumps or dual alternators driven by separate power plants. That is a very robust system. However, have a thermal runaway on a battery in many light twins and my Ovation will be the airplane you want to be flying.

If you want refined thinking on twins, look to ETOPS to see the situational thinking.  MELs do not allowed unrestricted ETOPS depending upon the situation. 

I could go on but consider the parachute. FAA says you need them for aerobatics. So you load up the parachutes, but unless you have a Martin Baker zero altitude seat, it is pretty much useless until the airplane is situated where the use can be performed. So it is with twins

[GaryP1007]

On 7/11/2021 at 5:39 PM, KLRDMD said:

I've owned four Mooneys (C, F, M and K) and three Baron/310s so I too have real life experience owning and maintaining these airplanes. As mentioned, two IO-470s cost about the same to overhaul as one TIO-540. I pull the power back even more than the above and burn 10 GPH per side in cruise in my Baron/310s. I burned 19.4 GPH in cruise in my Bravo. I change the oil in turbos every 25 hours, every 50 hours in normally aspirated engines. So, the engine overhaul cost, fuel burn, oil changes, etc. are a wash. The hangar is the same. Insurance is dependent on hull value. My Bravo insurance premium was much higher than any of my twins due to the hull value. I had 900-1,000 lb useful load in my Mooneys. My 310 has 1,725 lb useful load plus about six times the cargo capacity of the Mooneys. The twins climb about twice as fast as the Mooneys and at a higher airspeed. My twins have cost right at 50% more to run than my singles, lumping all 18 airplanes I've owned together. Don't let anyone convince you it costs three times as much or even twice as much.

And the bottom line, if I lose an engine in cruise I have options. Each flight I have about three seconds of risk, when actions needs to be quick, not superhuman fast, just no delay in responding. For me, at this point in my life and flying career, I choose to own a fly a twin. It is OK if something else is right for others.

Good info Ken.  I appreciate that you have owned, operated and maintained planes on both sides of the equation.  

[Jim Peace]

if the W&B is respected and open checkbook mx and professional training every 6 months or a year etc a twin is the way to go.

Problem is there are many yahoos at this level of aviation that don't know what they don't know and who load these things up to gross or over gross and want to take it into their 2500-3000 foot strip surrounded by trees etc to impress their friends or family.  They skimp on annuals and mx and dont understand density altitude even being commercial pilots.  (Telluride accident come to mind?)

Understand and respect the limitations of your plane and being professional all the time and the twin wins for safety. If you buy a 40 year old twin you probably dont want to load it to book numbers.  take a % off .....

I am looking at twins right now.  I like to fly at night back to home base after dinner someplace and I do not want to glide down into the everglades or a dark hole in a single, it kinda makes for a shitty night.  Being eaten by alligators would suck and it does happen.  

I want to fly to the Bahamas and I want to fly at night.  I know that flying at night in a single is F ing crazy most of the time so I dont do it.  Help yourself out and help your rescuers out and dont do it.  

standing by for incoming comments that I am full of crap....

Edited July 24, 2021 by Jim Peace

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Jim Peace said:

standing by for incoming comments that I am full of crap....

Not full.of.crap, just very risk averse. Do you apply similarly tight strictures when you drive--no two lane country roads at night, no driving in the rain, etc.?

[Jim Peace]

46 minutes ago, Hank said:

Not full.of.crap, just very risk averse. Do you apply similarly tight strictures when you drive--no two lane country roads at night, no driving in the rain, etc.?

I have always said that nothing good happens after midnight so I am usually in the house before 11...I also like to take the outside lane when there are enough lanes to do so when opposite traffic is separated by a yellow painted line...

I live in florida so rain is just a way of life and most people know how to drive in it...I do change my wiper blades often and I just relamped my exterior car lights...had a few marker lights out.....