Twin or Single

[schmookeeg]

Now when both engines are working, a little extra carrying capacity and sometimes better climb rate are legit reasons to have a twin. But increased safety is just not a valid reason in propellor driven aircraft.

"sometimes" ? Which pairing in your example has the single out-climbing the twin? Out of curiousity.

 

[eman1200]

I believe now would be the time for me to point out that Mooney is the best bang for the buck.

 

[Jim K]

I believe now would be the time for me to point out that Mooney is the best bang for the buck.

Twin Boonanza? Baroony? Mooke?

 

[Sluggo63]

I chose single, but that's because it's the best fit for my budget and flying. Here's what I think is a fair summary of the case against and for a twin.

The case against a twin

• cost of ownership — from friends who've owned a twin, count on 4x the yearly ownership cost of a single, not 2x (one paid $15K just to replace the little heated square on the windshield). Even if you paid only $100K for it, it would be a $1m–$2m plane factory new, and parts/maintenance are priced accordingly

4x on a similarly equipped single and twin? No way. I'd venture to say it's actually under 2x. Like 1-3/4 the costs. But I've only had the twin for 6 months. I'll have a better data after a year (and the first annual).

• 2x the chance of downtime away from home (if either of the engines develops a problem)

I'm not sure that's how probability works... You have the same chance of downtime away from home if your engine develops a problem in a single or a twin. 100%. Now, if you say you have two engines to worry about breaking, sure, I guess. That's a chance I'll take.

• minimal extra speed from two engines, but 2x the fuel consumption

I planned on 135 KTAS on 15 GPH in my Cherokee 6-300. I plan for 175 KTAS on 24 GPH in the Seneca. So I get 30% more speed for 60% more fuel. That's not taking into account being able to get higher to take advantage of higher winds, better TAS, etc. Is that trade off worth it? I don't know. For me it is.

• much-higher landing and ramp fees at many airports

Higher? Most times that's true... but "much higher"? Define "much."

• no real safety benefit — if anything, twins have a slightly-higher fatal accident rate than singles (you're more likely to die from VMC rollover in a twin than from a forced landing in a single)
• big commitment to recurrent training (you need a much-higher level of proficiency to fly a twin safely, including annual sessions at FlightSafety or similar)

I think this is where most people are disagreeing with you.

I wear my underwear inside out to keep meteors from crashing into my house. Since a meteor hasn't crashed into my house, my little trick works.

You're taking one little piece of data (VMC rollover on takeoff) and extrapolating it across the board to draw a conclusion that isn't necessarily correct. What you don't know is how many engine failures in a twin land safely and don't make it into the accident statistics purely because the second engine was there.

A little bit of thread drift, but this is the same fallacy that people use when talking about AI airplanes and "pilot error." Since pilot error in the leading cause of aircraft accidents, if we eliminate the pilot, we eliminate the error. But not necessarily. When the pilot "fails" and an accident happens, it make the news and everyone hears about it. When I'm cruising along at FL350 and the autopilot decides to disconnect itself and I reach up to reconnect it, no one heard about it (besides our maintenance folks).

I'd like to see your methodology for coming up with these statistics.
[/QUOTE]
I didn't take your post as an "attack" on twins. But there are always these rumors and old wives tales that creep up about twins and some of your post is propagating those rumors.

For @Stegoo_86, when I started my new airplane search, I was looking at Saratogas and Rockwell Commander 114s (among others). Living in Phoenix, and looking at my normal trips and the terrain, temperatures, etc. I started looking at twins for the sole reason that if a motor quit it would hopefully give me a change to make it to runway/hospitable terrain. Plus, with the turbos I'd be able to get higher over the rocks. If I was still living back East, I don't know if I would have looked at twins as closely, but now that I bought it, I'm glad to have the second motor and redundancy of the extra systems (and air conditioning and radar).

 

[EvilEagle]

You used to fly a twin for work, right? Maybe two?

Still do, just a lot bigger and slower.

 

[David Megginson]

And I am one that had an engine failure in a light twin (on a 135 charter). Landed uneventfully. Never made the news, and the Feds never contacted me.

Makes perfect sense. Most energencies with good outcomes probably go unreported.

I think that's true for singles, too. I know of several forced landings that were never reported, because it was easier just to recover the (undamaged) plane than to make an insurance claim. In one, the pilot made the runway; in another, they removed part of the airport fence and towed the plane in from a nearby road; in another, they sent out a mechanic, then flew it off the rural road where it had landed; and in another couple (Katanas), they just quietly sent out a truck or trailer to recover it from a field.

A slower stall speed is also a big safety benefit. A plane with a 40 kt stall speed needs only half as much deceleration distance as one with a 57 kt stall speed, or ¼ as much distance as one with an 80 kt stall speed. That's why forced landings are so much more survivable in slower planes than in faster ones, even in the tightest of spaces.

 

[schmookeeg]

Is there a 200kt plane, single or twin, that stalls at 40kt? Preferably one that doesn't stuff me into the flight levels wishing my cannula to keep working?

I feel like we're all selecting specific trade-offs here in defense of what is ultimately a preference.

And since my cirrus joke whooshed pretty hard, I bought a twin because I like twins, wanted another twin, and can afford a twin. When any of those three things stop being true, I'll get something else.

 

[hindsight2020]

it's called choice-supportive bias, aka post-purchase rationalization. Frankly, I thought that was stipulated when it came to online kerfuffles. To be fair, ime it's more common in the type-specific forums than in 'equal-opportunity hata' venues (like POA). The latter format I much prefer, for full disclosure

 

[Tantalum]

And since my cirrus joke whooshed pretty hard

I was going to respond with "financing is for poor people" but thought it potentially tone deaf lol

People can always justify whatever it is they prefer. To me the fact that Boeing and Airbus as well as GE, Rolls-Royce, and Pratt & Whitney aren't racing to build a single engine commercial airliner is the proof to me that for a competent and well-trained pilot a twin is always safer

 

[Tantalum]

Also, many of these twins were designed half a century ago? How many fatal Diamond 62 accidents are there because of engine failures? How many fatal Cape Air accidents were there because of engine failures in their 400 series Cessna's?

It is 100% a training and proficiency thing, not an inherent flaw in the design

 

[Lance F]

I flew a Mooney for about 15 years and loved it. Mission changed. Now I’ve flown a Cessna 414 for about 3 ½ years and love it. It’s the mission.
I had a total engine failure in the Mooney. Did land safely but didn’t go far, didn’t make my business meeting and didn’t make it home for a few days. Had an engine failure on the 414. Flew comfortably back to my home airport, jumped in my car, drove to ATL and took American to my meeting. You can define safety as you like, but the second engine does make a difference.

 

[Tantalum]

I flew a Mooney for about 15 years and loved it. Mission changed. Now I’ve flown a Cessna 414 for about 3 ½ years and love it. It’s the mission.
I had a total engine failure in the Mooney. Did land safely but didn’t go far, didn’t make my business meeting and didn’t make it home for a few days. Had an engine failure on the 414. Flew comfortably back to my home airport, jumped in my car, drove to ATL and took American to my meeting. You can define safety as you like, but the second engine does make a difference.

Clearly you've made all of this up. It is well known that the second engine only leads you to the accident site faster after a vmc roll.

 

[Fearless Tower]

4x on a similarly equipped single and twin? No way. I'd venture to say it's actually under 2x. Like 1-3/4 the costs. But I've only had the twin for 6 months. I'll have a better data after a year (and the first annual).

Fairly accurate. I’ve had annuals on the Twin Beech that were 4 x the cost of the Waco annual, but that’s a HUGE difference in scope.

My average Beech 18 yearly maintenance expense is probably 1.7-1.8 times what it costs to maintain the T6.

When I had my Baron, it was around 1.7-1.8 times the cost of comparably maintained Bos.

 

[David Megginson]

Is there a 200kt plane, single or twin, that stalls at 40kt?

Not that I know of — as I wrote, it's about the speed of the plane, not about single vs twin, but as far as safety goes, a slow stall speed is a huge safety benefit (if we're talking about safety rather than performance, as has much of the discussion in this thread). If you increase your stall speed by 40%, you've doubled your safe deceleration distance or the force with which you'll hit something, which is probably one of the reasons that fixed-gear piston singles like the C172 and PA-28 have such low fatal-accident rates compared to high-performance singles or twins.

Of course, not everyone is happy tooling along at 110–130 KTAS and detouring around mountains and water, so many pilots will understandably accept the extra risks of a high-performance single or twin in exchange for more capabilities.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

Not that I know of — as I wrote, it's about the speed of the plane, not about single vs twin, but as far as safety goes, a slow stall speed is a huge safety benefit (if we're talking about safety rather than performance, as has much of the discussion in this thread). If you increase your stall speed by 40%, you've doubled your safe deceleration distance or the force with which you'll hit something, which is probably one of the reasons that fixed-gear piston singles like the C172 and PA-28 have such low fatal-accident rates compared to high-performance singles or twins.

Of course, not everyone is happy tooling along at 110–130 KTAS and detouring around mountains and water, so many pilots will understandably accept the extra risks of a high-performance single or twin in exchange for more capabilities.

Yes, kinetic energy is a b**ch if/when you land off airport. A low stall speed of 39 KIAS at solo weight is what sold me on the RV-9A, plus a 12:1 glide ratio gives you more options at altitude. And a 155 KTAS cruise ain't bad.

 

[Zeldman]

Too bad the Cessna 620 never took off....

 

[tspear]

The reality is there is insufficient data to determine what is safer, and it is also mission dependant.

So what factor drives plane selection more than anything? Money. Money. Money.

For example, I have owned a Cirrus SR20, Aerostar and now SR22.
If money was no object, I would have the Aerostar or a jet. (I like speed}. However my mission no longer requires the capability of the Aerostar, and I no longer had the desire to spend that level of cash.

Money rules the selection more than anything. Pilots adjust mission to justify the level of spending they wish to make.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[charheep]

Maybe some figures would help the discussion?

For my Bo(3 full years of ownership)-
insurance is 2200 a year. No IR yet
Maintenance all in is averaging 9k a year. Lots of catch up the first year.
75 hours average per year

 

[PaulS]

Twins are safer if piloted by a proficient competent pilot. The problem with twins, and in the past it's bared out in the statistics, is that pilots have not been up to the task if an engine fails. For a long time twins had a worse record than singles that may or may not be true now, I don't know. Richard Collins pointed this out many years ago. In the end statistics don't matter, what matters is twin pilots getting and maintaining proficiency in their airplanes. Unfortunately, pilots haven't been very good at attaining or maintaining the proficiency necessary to make twins as safe as they should be. Anybody getting into or presently piloting a twin should keep this in mind.

What Happened to the Piston Twin? | Flying (flyingmag.com)

What's wrong with piston twin pilots? | Air Facts Journal

 

[GRG55]

Twins are safer if piloted by a proficient competent pilot. The problem with twins, and in the past it's bared out in the statistics, is that pilots have not been up to the task if an engine fails. For a long time twins had a worse record than singles that may or may not be true now, I don't know. Richard Collins pointed this out many years ago. In the end statistics don't matter, what matters is twin pilots getting and maintaining proficiency in their airplanes. Unfortunately, pilots haven't been very good at attaining or maintaining the proficiency necessary to make twins as safe as they should be. Anybody getting into or presently piloting a twin should keep this in mind.

What's wrong with piston twin pilots? | Air Facts Journal

"...In the end statistics don't matter, what matters is single engine pilots getting and maintaining proficiency in their airplanes. Unfortunately, pilots haven't been very good at attaining or maintaining the proficiency necessary to make single engine airplanes as safe as they should be. Anybody getting into or presently piloting a single engine airplane should keep this in mind."

Anybody here want to argue with the above?

 

[PaulS]

"...In the end statistics don't matter, what matters is single engine pilots getting and maintaining proficiency in their airplanes. Unfortunately, pilots haven't been very good at attaining or maintaining the proficiency necessary to make single engine airplanes as safe as they should be. Anybody getting into or presently piloting a single engine airplane should keep this in mind."

Anybody here want to argue with the above?

Absolutely not. You should highlight your modification to my statement so people don't miss your change, but both statements are true.

I think the premise you miss here though is that a twin is safer than a single. Historically that hasn't been the case, in fact in the fatality rate, the opposite was true according to Collins.

 

[Tantalum]

safer if piloted by a proficient competent pilot

..but this is true for just about any airplane. People forgetting to lower the gear, ending up in inadvertent IMC and losing control of the aircraft, flying at night.. in ice, etc

I will say, that I was very surprised to learn upon getting my AMEL that there is no real specific special currency requirement or training for multi.. just your 3 landing nonsense that everyone else does

Can you imagine if there was no instrument currency standards?!

 

[EdFred]

Can you imagine if there was no instrument currency standards?!

There isn't any when flying from Oakland to Auburn.

 

[PaulS]

..but this is true for just about any airplane. People forgetting to lower the gear, ending up in inadvertent IMC and losing control of the aircraft, flying at night.. in ice, etc

I will say, that I was very surprised to learn upon getting my AMEL that there is no real specific special currency requirement or training for multi.. just your 3 landing nonsense that everyone else does

Can you imagine if there was no instrument currency standards?!

I'm going to sound like a Gryder groupie again, but he covers the twin issue pretty well IMO. There have been a few departure rollover crashes in the past year or two and a couple loss of control enroute to an airport, all after an engine failure, none should have occurred. All point to pilot error, lack of proficiency, getting too slow.

I'm not trying to talk anybody out of getting a twin, personally, from what I see of you and how you post I think you'd be a safe twin pilot.

I'm just pointing out that twins don't have a better safety record than singles, even though they probably should. I think pilots that understand this, and train to avoid what gets other pilots killed will have a twin with a better safety potential than a single. It's sad that historically this is not the case.

Twins require more knowledge than singles and they are not as forgiving of forgetting that extra knowledge as forgetting something in a single would be.

 

[PaulS]

There isn't any when flying from Oakland to Auburn.

One thing Jerry does get, even though he may not be perfect in practice, is his verbal expression of the need to not let his twin get too slow in certain phases or conditions of flight. Now does his performance match his knowledge in this area? Probably not sometimes, but at least he understands it.

 

[EdFred]

One thing Jerry does get, even though he may not be perfect in practice, is his verbal expression of the need to not let his twin get too slow in certain phases or conditions of flight. Now does his performance match his knowledge in this area? Probably not sometimes, but at least he understands it.

I was only referring to the instrument part. 60 degrees of bank at 2000fpm turning AWAY from the FAC? Absolutely!

 

[PaulS]

I was only referring to the instrument part. 60 degrees of bank at 2000fpm turning AWAY from the FAC? Absolutely!

Yup, that was scary, and he didn't realize what he had done until it was pointed out to him. And, I'm not a twin guy, so I don't know the intricacies of it, but he has been accused of getting too slow by guys who say they know.

 

[Tantalum]

I'm not trying to talk anybody out of getting a twin, personally, from what I see of you and how you post I think you'd be a safe twin pilot.

Thanks! Depending on mission the dream is either a well equipped Aztec or an Aerostar. Totally different beasts.. one can carry anything and go anywhere (cool!) and the other is pressurized and stupid fast. But if I go Aerostar I'll rack up a couple hundred twin hours first. Some call them the "Deathstar" .. and I dread the day I end up on PoA.. "didn't he used to post here?"

Just like dogs though, there are no (at least none that are available to civilians) planes that are genuinely "bad" .. just all about the people who fly them and their training and use of it

The folks at TexasAviationLaw have the worlds most beautiful plane. Hands down. I don't care what anyone else says. This is perfection:




If it's anything it's "can be a handful!" nature to fly makes it all the more appealing to me. You need real skill to fly it. None of this "but they're so forgiving" crap.

 

[Z06_Mir]

I'm surprised no one asked yet, what's your mission?

I did trips in the 310 I never would have done in the 182. And I do trips in the Conquest I never would have done in the 310. It's a matter of mission and how often you need to complete it.

 

[texasclouds]

Two engines > one...

 

[schmookeeg]

Thanks! Depending on mission the dream is either a well equipped Aztec or an Aerostar. Totally different beasts.. one can carry anything and go anywhere (cool!) and the other is pressurized and stupid fast. But if I go Aerostar I'll rack up a couple hundred twin hours first. Some call them the "Deathstar" .. and I dread the day I end up on PoA.. "didn't he used to post here?"

Wow, those are two wildly different planes in just about every metric... including wallet damage.

...would you REALLY rack up that many hours in an aerostar though? It's fast as hell after all, necessitating fewer hours for your milk run.

 

[EdFred]

Two engines > one...


View attachment 96224

Twins?!?!

 

[EdFred]

Thanks! Depending on mission the dream is either a well equipped Aztec or an Aerostar. Totally different beasts.. one can carry anything and go anywhere (cool!) and the other is pressurized and stupid fast. But if I go Aerostar I'll rack up a couple hundred twin hours first. Some call them the "Deathstar" .. and I dread the day I end up on PoA.. "didn't he used to post here?"

Just like dogs though, there are no (at least none that are available to civilians) planes that are genuinely "bad" .. just all about the people who fly them and their training and use of it

The folks at TexasAviationLaw have the worlds most beautiful plane. Hands down. I don't care what anyone else says. This is perfection:
View attachment 96222

View attachment 96223

If it's anything it's "can be a handful!" nature to fly makes it all the more appealing to me. You need real skill to fly it. None of this "but they're so forgiving" crap.

No. I don't like the wing or engine placement. Paint job is nice though.

 

[David Megginson]

Twins are safer if piloted by a proficient competent pilot.

I think that's probably true — at least for certain types of flying (night in low IMC, over water, above mountains, etc). But if you're considering only competent pilots in twins, then you also need to consider only competent pilots in singles as well in the comparison; otherwise, it's apples to oranges. Unfortunately, pace the late Richard Collins, there's nothing in the stats that really helps us disaggregate the data that far.

We can count the NTSB accident stats a gross level, and say that twins used to have a lot more fatal accidents than singles per hour flown, but it's not so bad now (as Collins pointed out at different times over the years), but any more-nuanced argument will be based on anecdotes, selective readings, personal belief, etc. rather than data. We can keep that going all day, just like low-wing vs high-wing, Garmin vs Avidyne, etc. etc.

 

[EdFred]

So the thing is, I don't not make flights because I have a single instead of a twin. IMC/night/over Lake Michigan - done em all, in every month of the year, in a single, with no a/p. The only thing I would do different in a twin is nothing, unless it was FIKI then I would punch through some thicker ice laden clouds, provided it's not SLD. But if I had a FIKI single I'd do the same thing. Actually I'd probably do LESS in the twin because of the couple airports I fly into regularly. Lotta twins wouldn't like getting in or out.

 

[David Megginson]

Wow, those are two wildly different planes in just about every metric... including wallet damage.

...would you REALLY rack up that many hours in an aerostar though? It's fast as hell after all, necessitating fewer hours for your milk run.

On a related note, a comment from a Lance owner in a different forum made me a bit sad. He was talking about something with his plane's performance, and I suggested it was a nice excuse for more flying, heading out to the practice area multiple times to check it out. He replied that he doesn't do much non-essential flying any more, because the Lance is more expensive to operate than a simple PA-28 or C172/182.

I can't help but think that would be even more the case with a twin. If you have deep pockets, excellent, but otherwise, before you just wander off to the airport to bore holes in the sky and follow power lines around from town to town, with no goal in mind, you'll be thinking how much each hour is going to cost you in variable costs like avgas and engine depreciation, and maybe just stay home.

 

[EdFred]

On a related note, a comment from a Lance owner in a different forum made me a bit sad. He was talking about something with his plane's performance, and I suggested it was a nice excuse for more flying, heading out to the practice area multiple times to check it out. He replied that he doesn't do much non-essential flying any more, because the Lance is more expensive to operate than a simple PA-28 or C172/182.

I can't help but think that would be even more the case with a twin. If you have deep pockets, excellent, but otherwise, before you just wander off to the airport to bore holes in the sky and follow power lines around from town to town, with no goal in mind, you'll be thinking how much each hour is going to cost you in variable costs like avgas and engine depreciation, and maybe just stay home.

I don't bore holes in the sky with any plane. Every plane I had/will have will be to go places/destinations. That's why I fly - so I don't have to drive.

 

[schmookeeg]

The answer is of course a second plane for boring holes in the sky!

...if another 2-door super musketeer shows up on the market, I may bag my solution to the same problem.

 

[Tantalum]

Wow, those are two wildly different planes in just about every metric... including wallet damage

I know.. esp the Aerostar doesn't really seem "attainable" with fewer of them around and people who can work on them and the complexity of the systems. I don't doubt them to be expensive. Hence "dream" planes haha. the Aztec is basically a huge cherokee.. I love it. But flying from here to the east coast in an Aerostar is feasible.. in the Aztec it's more of an "adventure" than a realistic commuting option

would you REALLY rack up that many hours in an aerostar though

No.. probably not. But I'd get as much multi time before as possible. With the higher costs and faster speeds though, as the people above mentioned your hours do shrink. What is ~100 hrs a year in a PA28 probably shrinks to 50 in an Aerostar

I don't like the wing or engine placement

It's the ideal low wing / high wing compromise; it p!$$es everyone off! Who cares though, it's fast.

 

[EdFred]

I know.. esp the Aerostar doesn't really seem "attainable" with fewer of them around and people who can work on them and the complexity of the systems. I don't doubt them to be expensive. Hence "dream" planes haha. the Aztec is basically a huge cherokee.. I love it. But flying from here to the east coast in an Aerostar is feasible.. in the Aztec it's more of an "adventure" than a realistic commuting option


No.. probably not. But I'd get as much multi time before as possible. With the higher costs and faster speeds though, as the people above mentioned your hours do shrink. What is ~100 hrs a year in a PA28 probably shrinks to 50 in an Aerostar


It's the ideal low wing / high wing compromise; it p!$$es everyone off! Who cares though, it's fast.

I don't like the prop being RIGHT THERE!