The most important reason to fly a twin?

narchee

narchee

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Messages
722
Display Name
Long Blinker
So we all know the safety record for light piston twins is really no better than for piston singles. Why buy a twin then?

I like the fact that you can take forward pictures or videos and not have to take it through the prop. :D Any other reasons?
 
You dislike avgas and want to burn as much as possible...
 
Because you feel like a grown-up and ATC respect you, even though you aren't any faster than a Cirrus.
 
Had one did that,loved it,then reason hit me.
 
Henning said:
Because it puts a smile on your face.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that it's also cooler to push 2 throttles forward than just 1!

I just like twins. I like the way they look. I like the view from the inside (only speaking with Apache and Aztec experience on this one).

It's also comforting for night flight and flight over the great lakes. Is it safer? Odds of an engine out in a single are in the pilot's favor to begin with, but the odds don't matter when it happens to you. Around here I'd be having a really bad day if I couldn't keep a twin at a safe altitude even on a hot humid day.

With my old Apache, critically-renowned for being a superbly underpowered twin, I did an OEI practice with critical at idle (more drag than zero thrust) right about at gross, and I still had no problem maintaining 6k' (the SESC is only 5.5k' with the left one milling).

On the other hand, that test was also done departing a 6k' runway, because although I held altitude no problem on one, that situation would be rather ****ty if I had to out-climb anything.
 
Nothing in GA prettier than an old 310. ;) More power = more smiles, especially when you look at the VSI OEI.:D
 
narchee said:
So we all know the safety record for light piston twins is really no better than for piston singles. Why buy a twin then?

I like the fact that you can take forward pictures or videos and not have to take it through the prop. :D Any other reasons?
Click to expand...


You've got more money than good sense.


Jim
 
Because everyone knows twins are safer.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Because everyone knows twins are safer.
Click to expand...

Not to people who don't want to pay the premium to fly one.:rofl: Although I will grant a Cirrus peer status, but that's even more expensive:lol:. I can fly a 310 a long time for what it would cost me to get in a Cirrus I want.
 
Last edited:
If you granted a Cirrus peer status to a 310, I must officially present you with the following:


:D
 
Henning said:
Nothing in GA prettier than an old 310. ;) More power = more smiles, especially when you look at the VSI OEI.:D
Click to expand...

Boy, that's a "beauty is in the eye of the beer holder" sentiment. I've always thought the exact opposite...that 310's were the ugliest twins ever built (of the "big three" mfgrs) especially on the ground with that stork landing gear. Okay, maybe not the ugliest...the 320 is actually uglier.

Beech by far made the best looking piston twins IMO.

The Piper Cheyenne is the best looking turbine.

Again, just talking about the "big three" legacy boys; BC&P.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Same response, squared. ;)
Click to expand...

:lol: It's kinda moot to me, I won't ever afford a SR-22 I want (<10 years old perspective) so I'll be stuck with twins. Next up if I do another MEL traveling twin will be an Aerostar, though I'd probably buy the plane in my avatar first.
 
Last edited:
Paul Hamilton said:
Climbs fast as hell as long as both engines are turning.
Click to expand...

I must admit that all the business flying I do in the back of a RJ really makes me think about alternatives I could actually afford. Reading the 2x300 hp baron owners talk, I really wonder if that might be an option.

Traveling that much would make me want to get up high and over Wx as fast as possible. Also coming down from 10k + without pulling way back on the trottles when expecting turbulence would be nice too.

Toss in ice boots for winter safety and now you have my attention.

For personal flying- not sure it makes sense for me. For business flying, yea, it might make sense.
 
More engine, better, logic bad.
 
People used to buy twins for the safety factor back when there were no BRS recovery systems and twins were the next best thing for survival with fuel not as much a relevent factor.

Now that fuel is the elephant in the room, and BRS systems have come out coupled with GA singles catching up in speed and endurance to twins, the twin has become obsolete to anyone looking for ultimate safety, speed, and economy. The only thing attractive about twins at this point in time is the initial acquisition cost for some of the used planes.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it... :redface:
 
If you want safety buy a STOL plane.
 
narchee said:
So we all know the safety record for light piston twins is really no better than for piston singles. Why buy a twin then?
Click to expand...

Can you provide any references to support this statement or is this just yet another example of anybody can claim anything on the internet and there are countless fools who will believe it?

:D:D
 
Kristin said:
Can you provide any references to support this statement or is this just yet another example of anybody can claim anything on the internet and there are countless fools who will believe it?

:D:D
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Just can't fix stupid.
 
Studies indicate that the safety margin is the same for light twins and single engine aircraft. The main difference between the two was that the accident causes varied more for the twins then the singles. I'll try to find a source article. In the meantime, you might want to consider editing your post KA before you are the one being called stupid.

See Below:

"The question of whether twins are really any safer than singles is guaranteed to trigger a vigorous debate in any group of pilots. I recently finished editing a Cessna 310 safety review for the AOPA Air Safety Foundation. In the course of this project, I took an in-depth look at the safety record of the Cessna 310 and a group of comparable aircraft (Aerostar, Aztec, Baron, Commander, Crusader) during the eleven year period from 1982 through 1992. Some interesting statistics emerged from this study.

The overall accident rates of high-performance singles (like Bonanzas or 210s or Mooneys) and light twins (like Aerostars or Barons or Commanders or Cessna 310s) are astonishingly close. Twins have a slightly higher accident rate per 100 aircraft and a slightly lower accident rate per 100,000 hours, but for all practical purposes the accident rates are the same. The same is true if you consider only "serious" accidents that involve death, serious injury, or substantial damage. For both high-performance singles and light twins, approximately one-third of all accidents are classified as serious."

Full Article: http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/182809-1.html
 
Last edited:
They can do all the "studies" they want. But I've had two engine failures in turbine twins, and the other has brought me back. NOBODY counted those events.......
 
Plenty of single engine failures that do not result in injury/damage are not reported as well.
 
Last edited:
kgruber said:
They can do all the "studies" they want. But I've had two engine failures in turbine twins, and the other has brought me back. NOBODY counted those events.......
Click to expand...


That's nice but we're not talking about turbine twins. But seeing that you brought that up, let's compare apples and apples and look at the stats of twin vs single turbines. Whoopsie, looks like the accident rates are about the same there too... :lol:

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2007-10-09/single-and-twin-turbine-accident-rates-similar
 
My virtual Baron 55 makes me feel tough and I dig the color.
 

Attachments

  • download.jpg
    download.jpg
    8.4 KB · Views: 41
Piston twins sound great. I am always so impressed when one flies overhead. Those two engines singing in harmony but slightly different so you can hear the harmonics. Beautiful.

I appreciate those of you who fly twins for allowing me to enjoy that.
 
Not sure if this is the most important, but its up there.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 74
KA550 said:
Pretty much. Just can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...

I'll say you can't. Not to mention the twin pilots who, being unfamiliar with what they are flying, shut down the good engine on go round, lose it on one, on and on. The reports are full of this if one cares to look it up.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I'll say you can't. Not to mention the twin pilots who, being unfamiliar with what they are flying, shut down the good engine on go round, lose it on one, on and on. The reports are full of this if one cares to look it up.
Click to expand...

What the reports aren't full of is what usually happens: an uneventful single engine landing.
 
Because you can.

I'm actually going to look at a Cessna 336 on amphib floats next week.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I'll say you can't. Not to mention the twin pilots who, being unfamiliar with what they are flying, shut down the good engine on go round, lose it on one, on and on. The reports are full of this if one cares to look it up.
Click to expand...

Shut down the good engine on go round?
 
kgruber said:
They can do all the "studies" they want. But I've had two engine failures in turbine twins, and the other has brought me back. NOBODY counted those events.......
Click to expand...

Over how many hours? PT6s? TPEs?

I can't imagine the probability of having two different turbines chit the bed on two different occasions.
 
James331 said:
Over how many hours? PT6s? TPEs?

I can't imagine the probability of having two different turbines chit the bed on two different occasions.
Click to expand...

One friend of mine has had 6 PT6s fail on him. I deal with turbine engine failures almost daily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top