age old single vs twin discussion

[btaylor]

I have a Piper Lance now that is doing a great job for my family and me. Got an opportunity to purchase Seneca II C/R. Same basic radio package, same cabin, not much faster and about the same price. It is turbocharged, so I could get over more of the weather, and I do fly some at night. Maintenance expenses will definitely increase. Question is, do you think it is any safer? After initial multi training, how often do I need to practice single engine. I have about 500 hours & instrument rating. Let's get some opinions. Thanks.

[Frodo]

I would point out that a twin is going to cost 80% more than a single to fly. If this expense will cause you to skimp a little here or there at the next annual or cut back on flying to the point of sacrificing currency, then safety is better in the single engine.

The advantage of a second engine does not make you bullet proof, but if it makes you think you are bullet proof to the extent that you don't practice emergencies or consider emergency landings etc.. then safety is greatly compromised.

The bottom line is that two engines don't make airplanes safer, good maintenance and training does.

[leardvr]

I know that some are going to disagree with me, but here it goes. With 500hrs. and an instrument rating I wouldn't feel comfortable flying my family around in any twin.

Multi flying is not twice as safe (at the same time it is not twice as dangerous). It does though require quite a bit of practice. Flying a multi engine on one engine doesn't reduce your performance by 50%, 80% is more accurate. The actual flying on one engine is not that difficult (after the aircraft is trimmed and the power is set) it's the moment that the engine quits. Esp. in a turbo charged twin producing full power at altitude when the air is thin and the flight controls are not as affective.

In any event I believe that flying a twin is safer; after you have the experience. Find a good instructor with more then just the required 15hrs in type; consider Flight Safety and use there services both for your initial and recurrent training. It is expensive but your insurance my require it and you family is worth it.

[Martin Di Lorenzo]

Some of you probably remember that I was looking for a plane since last year. Although I had a multi engine certificate, I was looking for a single, but none of the possibilities really got me. I finally made my deposit on a Baron B55 last week, hope to close the deal today or next week. The decision was tough, because it is true that costs will be higher. But last year, a pilot that I knew very weel kill himself in a well maintained Centurion. It was a night flight, over a populate area outside Buenos Aires. The engine just quit. It never happens, but if it happen at night over buildings, it will definitely kill you. On the other hand, last week I was flying in a 1962 A55 just to get confortable with it (most of my twin experience is on an Aztec). Sudenly, the oil temp of number one got dangerously high. Since it was a rented plane, the guy at my right decided to feather it, and return home. I did, and I did not had to fight against the rudder to get it straight, nor I had any difficult to keep altitude within the blue line. It was that easy, easier than the Azstec by the way. So the final test was done. Even when we had less populated places here in Argentina than in the States, even when we have lots of free conutryside to made a safe landing, now I feel better carrying my wife and my two daughters. I feel confortable crossing the Rio de la Plata going to Uruguay, and relaxed any time I have to fly over dense populated areas. Yes, it takes a little more concentration. Yes, it probably will double the costs. But I never feel so confident in a single. I hope it helps.

------------------

[djschaut]

Well, we've debated this topic forever here. I've owned several singles--including a pressurized 210--and a Beech 58P pressurized. There are people who will swear that you never need that extra engine out there, whatever the circumstances, and there are those that will tell you that you are crazy if you don't have that extra engine. I owned a Mooney M20K that had been flown over the north Atlantic with an accessory gas tank four times without an incident, and I flew it over the Rockies, day and night, without any incidents. I prefer the twin--if not for the safety, but for the increased payload and performance characteristics it brings. If you exercise caution, maintain the aircraft, and always have an escape plan, it would be the rare occurrence that you crash and burn in a single. This is especially true if you observe that cardinal rule of flight--altitude, altitude, altitude. I flew my P-210 for two hours through snow at night, only to see the runway on final approach. I flew it over the Rocky Mountains all the time, mostly at night, and I've flow it in instrument conditions many times. There is no end to this debate, and you will find as many people who swear by singles as you do who swear by twins. The sales of the new single-engine turboprops are skyrocketing, because of the performance and decreased cost of operation. Turboprops, too, can fail on take off. Not long ago, the Oklahome basketball team all died when a King-Air crashed in inclement weather in Colorado. So, the debate continues.........

------------------
DJSchaut

[bobmrg]

The safety of a twin depends on staying proficient. Flying with a multiengine instructor at least twice a year is good, training with Simuflite or FlightSafety is better...even sims like the Frascas and ASTs are good. It is seductive to fly hour after hour after hour without a problem of any kind, and that is when emergency proficiency goes out the window. Gotta make that commitment before you write the check.

The Seneca II is an excellent flying machine with a good safety record. The Continental engines are as bulletproof as turbocharged engines get. I have had five engine "problems" in twins, none of them in Senecas.




------------------
Bob Gardner