Can we put the myth that singles are as safe as twins to bed now?

Silvaire said:
So why not a Quickie? Engine out and only one dude dies, no cargo lost. What's the point for a twin, just a quest to enlarge one's carbon footprint for no apparent reason?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I like having 2 engines when flying at night, and a lot of my personal flying happens at night. I used to commute from N. Tx to S La in a Midget Mustang, it was ok, but I could always do it day VFR, and the terrain is reasonably friendly.
 
EdFred said:
Ok, so out of the how many thousand posters we have on this board, you are the only one. I've also never heard of anyone else doing it that way. It is not a common practice. One out of every what, 50,000-100,000?
Click to expand...


Not saying it's common but I knew a girl who trained in her own twin from the start because she had money and was headed for the airlines. I believe she had to rent singles later to get her SE CFI and other SE ratings, but she didn't need much in the way of hours and never taught many students because she just flew the twin everywhere all the time. She had beaucoup bucks. Totally nice person though. She made it to getting hired by Mesa and lost touch with her. Assume she hit that at the right time and she's warming a seat in something much bigger by now. But that's just a guess. I think she had a Dutchess. Long time ago.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, I don't particularly need the payload, 99% of my personal flying is solo long range X/C. 180kts allows me to cross the country corner to corner in a day, and with full fuel, my tools and luggage I have 750lbs of unused useful load. The other advantage to this is I can get my 180kts running each of my engines at 10.5gph, they basically are loafing well lean of peak. My exhaust residue is a white powder, my valves stay nice and clean and my CHTs are low.
Click to expand...

So do you have a tail number and some fuel receipts so we can confirm these awesome numbers?


It's not that I'm calling you a liar……. well okay maybe I am :D

If it is so great why are you trying to sell it?

All this bleating about how great piston twins are… The market reality of low prices where current owners are "seeing the light" and trying to dump them seems to say otherwise.

Only time I would choose one of these over a good, well maintained single is flying over the ocean.
 
Henning's numbers always seem to be 25% faster on 25% less fuel burn than the rest of the fleet of like aircraft. Doesn't matter what he's flying.
 
BobThePilot said:
So do you have a tail number and some fuel receipts so we can confirm these awesome numbers?


It's not that I'm calling you a liar……. well okay maybe I am :D

If it is so great why are you trying to sell it?

All this bleating about how great piston twins are… The market reality of low prices where current owners are "seeing the light" and trying to dump them seems to say otherwise.

Only time I would choose one of these over a good, well maintained single is flying over the ocean.
Click to expand...

Wanting to buy an amphib, not trying to sell particularly hard at this point since what I wanted the amphib for, taking my dad on a trip, is no longer possible since his stroke.

These pics were taken at the same time.

PB050495.jpg

PB050497.jpg
 
EdFred said:
Henning's numbers always seem to be 25% faster on 25% less fuel burn than the rest of the fleet of like aircraft. Doesn't matter what he's flying.
Click to expand...

I could teach you how to manage an engine properly as well, it's so simple even a caveman could do it.
 
EdFred said:
Henning's numbers always seem to be 25% faster on 25% less fuel burn than the rest of the fleet of like aircraft. Doesn't matter what he's flying.
Click to expand...

He's "The Most Interesting Pilot in the World"! :D
 
stratobee said:
Stole this find from the Beechcraft forum: 93% of non commercial accidents are in singles, 7% are in twins. The FAA says that singles are flown 12.16 million hours per year and twins are flown 1.82 million hours per year. That means that singles have twice as many accidents per flying hours as twins.

Interestingly, most accidents are in Day VFR, not IMC like is often mentioned.
Click to expand...

Twins fare a lot worse if you look at fatal accidents.
 
Singles are much more dangerous. Especially singles that started the flight as a twin.
 
BigSam said:
Singles are much more dangerous. Especially singles that started the flight as a twin.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that twin is twice as likely to turn into a dangerous single compared to a single turning into a glider.
 
bnt83 said:
How about rotorcraft?
Click to expand...

No engine failures there, but I have fouled out plugs on piston ships and lost a mag which required a landing.

Funny thing about piston helos is whatever happens in the engine translates through out the airframe. Foul out some plugs and the helicopter begins shaking like a dog ****ting a persimmon seed. :yikes:
 
Henning said:
So, I guess the pictures I posted are a lie?
Click to expand...

There's no way to know they were taken at the same time. Can you get 180 out of a 310? Probably. Can you burn 10.6 a side? Probably. Can you corroborate that both are happening at the same time? Not from pictures. There's plenty of ways to manipulate a snapshot. Could be in a updraft and powered back. Could be just coming out of a descent and leveled off. Could be pictures taken at two separate times.

But it's not like there's a science to the engine leaning/performance. I'm stuck with what I've got. WOT, and RPM of 2300-2500 (2200 seems luggish), and I vary the fuel flow. No matter what combination I use I'm not getting above 157. And if I try to lean to 10gph on my 540, my engine goes quiet.
 
Last edited:
BigSam said:
Singles are much more dangerous. Especially singles that started the flight as a twin.
Click to expand...

Anyone hear the joke about the two SEL guys who attempted to fly a twin together and got busted by an FAA Inspector?
 
EdFred said:
There's no way to know they were taken at the same time. Can you get 180 out of a 310? Probably. Can you burn 10.6 a side? Probably. Can you corroborate that both are happening at the same time? Not from pictures. There's plenty of ways to manipulate a snapshot. Could be in a updraft and powered back. Could be just coming out of a descent and leveled off. Could be pictures taken at two separate times.

But it's not like there's a science to the engine leaning/performance. I'm stuck with what I've got. WOT, and RPM of 2300-2500 (2200 seems luggish), and I vary the fuel flow. No matter what combination I use I'm not getting above 157. And if I try to lean to 10gph on my 540, my engine goes quiet.
Click to expand...
You're wrestling with a pig (hope you get the analogy).
 
RotorAndWing said:
No engine failures there, but I have fouled out plugs on piston ships and lost a mag which required a landing.

Funny thing about piston helos is whatever happens in the engine translates through out the airframe. Foul out some plugs and the helicopter begins shaking like a dog ****ting a persimmon seed. :yikes:
Click to expand...


Any inflight mag checks? With passengers?
 
As somebody who doesn't even have a license yet, but am planning on going for it in the next year or so, and buying my own plane afterwards, I find this single vs twin argument interesting.

From my "outsider's" viewpoint, it's akin to a debate about politics or abortion. Neither side is going to change their viewpoint, no matter what kind of statistics are presented (and we all know about lies, damned lies, and statistics).

My future mission profiles will probably include a lot of mountain flying in the Rockies (airports around Denver, Eagle, Aspen, Bozeman, Yellowstone, etc), and religious debate be damned, I'd sure as hell feel a lot safer having a twin than a single when flying above the rocks, provided I keep my skills up to snuff with frequent training. I could easily imagine going for professional simulator training every six months and have them throw everything at me possible, and learn how to compensate.

It just seems to me that a PROFICIENT (emphasis on that word) pilot has more options, and is safer, in a twin than a single. If you're willing to maintain multi-engine proficiency, then twins are an option, otherwise, stay the hell out of them. Seems simple enough, but maybe there's more to it I'm unaware of yet.
 
LoneAspen said:
As somebody who doesn't even have a license yet...
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:

You don't have to get so emotional about it. We don't mind if you buy a twin. That is your choice. Sounds like you have a lot of money. That will help. Good luck with your training.
 
EdFred said:
There's no way to know they were taken at the same time. Can you get 180 out of a 310? Probably. Can you burn 10.6 a side? Probably. Can you corroborate that both are happening at the same time? Not from pictures. There's plenty of ways to manipulate a snapshot. Could be in a updraft and powered back. Could be just coming out of a descent and leveled off. Could be pictures taken at two separate times.

But it's not like there's a science to the engine leaning/performance. I'm stuck with what I've got. WOT, and RPM of 2300-2500 (2200 seems luggish), and I vary the fuel flow. No matter what combination I use I'm not getting above 157. And if I try to lean to 10gph on my 540, my engine goes quiet.
Click to expand...

Could be, but they're not, you could look at the meta data from the pics to see the time. As to comparing what fuel flow you can manage with 540cubic inches be equivalent to what one can manage with 470 cubic inches I'm not quite understanding, but whatever. You're free to convince yourself of whatever you please.
 
Henning said:
Could be, but they're not, you could look at the meta data from the pics to see the time. As to comparing what fuel flow you can manage with 540cubic inches be equivalent to what one can manage with 470 cubic inches I'm not quite understanding, but whatever. You're free to convince yourself of whatever you please.
Click to expand...

It simply wont go that lean unless I'm at 12,000'. 8,000' the best I can lean to at 2300RPM is mid 11s unless I want to only run 4 or 5 cylinders while 1-2 of them are starved of fuel. But I'm sure you climbing in the plane would magically make it fly at 8gph and get me 170kts true.
 
EdFred said:
It simply wont go that lean unless I'm at 12,000'. 8,000' the best I can lean to at 2300RPM is mid 11s unless I want to only run 4 or 5 cylinders while 1-2 of them are starved of fuel. But I'm sure you climbing in the plane would magically make it fly at 8gph and get me 170kts true.
Click to expand...

Nope, got Av 163 at 12.3, but he has turbos and we were up around 16,500. My question for you is why restrict your RPMs if you are going for speed? I understand if you want to slow down for maximum efficiency, then you get LOP at WOT until the engine fall off the pipe then bring them just back on (somewhere around 25°LOP, but best to do by sound) and then bring the props back to 1.3xL/D max or the bottom of the green arc, and if necessary bring the throttles back from there. All this stuff was worked out before WWII.
 
Henning said:
Nope, got Av 163 at 12.3, but he has turbos and we were up around 16,500. My question for you is why restrict your RPMs if you are going for speed? I understand if you want to slow down for maximum efficiency, then you get LOP at WOT until the engine fall off the pipe then bring them just back on (somewhere around 25°LOP, but best to do by sound) and then bring the props back to 1.3xL/D max or the bottom of the green arc, and if necessary bring the throttles back from there. All this stuff was worked out before WWII.
Click to expand...

Who said I was strictly going for speed? It's a 3 variable equation involving my time, speed, and fuel burn. It's also hard to go LOP on my carb'd engine. LOP = rough.
 
LoneAspen said:
As somebody who doesn't even have a license yet, but am planning on going for it in the next year or so, and buying my own plane afterwards, I find this single vs twin argument interesting.

From my "outsider's" viewpoint, it's akin to a debate about politics or abortion. Neither side is going to change their viewpoint, no matter what kind of statistics are presented (and we all know about lies, damned lies, and statistics).

My future mission profiles will probably include a lot of mountain flying in the Rockies (airports around Denver, Eagle, Aspen, Bozeman, Yellowstone, etc), and religious debate be damned, I'd sure as hell feel a lot safer having a twin than a single when flying above the rocks, provided I keep my skills up to snuff with frequent training. I could easily imagine going for professional simulator training every six months and have them throw everything at me possible, and learn how to compensate.

It just seems to me that a PROFICIENT (emphasis on that word) pilot has more options, and is safer, in a twin than a single. If you're willing to maintain multi-engine proficiency, then twins are an option, otherwise, stay the hell out of them. Seems simple enough, but maybe there's more to it I'm unaware of yet.
Click to expand...

If you are flying in the Rockies in a light twin with a single engine service ceiling of 6000ft you're just going to arrive at the scene of the crash slower.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
If you are flying in the Rockies in a light twin with a single engine service ceiling of 6000ft you're just going to arrive at the scene of the crash slower.
Click to expand...

With a much better ability to choose where to crash and into what. Makes a big difference in survivability.
 
LoneAspen said:
As somebody who doesn't even have a license yet, but am planning on going for it in the next year or so, and buying my own plane afterwards, I find this single vs twin argument interesting.

From my "outsider's" viewpoint, it's akin to a debate about politics or abortion. Neither side is going to change their viewpoint, no matter what kind of statistics are presented (and we all know about lies, damned lies, and statistics).

My future mission profiles will probably include a lot of mountain flying in the Rockies (airports around Denver, Eagle, Aspen, Bozeman, Yellowstone, etc), and religious debate be damned, I'd sure as hell feel a lot safer having a twin than a single when flying above the rocks, provided I keep my skills up to snuff with frequent training. I could easily imagine going for professional simulator training every six months and have them throw everything at me possible, and learn how to compensate.

It just seems to me that a PROFICIENT (emphasis on that word) pilot has more options, and is safer, in a twin than a single. If you're willing to maintain multi-engine proficiency, then twins are an option, otherwise, stay the hell out of them. Seems simple enough, but maybe there's more to it I'm unaware of yet.
Click to expand...

There are few piston twins that will give you a real safety advantage over the Rockies. Those are the high end turbocharged ones. Even in the 310 I fly with 300 HP naturally aspirated engines, I wouldn't expect there to be much of a safety advantage over much of the area.

If you're going to go for a 340 or 421, no problem. Even a T310R (RAM IV, preferably) will work. Otherwise, no safety advantage.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
If you are flying in the Rockies in a light twin with a single engine service ceiling of 6000ft you're just going to arrive at the scene of the crash slower.
Click to expand...

Based on the (limited, I know) research I've done thus far, the two planes at the top of my list have single-engine service ceilings that should be sufficient to fly over mountains long enough to find an airport to land at.

The Diamond DA42-VI has a single-engine service ceiling of 18,000 feet. And the Aerostar 702P's is 16,000 feet.

Granted, there are a lot of things that have to line up for me to pursue planes like that. But if I'm going to do a lot of flying around the Rockies (where is where I'd be flying mostly), I'd want a twin of that caliber, if I'm able to afford it, and also the training to stay proficient in it.

Ted DuPuis said:
If you're going to go for a 340 or 421, no problem. Even a T310R (RAM IV, preferably) will work. Otherwise, no safety advantage.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info. When the time comes, I'll check out those, too. I'm hoping my list does grow larger of planes to check out when the time comes. The more competition, the better. Luckily for me, I won't be hauling lots of people or baggage (I'm not married, and have no kids), so carrying capacity doesn't mean much to me. As long as a plane is big enough to hold me and a few bags, it's fine. I'm setting my sights more on safety and redundancy over the mountains, along with all the training needed to stay proficient with that kind of flying.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
LoneAspen said:
Based on the (limited, I know) research I've done thus far, the two planes at the top of my list have single-engine service ceilings that should be sufficient to fly over mountains long enough to find an airport to land at.

The Diamond DA42-VI has a single-engine service ceiling of 18,000 feet. And the Aerostar 702P's is 16,000 feet.

Granted, there are a lot of things that have to line up for me to pursue planes like that. But if I'm going to do a lot of flying around the Rockies (where is where I'd be flying mostly), I'd want a twin of that caliber, if I'm able to afford it, and also the training to stay proficient in it.
Click to expand...

The T310R is 17,200 as well.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
There are few piston twins that will give you a real safety advantage over the Rockies. Those are the high end turbocharged ones. Even in the 310 I fly with 300 HP naturally aspirated engines, I wouldn't expect there to be much of a safety advantage over much of the area.

If you're going to go for a 340 or 421, no problem. Even a T310R (RAM IV, preferably) will work. Otherwise, no safety advantage.
Click to expand...

Ted, I find that position odd. First, what is your SE service ceiling say at 200 pounds below gross and a standard day?

An example: You are at 13K in a single such as a 210 or Saratoga and you lose an engine (make it night time). How much time do you have before descending through 5K? Remember not all of the terrain in the Rockies is at 12K feet. A lot of the terrain is at 5K feet and all in between. Now in your 310 how much time do you have before descending through 5K? In fact could you stay at 8K? If so it would seem to me to be a much better scenario than no engine. How much more time would you have to perhaps find a suitable landing spot. The engine still making noise will always extend your list of options if flown correctly. Redundancy is never a bad thing in fact, I would opine it is always positive. JMO.
 
<Prepare flame suit>

I like a Turbo pressurized C337, seems to fit your needs

<put flame suit on> :)
 
What people also seem to be forgetting is that if you have two engines there is twice the chance that one will fail. Also, twins generally have a higher stall speed and are heavier so there is more energy to dissipate in an off-airport landing. There is really no answer to this question because it depends on the circumstance at the time. But many light twins are just glorified singles at high elevations. The older ones, especially, have very over optimistic numbers in the POH.
 
Good, that's settled then. Light twins are no safer than singles and may even be more dangerous in the mountains.

Thread closed.

:D
 
There are thinks called drift down tables that tell you about the decent with one engine out.

I fly a 1966 Twin Comanche, turbonormalized with 200HP IO360 engines. Robertson STOL. It has adequate performance one engine.

This is an interesting thread. I like a twin because I have a backup of most items with a failure mode that I cannot control. I get to control the weather I fly in, and how much fuel I have on board. Alternator and vacuum pump failures are a non issue. I have had both. So far no engine failure other than those used for training.

Keep gas and oil in it and stay proficient. Remember you can do a flight review more than every other year.
 
LoneAspen said:
Thanks for that info. When the time comes, I'll check out those, too. I'm hoping my list does grow larger of planes to check out when the time comes. The more competition, the better. Luckily for me, I won't be hauling lots of people or baggage (I'm not married, and have no kids), so carrying capacity doesn't mean much to me. As long as a plane is big enough to hold me and a few bags, it's fine. I'm setting my sights more on safety and redundancy over the mountains, along with all the training needed to stay proficient with that kind of flying.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the larger planes tend to come with the extra power that helps out there especially. A failure on departure where a climb might be required can be especially bad. It's more than just single engine service ceiling.

If you don't mind sucking on O2, a RAM IV T310R would be my pick. If pressurization is desired, RAM VII 340 or 350 HP Aerostar.

ronnieh said:
Ted, I find that position odd. First, what is your SE service ceiling say at 200 pounds below gross and a standard day?

An example: You are at 13K in a single such as a 210 or Saratoga and you lose an engine (make it night time). How much time do you have before descending through 5K? Remember not all of the terrain in the Rockies is at 12K feet. A lot of the terrain is at 5K feet and all in between. Now in your 310 how much time do you have before descending through 5K? In fact could you stay at 8K? If so it would seem to me to be a much better scenario than no engine. How much more time would you have to perhaps find a suitable landing spot. The engine still making noise will always extend your list of options if flown correctly. Redundancy is never a bad thing in fact, I would opine it is always positive. JMO.
Click to expand...

Good points, Ronnie, and I crossed the Rockies in the 310 (IFR no less) in November and would do it again. Perhaps I should say minimal advantage. A few of my thoughts:

- It's more than single engine service ceiling, it's also OEI climb performance
- Many of these piston twins have rotten OEI climb
- Your chances of an engine failure are double with a twin
- MEAs can be as high as 16k out there, and airports can be far apart, as you know. So descending to 6k might just mean I have more time to see the mountain I'm hitting

It's certainly more complex and one can also make operational adjustments, as I did, to mitigate the safety risks and maximize the benefits from operating with two. But on a basic level, if that was the majority of my flying, I would be upgrading planes.
 
[

Good points, Ronnie, and I crossed the Rockies in the 310 (IFR no less) in November and would do it again. Perhaps I should say minimal advantage. A few of my thoughts:

- It's more than single engine service ceiling, it's also OEI climb performance
- Many of these piston twins have rotten OEI climb
- Your chances of an engine failure are double with a twin
- MEAs can be as high as 16k out there, and airports can be far apart, as you know. So descending to 6k might just mean I have more time to see the mountain I'm hitting

It's certainly more complex and one can also make operational adjustments, as I did, to mitigate the safety risks and maximize the benefits from operating with two. But on a basic level, if that was the majority of my flying, I would be upgrading planes.[/QUOTE]


Ted, not meaning to be argumentative (honest) but to me to pick a few minutes out of perhaps a three hour flight where a twin MIGHT not give any advantage and then say there is no advantage to a twin in mountain terrain just does not wash for me. In my earlier post (#46) I tried to address this. Any flight is made up of multiple segments. Aside from redundant systems there are many phases that the second engine can indeed be helpful.

I have heard the argument of twice as likely to lose an engine (not sure stats bare this out) higher landing speed and all the other.
I do not see how anybody (not directed at you Ted) can not see the obvious over all safety advantage of redundancy, even partial redundancy. I know light piston twins do not always provide complete redundancy. There are real situations where one engine may in fact not keep the plane air born even when loaded with in the envelope. The remaining engine will extend the glide range for sure. Aside from perhaps the first 120 seconds of a flight it seems obvious they are advantages to any amount of redundancy. Options, options, options, that to me is the key.

Does that mean sight single engine aircraft are too dangerous to fly? That would be a personal choice. To argue that a twin is more dangerous than a single in order to justify the single engine is just disingenuous. At least for me it would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top