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

JHW said:
no hate here, juet objectivity.
Click to expand...

BS


JHW said:
When we ditched the two 337's that were in our fleet of 20-something liught twin freighters and replaced them with 2 more aztecs, the fleet availability ticked up noticeability. 337 downtime ran 3-4X that of a 310 or aztec in the same service (delivering boxes to semi-improved strips)
Click to expand...

You worked for a company that couldn't maintain them yet you blame the airplane? :rolleyes2:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The one positive I can say for Malibu engine failures is it seems I've heard of a number of them, but the ones I've heard of typically end up in an uneventful glide back to an airport.

But I'll stick to my two engines, thanks.
Click to expand...

There is this myth that persists about the PA46, unsupported by actual data. But let us not let actual data influence us in any way, shall we?

;)
 
JHW said:
the market doesn't lie, there are no bargains. And you can't give away a 337 whereas the seneca, baron, travel air, twinkie, have also taken a beating yet hold considerably more value in comparison.
Click to expand...

Really? Priced C337 vs. BE95 on Controller lately?
 
JHW said:
My first solo and first license were in a C-337
Click to expand...

Jeff, I think it is a bit uncommon for the pilot to hate the plane he got his wings in with such passion. Could you please tell us the whole story?
 
What's a "twinkie"?
 
Any time you guys need a straight man, you just let me know!
 
Apelsin Elise said:
Really? Priced C337 vs. BE95 on Controller lately?
Click to expand...
You can advertise anything. Actually sold one lately? I have seen one of each sell locally in 2013. Both average flying examples. D95 was on market for 2 months and went for 56k (ouch I have 3x that in mine). 337 was on market for years and went for 17k.
 
Apelsin Elise said:
Jeff, I think it is a bit uncommon for the pilot to hate the plane he got his wings in with such passion. Could you please tell us the whole story?
Click to expand...
What's to tell? If you learned to drive in a gremlin would you consider it a good car ?
 
Palmpilot said:
:confused:
Click to expand...

Someone who hasn't come out is in the closet. And if you're in the closet, you're going to want it decorated. I mean really. Who wants to spend all their time in a room with no decorations. :D
 
Wow, 8 pages on an OP that merely cited a statistic.
That's not thread drift, that's the Great Rapids on the Nile River.
:D
 
EdFred said:
Someone who hasn't come out is in the closet. And if you're in the closet, you're going to want it decorated. I mean really. Who wants to spend all their time in a room with no decorations. :D
Click to expand...

Fine, but why would people who voted for Proposition 8 be in the closet?
 
Palmpilot said:
Fine, but why would people who voted for Proposition 8 be in the closet?
Click to expand...

It's the whole if you're so against it, you must be hiding something attack. "Well, if you're against gay marriage, it's just because you're gay yourself, and can't deal with it." Sort of along the lines of "you smelt it, you dealt it."
 
EdFred said:
It's the whole if you're so against it, you must be hiding something attack. "Well, if you're against gay marriage, it's just because you're gay yourself, and can't deal with it." Sort of along the lines of "you smelt it, you dealt it."
Click to expand...

a line of "reasoning" .... for the 12-year old.
 
Bob Noel said:
a line of "reasoning" .... for the 12-year old.
Click to expand...

You would be amazed at how many 'adults' still use that reasoning when you get into discussions about what you do and don't agree with . Especially when the topic of homosexuality comes up.
 
Dr. O said:
Wow, 8 pages on an OP that merely cited a statistic.
That's not thread drift, that's the Great Rapids on the Nile River.
:D
Click to expand...

I would call the opinionated/inflammatory thread title pot-stirring at a minimum. This was no mere statistic...
 
I have more time in singles than twins, but have kind of worked my way up and feel there's a place for each. I have to say, when flying passengers over water, mountains, at night and low IMC, I'll take the twin. When one does a lot of cross country flying, they will most certainly encounter more challenging weather conditions and those conditions will change along the route. There are also times I will depart in a twin where I just wouldn't in a single. Last year after skiing, we left Denver (BJC) with about a mile of visibility, blowing snow, low ceilings with tops at FL230. Tower asked us to tell them when we were positioned on the runway because they couldn't see us. Of course, this is in a KA which is a K-ice, pressurized turbine twin. Needless to say, I wouldn't have departed in the TN A-36 I used to fly and not in the P-Baron I flew up until two years ago. In the KA, we didn't have any issues. Cycled the boots twice on the way to FL230 and were on top from then in. I'm not saying it wasn't a challenge and we didn't do a lot of planning, but once we saw we could get above icing levels and there were no other reports of icing in the climb, we departed. I had a very capable right seater with me.

Best,

Dave
 
EdFred said:
You would be amazed at how many 'adults' still use that reasoning when you get into discussions about what you do and don't agree with . Especially when the topic of homosexuality comes up.
Click to expand...

I think you're forgetting about the fact that it was a secret ballot.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think you're forgetting about the fact that it was a secret ballot.
Click to expand...

I'm not forgetting anything. It's like asking an addict that hasn't realized they are if they are addict. They will tell themselves privately they aren't just like they will tell you publicly they aren't. Of course, not everyone you ask if they are addict is an addict.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I have more time in singles than twins, but have kind of worked my way up and feel there's a place for each. I have to say, when flying passengers over water, mountains, at night and low IMC, I'll take the twin. When one does a lot of cross country flying, they will most certainly encounter more challenging weather conditions and those conditions will change along the route. There are also times I will depart in a twin where I just wouldn't in a single. Last year after skiing, we left Denver (BJC) with about a mile of visibility, blowing snow, low ceilings with tops at FL230. Tower asked us to tell them when we were positioned on the runway because they couldn't see us. Of course, this is in a KA which is a K-ice, pressurized turbine twin. Needless to say, I wouldn't have departed in the TN A-36 I used to fly and not in the P-Baron I flew up until two years ago. In the KA, we didn't have any issues. Cycled the boots twice on the way to FL230 and were on top from then in. I'm not saying it wasn't a challenge and we didn't do a lot of planning, but once we saw we could get above icing levels and there were no other reports of icing in the climb, we departed. I had a very capable right seater with me.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

As always, Dave, logical points that are correct and make sense.
 
EdFred said:
I'm not forgetting anything. It's like asking an addict that hasn't realized they are if they are addict. They will tell themselves privately they aren't just like they will tell you publicly they aren't. Of course, not everyone you ask if they are addict is an addict.
Click to expand...

So 52% of the voters were gay and didn't realize it. That's the story you're going to stick with? :rofl:
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I have more time in singles than twins, but have kind of worked my way up and feel there's a place for each. I have to say, when flying passengers over water, mountains, at night and low IMC, I'll take the twin. When one does a lot of cross country flying, they will most certainly encounter more challenging weather conditions and those conditions will change along the route. There are also times I will depart in a twin where I just wouldn't in a single. Last year after skiing, we left Denver (BJC) with about a mile of visibility, blowing snow, low ceilings with tops at FL230. Tower asked us to tell them when we were positioned on the runway because they couldn't see us. Of course, this is in a KA which is a K-ice, pressurized turbine twin. Needless to say, I wouldn't have departed in the TN A-36 I used to fly and not in the P-Baron I flew up until two years ago. In the KA, we didn't have any issues. Cycled the boots twice on the way to FL230 and were on top from then in. I'm not saying it wasn't a challenge and we didn't do a lot of planning, but once we saw we could get above icing levels and there were no other reports of icing in the climb, we departed. I had a very capable right seater with me.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

Isn't that just highlighting the preference of choosing a turbine though? Hypothetically speaking, would you fly a turbine single that somehow had a power output equal to your turbine twin? Or put another way, is a turbine single SAFER than a Piston twin for the aforementioned mission sets?

For me the answer is 'it depends'. I think a NA piston twin doesn't afford you any added safety in the tall rocks, where a single engine turbo or turbine can afford you better AGL clearance when gliding and a generally slower approach speed, which is kinetically more survivable.

Over water however, even a rickety apache is safer than a TBM, because of the numerical [lack of] probabilities of dual engine failure, even over a turbine.
 
hindsight2020 said:
For me the answer is 'it depends'.
Click to expand...
I also think that is the correct answer.

Dave's post also highlights the fact that most pilots are willing to accept worse conditions in a turbine twin than a piston single (that is an extreme example). So is the risk really less, who knows? You would need to analyze each situation individually.

There are also situations where the single, or at least a slow airplane would be safer, such as taking off and landing on a short field.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Isn't that just highlighting the preference of choosing a turbine though? Hypothetically speaking, would you fly a turbine single that somehow had a power output equal to your turbine twin? Or put another way, is a turbine single SAFER than a Piston twin for the aforementioned mission sets?

For me the answer is 'it depends'. I think a NA piston twin doesn't afford you any added safety in the tall rocks, where a single engine turbo or turbine can afford you better AGL clearance when gliding and a generally slower approach speed, which is kinetically more survivable.

Over water however, even a rickety apache is safer than a TBM, because of the numerical [lack of] probabilities of dual engine failure, even over a turbine.
Click to expand...

You make excellent points of course, I flew a turbo normalized A-36 for years and it was a wonderfully capable plane. I maintained it well and never had an event that led to an emergency other than a lost alternator which was more precautionary than emergency. That plane was certified to FL250 and I often flew in the flight levels. It could top a lot of weather, but one still had to get up and down and if an engine failed, one had to have a plan to do an emergency landing.

When I went to the P-baron, it had a single engine service ceiling of around 14,000. Still gave one a lot of options if an engine quit unless over very high terrain. It really seemed better when I'd go on long cross country flights with low IMC below. I could fly to a chosen airport on one and make an instrument approach.

I flew single engine rotary wing turbines in the Army and was very confident in their reliability. Still, it's not just engine failure. Several of the Pilatus incidents were other things than engine: accessories, in one case they lost control of the prop and landed in the ocean. I made several precautionary landings in helos due to chip detector lights illuminating and one for being hit by enemy fire, but each was a controlled landing with power.

It's all a matter of balance. My current mission is long, cross-country flights where weather may materially change enroute; over mountains, water and in low IMC. I lean toward the twin in those circumstances. Never had a problem in a single, but was constantly worried about it. I'd certainly worry less in a turbine single and could see one flying the same missions with that than with the twin turbine. Still, I think more flight departments and air carriers lean to the twin for a reason and I'm more comfortable in the twin.

My partner was flying our P baron climbing to FL180 when the left engine gave out and he caged it. He was near reasonable airports, told approach and landed without incident. He might have made a nearer airport in a single, but it would have been a much more stressful, demanding situation. Once he caged the bad engine, he had no problem flying on one and going to his airport of choice. Having a capable co-pilot is also something to consider in either plane.

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
I would take Socata TBM, a Pilatus, or other single turbine over the mountains and would judge a turbine as or even more reliable than a piston twin.
 
drotto said:
I would take Socata TBM, a Pilatus, or other single turbine over the mountains and would judge a turbine as or even more reliable than a piston twin.
Click to expand...

True, however those planes are well beyond the economic realities of this thread, and for comparison one would have to use a King Air which can be acquired at a lower cost and increase in safety as well.
 
As has been mentioned, it isn't just about engine failure. Accessories fail also. In a twin, you pretty much have a backup of everything that spins.
 
Yea, that Pilatus fella that splashed into the ocean off China with the engine running because the prop couldn't be controlled must have been really miffed (g).

Best,

Dave
 
JHW said:
You can advertise anything. Actually sold one lately? I have seen one of each sell locally in 2013. Both average flying examples. D95 was on market for 2 months and went for 56k (ouch I have 3x that in mine). 337 was on market for years and went for 17k.
Click to expand...

Another BS comparison. :nonod:

I sold both of my 337's at a good price and I have friends that have bought and sold recently and received fair prices. Depends upon the airplane, the buyer and the seller. if you want cheap there is junk available, want a solid well maintained airplane and you will pay more irreguardless of the manufactuer.

Not everybody buys and sells from "Controller", "TAP" or "Barnstormers".
 
Henning said:
True, however those planes are well beyond the economic realities of this thread, and for comparison one would have to use a King Air which can be acquired at a lower cost and increase in safety as well.
Click to expand...

Exactly. With turbine singles costing well over $1M even used, I can buy a much nicer used turbine twin. And the piston twins are an even better value.
 
Everskyward said:
I also think that is the correct answer.



Dave's post also highlights the fact that most pilots are willing to accept worse conditions in a turbine twin than a piston single (that is an extreme example). So is the risk really less, who knows? You would need to analyze each situation individually.



There are also situations where the single, or at least a slow airplane would be safer, such as taking off and landing on a short field.
Click to expand...


And if Dave lost the boots on the way out of BJC that day, things could have been quite different. He probably thinks a little about that too.

Weather can get anyone if the right circumstances conspire.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Another BS comparison. :nonod:

I sold both of my 337's at a good price and I have friends that have bought and sold recently and received fair prices. Depends upon the airplane, the buyer and the seller. if you want cheap there is junk available, want a solid well maintained airplane and you will pay more irreguardless of the manufactuer.

Not everybody buys and sells from "Controller", "TAP" or "Barnstormers".
Click to expand...
write down this date. You and I are in total agreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top