SR22 vs Twin Comanche

[Piperboy]

My view is pretty simple, and hasn't changed much since I bought my TwinCo. The Cirrus is a fine airplane, very fast, very capable. But it's still a single-engine ship at the end of the day, and the parachute is no substitute for a second engine.

I simply don't fly single-engine airplanes the way I do twins. My mission profile includes distance, IMC, night flying, and the occasional jaunt into high-elevation terrain. I don't feel comfortable doing the latter three in single-engine airplanes. (Call me crazy, especially since I taught full-down autos in helicopters years ago.)

But that's just me. I'm 100 hours short of 11,000 total time. In that relatively short amount of time, I'm one of the only pilots to ever perform a precautionary in-flight shutdown of a Honeywell HTF-7000. I've had a TFE-731-50R blow all of its oil out at FL400. And I've had a -5BR have a similar failure due to a faulty oil o-ring installation. These are some of the most reliable engines ever made, yet the components attached to them failed in such a way that I still needed the other motor to get on the ground safely. Two relatively minor piston "problems" also occurred in that timeframe which caused me to conduct an immediate (on-field) landing. Figure 5 major events in 11,000 hours = one major powerplant-related failure every 2,200 hours. No major issues that money couldn't fix. Had they occurred in a single-engine airplane? Probably wouldn't be the same low-pulse rate results.

Over the years I've relied on the redundancy of other systems my airplane, too. I've had three separate vacuum pump failures (which I realize is starting to be rather old-school these days, but still), and in each case the other pump let me keep on flying with no problems. Had two AI failures (I ran two vacuum AIs in my plane until replacing one with a G5 last year.) Multiple generator failures (again, I have two.) The Cirrus does have some decent redundancy in these departments, but again, one powerplant drives it all.

It's also widely misunderstood just how valuable the drift-down performance is even in underpowered light twins. When you're at cruise altitude you can often choose between airports within hundreds of miles.

I do accept that twins aren't for everyone. The financial aspect notwithstanding (which is ironic, because in this case, it's certainly going to cost you more to own and operate a new-ish Cirrus SR-22 than any Twin Comanche) there must be a commitment to training and proficiency. Some pilots identify that the twin isn't a good fit for them in that department. So I understand and respect the decision of many to stick with singles. It's true, a light piston twin can be a lot to handle.

We both fly professionally, and we both enjoy the benefits of multi-crew flight decks, great training, and great equipment. I can certainly feel the lack of a FO when I'm flying SPIFR in my Twin Comanche. I also miss some of the automation. Once in awhile I even miss my HUD and EVS! It's more challenging, even for someone who flies more than the average GA pilot and has access to the best training known to man. I do like the challenge and I do make it a point to stay current and proficient in my own little airplane, not relying on my day job to keep me sharp. But it does help to live and breathe aviation. I might feel differently about this if I was flying 100-200 hours per year.


I fly my wife and two kids. That's why I fly a twin. I haven't put them in a single-engine airplane since... well, actually, maybe never. I certainly never traveled with them in one.

I feel the same way Rayan. I have flown just over 2000 hours in singles about 30 years ago. I don't think I will ever again fly a single. Been flying twins ever since. I have to have propulsion and system redundancy. At least two engines and everything else. So to me a twin is the only way to go. Not only that, a twin that performs well or very well on one engine.

Many boats mind you have twin engines. Imagine you are in your single engine boat cruising around the Statue of Liberty, the engine quits, and unless an anchor saves your day, you just might drift down the bay, underneath the Verrazano bridge, and into the open ocean, never to be seen again.

 

[Radar Contact]

This is a killer panel. Haven’t seen these on C340’s for $300k.

Yup. That’s my (and my wife’s) main worry - that a C340 is too much of a step-up from a single. I need to go and get some time in one. Know of any in Northern California?

There are a few sub 300K listed with nice upgraded panels on controller right now. There are some really nice planes in the 100's that you could get and drop off at the avionics shop for a full refurbish exactly how you want and you'd still be well below 300 and it would look like the one pictured. That's what I'd do in that price range.

If you are serious about at least considering a twin cessna and finding someone with one to let you see and go buzz around in, join The Twin Cessna Flyer. http://www.twincessna.org/ It's a fairly cheap price for a one year subscription and it gives you access to the message board. There are a lot of 340 owners on the left coast that would be super helpful to you. It's an invaluable community of incredibly knowledgeable people that could help you in your search/decision making. There are also owners on there that offer their services to get you checked out in the plane, get you the insurance requirements and can act as mentor pilots until you are comfy on your own. There are several people that made the jump with similar experience to yourself. All you need is the desire and money to do it.

Reference your concern earlier with counter rotating props, look at this link. https://microaero.com/vgkit/340a/ Many of the twin's now days have installed vortex generators. It lowers the Vmc speed to below stall speed and adds to useful load. In the case of the 340A it lowers Vmc to 7 knots below stall speed (so you'd stall before death rolling but with proper training you wouldn't do either) and increases gross weight by 300 lbs.

Again, I have no dog in the hunt and in most cases on this board a twin isn't the answer. In your case, you have showed interest and a mission where it may be.

Good luck and keep us posted on what you decide down the road.

P.S. Beautiful Decathlon you have!

 

[weilke]

Lol, so now we have made it to the old twin cessnas. How many days will it take us to get him into a Mu2 or a Gulfstream ?

 

[Radar Contact]

Lol, so now we have made it to the old twin cessnas. How many days will it take us to get him into a Mu2 or a Gulfstream ?

As many days as it takes him to show possible interest in one like he did asking about a 340A.

 

[kyleb]

Lol, so now we have made it to the old twin cessnas. How many days will it take us to get him into a Mu2 or a Gulfstream ?

Regardless, the final answer is always RV-10.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

I bought a 2005 SR22 partly because the purchase price is a bargain. Yes, really. I paid $187K for a like-new always hangared SR22 GTS with 1400 Hobbs 3 years ago. At that time, a nice 182 of the same vintage and condition was around the same price or even more. I intended to install a BRS parachute if I got a 182, but then I'd have very little cargo space.

HOWEVER, the operating costs of an SR22 are not cheap. Parachute repack is $16K every 10 years (but your plane increases in value by that much). And due to all the redundant avionics and satellite systems, if you want it all to work, figure $4K or so a year just for that. Engine overhaul is $60K, so that's roughly $30 / hour if you replace at TBO, which most Cirrus owners don't (if flown properly LOP and avoiding shock cooling and keeping CHT's low, the IO 550 can usually easily go safely and legally 50% over TBO).

All things considered, 3 years into it, the SR22 is one amazing machine. Fast, comfortable, super safe (great accident stats...better than twins).

Now, if only Cherokee 6 and Saratoga could have a parachute, then I'd be really happy!

One other side note: I just passed my IFR in my Cirrus. If you're using Cirrus for IFR, just be aware that the ride will be more difficult. For any given approach, there are way too many ways to do them in a Cirrus, and the autopilot interface can be complex. To prep for a Cirrus ride, expect some extra hours, as you never know what the DPE will throw at you.

They are expensive in part because they are well equipped and they are "new" by piston GA standards. The oldest Cirrus airframes are only 16 or 17 years old.

In the 1960s & 1970s the GA industry was pushing out thousands of new airplanes per year, peaking in the late 1970s just before the double recessions of the early 1980s. Most of the Pipers, Cessnas, Beechcraft and Mooneys we PoAers own date back to those two decades - 35 years to 50 years old, or more - so much less expensive than the younger Cirrus'.

However, there has been a steady depreciation of older Cirrus airplanes compared to current prices. Part of that is age related, and part of it is due to the significant improvements and upgrades from Generation 1. I think the older SR-22s are starting to be good value, and it will be interesting to see what they go for when the next recession finally hits (the best time to buy discretionary toys like a personal use airplane).[/QUOTE

 

[Skepilot]

HOWEVER, the operating costs of an SR22 are not cheap. Parachute repack is $16K every 10 years (but your plane increases in value by that much). And due to all the redundant avionics and satellite systems, if you want it all to work, figure $4K or so a year just for that. Engine overhaul is $60K, so that's roughly $30 / hour if you replace at TBO, which most Cirrus owners don't (if flown properly LOP and avoiding shock cooling and keeping CHT's low, the IO 550 can usually easily go safely and legally 50% over TBO).

Yes, but the chute repack is cheaper than overhauling a second engine! Also, I've been talking with a group that's considering an SR22 partnership. They got multiple quotes for engine overhaul and they were all around $45k. Have you actually overhauled and found it to be $60k? As for avionics, this group was budgeting
for Jeppesen NavData Subscription: 2-430's=$550/yr, PFD=$245/yr for a total of $820/yr and Garmin Obstacle Subscription: $150/yr. XM sat weather was excluded since it's kind of redundant with ForeFlight / ADS-B weather. So, how did you come up with $4k/year, are you including XM and the Avidyne warranty? Just curious, want to make sure I'm looking at accurate numbers when considering the purchase!

 

[weilke]

Yes, but the chute repack is cheaper than overhauling a second engine! Also, I've been talking with a group that's considering an SR22 partnership. They got multiple quotes for engine overhaul and they were all around $45k. Have you actually overhauled and found it to be $60k? As for avionics, this group was budgeting

Look at the total cost of ownership for a twin or SR22 for 10 years and 15k for a repack becomes a rounding error.

45k is a good number for the engine itself. Until it's hung and the random stuff that comes up in the process, 45 won't do it.

 

[Ryan F.]

Yes, but the chute repack is cheaper than overhauling a second engine

LOL... just a friendly reminder, a minor repair of a failed second engine is cheaper than a WHOLE NEW AIRPLANE.

 

[weilke]

LOL... just a friendly reminder, a minor repair of a failed second engine is cheaper than a WHOLE NEW AIRPLANE.

The whole new airplane will be paid for by insurance (- the engine repair). The spun #2 bearing on a twin is all on your dime.

 

[Ryan F.]

The whole new airplane will be paid for by insurance (- the engine repair). The spun #2 bearing on a twin is all on your dime.

... deductible?

... airframe loss?

... not to mention hoping you don't land in the open cesspool of a water treatment plant?

I think you come out way ahead on the one engine landing.

 

[mscard88]

You would be surprised!
According to NTSB and their accident statistics you are more likely to walk away alive from a single-engine piston aircraft (with or without parachute) when its engine failed than from any piston-powered twin when one of its engines failed. This is true regardless how incredible or improbable it may sound. This is because of combination of higher landing speeds in a twin and amateur pilots unfit to handle asymmetric thrust.

Doesn't matter if it's an "amateur" pilot or a professional, they'll both have problems in a twin that loses an engine if they haven't maintained proficiency in SE emergency procedures. FAA says you lose 80% of your performance capability in light twins when you lose an engine. Most of them are a handful when it happens but being proficient on SE procedures helps tremendously.

 

[Ryan F.]

Actually, I do think this has been a pretty apples to oranges comparison throughout. A late model Cirrus really should be compared to a nice Baron or better. You could operate an amazing Twin Comanche for substantially less -- I'd guesstimate around half the total ownership cost.

 

[Skepilot]

Actually, I do think this has been a pretty apples to oranges comparison throughout. A late model Cirrus really should be compared to a nice Baron or better. You could operate an amazing Twin Comanche for substantially less -- I'd guesstimate around half the total ownership cost.

As I we discussed before, a late model Cirrus was never a consideration.

 

[Ryan F.]

As I we discussed before, a late model Cirrus was never a consideration.

Gotcha. I don't mean to disregard that, but the prices never aligned in my understanding. I don't know if there are any airworthy Cirri which are acquisition-cost comparable with a Twin Comanche. The nicest example of the PA-30 breed might fetch $130kish. An average one is $80k or so. Are there any Cirri at all in that price range?

 

[Skepilot]

Gotcha. I don't mean to disregard that, but the prices never aligned in my understanding. I don't know if there are any airworthy Cirri which are acquisition-cost comparable with a Twin Comanche. The nicest example of the PA-30 breed might fetch $130kish. An average one is $80k or so. Are there any Cirri at all in that price range?

No, but since I'm considering a partnership, a wise man once gave me this advice:

Purely from an fractional owernship perspective, it's probably easier to get into a piece of an SR-22; lots of interest in that airframe and you can get in and back out again with relative ease, especially compared to sharing an older twin.

 

[Piperboy]

I think you come out way ahead on the one engine landing.

That says it all.

 

[wayne]

I think you come out way ahead on the one engine landing.

I've had many successful one engine landings in a SR22.

 

[wayne]

The whole new airplane will be paid for by insurance (- the engine repair). The spun #2 bearing on a twin is all on your dime.

... deductible?

... airframe loss?

... not to mention hoping you don't land in the open cesspool of a water treatment plant?

I think you come out way ahead on the one engine landing.

I've heard owners of SR22s say they'd rather pull the chute than land on a runway if the engine self destructed in flight. Their perspective was they'd have to pay $40-50k to get the engine rebuilt, but the insurance company would pay for the whole plane if they pulled the chute. I have no issue with pulling the chute if needed, but I know how to make a landing. My perspective is to make sure everyone onboard the plane safely exits the plane, and that works out very well when I land on a runway. I have just short of 400 hours of SR22 time.

If I pull the chute, it won't be at 10,000'. First of all the vast majority of my cruise time is in glide range of a public paved runway. That's option #1 for me. If I get to "the chute needs to be pulled" and I'm well above minimum pull altitude I will look for an appropriate place and maneuver there. I did my last BFR in a SR22 and the CFI picked a place outside of glide range of an airport. First I looked at Nearest (always up on the top 430), then said that since we were out of glide range of an airport I would glide to a good location and pull the chute. I'm in Atlanta. It's rare to find a road that's not full of cars, or big open fields.

 

[weilke]

You know that insurance won't pay for the engine if it lunches itself prior to the insured event ?

 

[Radar Contact]

You know that insurance won't pay for the engine if it lunches itself prior to the insured event ?

As a twin guy this will never affect me but I'm curious, are you suggesting that if the engine quits and you pull the chute (total the plane) that insurance won't cover the entire loss for your declared value? i.e. you insure your SR22 for 300K, engine tears apart in flight, you pull the chute and they write you a check for 300K minus the engine cost (40-60k depending on who you ask)?

 

[Brad Smith]

It's true that a twin may be more expensive to operate than a single, but I would only consider the difference in cost (which may be minor) and what advantage in safety is gained by a PROFICIENT pilot flying a twin. Fly a lot of IFR over rugged territory or long distances over open water? The redundancy of a twin is desirable in these scenarios IF proficiency is maintained. One item that the OP mentioned was teaching the wife to safely handle an emergency situation where he becomes incapacitated. It would be ridiculous to argue that a twin would be easier for her to handle than a single with a BRS. Seems that no further argument is necessary, because his wife settled the single vs twin argument long ago. If mama ain't happy, nobody's happy.

 

[wayne]

You know that insurance won't pay for the engine if it lunches itself prior to the insured event ?

As a twin guy this will never affect me but I'm curious, are you suggesting that if the engine quits and you pull the chute (total the plane) that insurance won't cover the entire loss for your declared value? i.e. you insure your SR22 for 300K, engine tears apart in flight, you pull the chute and they write you a check for 300K minus the engine cost (40-60k depending on who you ask)?

What I’ve read, as I haven’t pulled the chute, is that insurance companies are covering the whole plane, and some with no deductible, if the chute is pulled for mechanical issues or pilot incapacitation. The reason being to push people from trying to save the plane. The insurance company would rather pay $300k for the plane than liability for deaths when the pilot botches the emergency landing.

 

[GRG55]

As a twin guy this will never affect me but I'm curious, are you suggesting that if the engine quits and you pull the chute (total the plane) that insurance won't cover the entire loss for your declared value? i.e. you insure your SR22 for 300K, engine tears apart in flight, you pull the chute and they write you a check for 300K minus the engine cost (40-60k depending on who you ask)?

Hull loss is hull loss, and that is what is insured if you have it. The conditions that modify that coverage in my policy mostly relate to doing something illegal. An engine failure hardly fits that criteria.

Even if I have a failure of one engine and for whatever reason my plane is damaged sufficiently the insurance company determines it is a write off (not unusual for an older twin these days) I get paid the full value of the hull insurance.

Just as an aside, although many of us have probably thought about it, I notice of those on this forum who own and fly light twins none of us seem to be clamouring to substitute a Cirrus.
Just sayin'

 

[PaulS]

I've heard owners of SR22s say they'd rather pull the chute than land on a runway if the engine self destructed in flight. Their perspective was they'd have to pay $40-50k to get the engine rebuilt, but the insurance company would pay for the whole plane if they pulled the chute. **snipped***.

Yeah, that's dumb. If the engine lunches and the plane is still flying fine and a suitable field or especially a runway is doable, I'd take the runway over the chance the chute plops me in front of a semi barreling along at 80 mph, or the other bad things that could happen.

 

[GRG55]

Yeah, that's dumb. If the engine lunches and the plane is still flying fine and a suitable field or especially a runway is doable, I'd take the runway over the chance the chute plops me in front of a semi barreling along at 80 mph, or the other bad things that could happen.

I would be curious to hear from those who have taken the Cirrus CAPS training as to how that compares to the above.

I was under the impression pulling the chute at an appropriate altitude is the lowest risk outcome in the event of loss of power, and that is what Cirrus teaches. Is that correct, or am I mistaken in that impression?

 

[Radar Contact]

Hull loss is hull loss, and that is what is insured if you have it. The conditions that modify that coverage in my policy mostly relate to doing something illegal. An engine failure hardly fits that criteria.

Even if I have a failure of one engine and for whatever reason my plane is damaged sufficiently the insurance company determines it is a write off (not unusual for an older twin these days) I get paid the full value of the hull insurance.

Just as an aside, although many of us have probably thought about it, I notice of those on this forum who own and fly light twins none of us seem to be clamouring to substitute a Cirrus.
Just sayin'

That was my understanding and well said.

 

[Ryan F.]

No, but since I'm considering a partnership, a wise man once gave me this advice:

Yep, I still believe that to be true... good luck! It's a really nice airplane.

 

[Ryan F.]

Just as an aside, although many of us have probably thought about it, I notice of those on this forum who own and fly light twins none of us seem to be clamouring to substitute a Cirrus.
Just sayin'

Yeah. No kidding.

That said, as a light twin owner and someone who taught in the Cirrus for a few years, this is a tough topic for me. I feel like I might repeat myself a bit and come across as a Cirrus or CAPS "basher," but I'm really not. The Cirrus is a beautiful aircraft and has only gotten better with time. I'm also a fan of the company's philosophies and their ability to reimagine their training and pilot community "culture" for the purpose of improving safety. They've really done an outstanding job in that regard... it couldn't have been easy, and was a massive time and financial investment on their part. The numbers have proven that they've made a big dent in the problem.

I just think the chute is a consistently misunderstood and mis-applied tool when it comes to risk management and ADM. I'm not saying the folks who are participating in this thread are guilty of that in some way, I'm just saying I've seen it a lot in my time as a flight instructor and GA pilot.

There's really no reason a Cirrus should be compared to a light twin -- any light twin -- because it has the chute. It's a single-engine airplane and should be operated that way. The chute is a "nice to have" but its availability should in no way alter the acceptable profiles considered by the pilot prior to launch. If you wouldn't fly over the Rockies in a Cessna 210, you shouldn't do it in a Cirrus. If you wouldn't cross Lake Michigan in a Bonanza, you shouldn't do it in a Cirrus. If you wouldn't fly at night and in low IMC in a Mooney M20J, you shouldn't do it in a Cirrus.

End of story, basically. For anyone doubting just what the chute represents, I always made it a point to let them read the cover on the CAPS deployment handle. The top few statements tend to drive the point home.

What also bugs me about the light twin comparison is that, well, there's just no comparison! The light twin's window of vulnerability is on takeoff, low altitude, but for a "reasonably" proficient pilot (I know, I know, that's the big gotcha) the window is maybe 10 seconds long, maybe 20 or 30 for extremely underpowered twins being flown at or near MGW. Correctly planned, loaded and flown, from perhaps a hundred or so feet up, you have an "out" which is to feather the prop on the inop engine and continue the climbout.... albeit at a very slow rate of climb. This is where ADM comes into play. If you're launching in those conditions, you might want to think about terrain and so on to make sure you have the performance you need to come back around and land (or go somewhere else.) But those options are all on the table, for almost the whole flight. And as soon as the light twin is at 1,000 AGL and climbing on two good engines, you're good. Cruise flight? Over mountainous terrain, sure, why not. Freezing water, not a problem. Lots of low IMC, no issue. Night, piece of cake. Combine some of those factors? Absolutely. (Personally, I draw the line at combining night and mountains, but that's just me... my risk tolerance isn't the same as everyone else's.)

So your coverage "window" in the light twin is vastly greater than the Cirrus, and all of those outcomes include a safe landing at an actual airport. You're talking inconvenience, not a night shivering in the airplane as it slides slowly down a scree-covered mountainside.

The issue of pilot training and proficiency inevitably comes up. As well it should. If a pilot doesn't see himself feeling comfortable in the light twin, availing himself of training and making sure he remains current, then by all means, don't climb into the twin. No one should ever feel second-guessed for that. Zero issue here! No doubt.

But don't try to compare a single-engine airplane, flown by a competent and proficient pilot, to a light multi-engine airplane, flown by a competent and proficient pilot, in terms of safety and redundancy. There is no comparison. Night and day difference in terms of options, alternatives, and contingency planning.

If a pilot did everything correctly in the Cirrus in terms of his planning and still needs the chute, then he should most certainly use the chute. But if he found himself in one of the aforementioned scenarios and decides to re-acquaint himself with terra-firma under canopy due to whatever emergency he encountered, I'd argue it was pretty poor ADM and risk management on his part to launch relying on a flippin' airframe parachute to save his rear end and that of his passengers.

 

[Ryan F.]

I would be curious to hear from those who have taken the Cirrus CAPS training as to how that compares to the above.

I was under the impression pulling the chute at an appropriate altitude is the lowest risk outcome in the event of loss of power, and that is what Cirrus teaches. Is that correct, or am I mistaken in that impression?

0-500 feet, they advise to land straight ahead. 501' to 2000' AGL, "pull immediately." Above 2,001' AGL, troubleshoot. That's the doctrine.

 

[wayne]

But don't try to compare a single-engine airplane, flown by a competent and proficient pilot, to a light multi-engine airplane, flown by a competent and proficient pilot, in terms of safety and redundancy. There is no comparison. Night and day difference in terms of options, alternatives, and contingency planning.

Therein lies the rub. The cause of accidents is pilot error 80-90% of the time. Not the engine, prop, or accessories. The pilot.

Single-engine planes can have a back up for everything except power. That’s all twins have over singles. But it’s a biggie.

 

[denverpilot]

The light twin's window of vulnerability is on takeoff, low altitude,

Interestingly that’s not the phase of Flight where most of the accidents happen in them. By the textbook numbers, it’s the “most risk”. By the real world performance of the pilots, it’s not even in second place.

 

[MIFlyer]

I would be curious to hear from those who have taken the Cirrus CAPS training as to how that compares to the above.

I was under the impression pulling the chute at an appropriate altitude is the lowest risk outcome in the event of loss of power, and that is what Cirrus teaches. Is that correct, or am I mistaken in that impression?

i had a miniscule amount of time with a Cirrus CFI. My first discovery flight was in an SR20. In discussing emergency scenarios, the instructor said that we would not attempt a power off landing at an airport, but would instead glide over something benign and pull the chute.

I never took additional Cirrus training, but this is what I recall from ~2 years ago.

 

[MIFlyer]

Therein lies the rub. The cause of accidents is pilot error 80-90% of the time. Not the engine, prop, or accessories. The pilot.

Single-engine planes can have a back up for everything except power. That’s all twins have over singles. But it’s a biggie.

a point I don't believe hasn't been addressed yet is value for the money.

For example, if you want certain features (avionics, de-ice, useful load), you will almost always pay substantially less to get these same things in a twin vs a comparable single. in most cases, you will save enough that you could invest the purchase difference and use it to pay the operations difference.

In my case, i'm looking at about 100k difference between the twin and single, which is about 8k/year return on that investment, which pays a good bit of the operational delta.

 

[denverpilot]

For example, if you want certain features (avionics, de-ice, useful load), you will almost always pay substantially less to get these same things in a twin vs a comparable single.

Examples?

 

[MIFlyer]

Examples?

Hi Nate, honestly not trying to dodge you, but don't have time to do a new market analysis now. I know the times I've had a few hours to airplane hunt, I've found that:
a 50-60k Aztec will have better avionics, more useful, and full de-ice vs a PA32 with similar for 100k less
Same for 210 vs 337
same for Bo/Baron

I don't think you can find a de-ice single with GPS and six seats for under 150, and that's on the lower end. I may be proven wrong, but that's what I've seen in my casual hunts.

the twins will tend to be older, but i'm not trying to make singles, fail, just noting that de-ice singles are rare, and expensive

 

[GRG55]

Interestingly that’s not the phase of Flight where most of the accidents happen in them. By the textbook numbers, it’s the “most risk”. By the real world performance of the pilots, it’s not even in second place.

Let me make a wild azz guess - most accidents happen in the phase of flight when the airplane re-unites itself with terra firma.

Although there's a lot of chatter about engine failures in a twin right at, or immediately after, takeoff (current Exhibit 1 being the thread about the recent Cessna 340 accident), as has been pointed out before,the amount of time actually spent in that phase of flight makes that probability extraordinarily low. Certainly time of maximum vulnerability, being low and slow. But that applies to most every airplane, not just light twins.

I'd also point out that most of us don't use our twins as fair weather only flyers. And that probably has an influence on the risks and incident outcomes. I routinely make trips in my Aztec that I would not, and often could not, make in any of my previous singles. Perhaps owners of much more capable singles, like a FIKI Cirrus, might not experience those limitations. But I am probably like most PoAers in that all my planes have been "affordable" spam cans (Pipers, in my case) and the flying I do now in my twin is inherently much different, carries different risks, presents different challenges in the event of certain system failures, and can have potentially different outcomes than anything I did in my singles.

 

[denverpilot]

the twins will tend to be older, but i'm not trying to make singles, fail, just noting that de-ice singles are rare, and expensive

20-30 older airframes are cheaper, yes. Doesn’t have much to do with the avionics on board.

I don’t think you can find an apples to apples comparison that shows twin avionics and features are cheaper than single avionics and features, simply because they’re usually about the same price, all other things being equal.

Having two run out engines on the wing of a twin vs a single run out engine on a single of similar airframe ages and equipage, the twin will cost more.

There’s a MILD discount for piston twins right now, because fuel costs are a detractor, but apples to apples, it’s no more than 15%. Unless the airframe is ancient and ragged out.

 

[denverpilot]

Let me make a wild azz guess - most accidents happen in the phase of flight when the airplane re-unites itself with terra firma.

Actually it’s single engine approach to landing from relatively high altitudes.

Why? I don’t know. But piston twin drivers get sucked into coming down just fine with one engine from high altitude and then getting low and slow and balling them up a mile or two from their intended airport. Makes no sense. But that’s the real accident numbers. And controlled descent into terrain is more common than Vmc rolls, so at least that part of training is working.

Second most common is the same as singles. Loss of control on landing. Doesn’t appear to matter if one or two engines are operating.

In a far distant third, are the takeoff accidents in multis.

 

[GRG55]

Examples?

Spend a few minutes perusing the ads in Controller or Trade-a-Plane Nate. There's not a comparable high performance single of equivalent vintage, equipment, condition and time that doesn't sell for a significant premium over a comparable twin. Its not even a close contest.

Comparable Bonanza A36s, an airplane less capable than my Aztec, typically command a 50% or greater premium over what I paid (I originally set out to look for an A36).

Light twin prices collapsed during the high oil price period of the financial crisis (remember $150 per bbl oil in mid-2008?) and have never really recovered. The safety reputation (which you, among others here, seem to take particular delight in reminding us), the maintenance burden, the extra fuel costs, the insurance premiums all conspire to keep the prices of these twin engine planes depressed. And if you are willing to turn a wrench you can buy a lot of fuel for the difference.

New production volumes make it clear piston twins are a dying breed. But as I pointed out, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in a thread a while back, new production high performance retractable singles seem to be dying off even faster.