I hear a lot of old school aviators say how twins are safer, because obviously if you lose one engine, you've got another. My instructor, a Master CFII who is 78 years old, swears by this. Younger pilots are prone to say that is from the day in which engines were less reliable, and singles today are just as safe.
I'm looking to get an airplane to do cross-country and over water flying (to the Caribbean from the U.S.) and he says especially for over-water flying, you definitely want a twin.
But obviously with twins comes twice the gas, twice the engine maintenance. Some people say twice the worry.
With the reliability of engines today (and I am well aware that engine outs on takeoff still kill people) what do you guys think regarding the single vs. twin safety factor?
Other notes: The other consideration I have is speed. Obviously a Baron will get you from Miami to Santo Domingo faster than an Archer. I've looked at everything from Barons to Bonanzas to Cessna 210's, Piper Dakotas (my personal favorite if speed were not a consideration), Seneca's. Any thoughts on particular aircraft for the job would be great, too. I have some money to spend, but the lower the better, and top end would be in the $250k range. But if there's a $70k airplane out there that would do the job reliably, safely and with good speed, I'm not looking to spend just so others ooh and ah at my plane. I'm looking for utility. Cargo would be wife, dog, golf clubs and her suitcase