Single vs. Twin: safety

[Mr._Ryan]

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

[DaveSims]

If I was flying any measureable distance over water or any other unfriendly terrain, I would opt for a twin.  I do know there are many who are comfortable flying single engine in those circumstances, but I bet even they turn white when the engine hiccups.

Fortunately the twin market is still pretty flat.  You should be able to find a nice Baron in the $100k or less range.  For what you are looking to do, a good Baron 55 would fit the bill.

[Rocket_Bird]

Normally, I'd put my bet on a twin in terms of safety over a single any day.

[aeroart]

The real risk with a twin is that if an engine failure occurs, some pilots will think that they can climb or even maintain level flight on one engine. That's not always true. Manufacturers of light twins (if I remember correctly,

[Jokerc152]

Yeah definetly if I was flying long distance with a lot of over water flying the definetly a twin other wise I prefer good old fashined single

[Splinter562]

Aeroart is right on. With multis, pilots tend to get distracted trying to restart the dead engine first and not thinking about heading to the nearest point of landing. For light twins, depending on the loading, the single engine service ceiling can be quite low or non-existent. The distraction of restarting the engine sometimes results in the pilot either getting into a stall/spin or colliding with terrain. In a single, you're first concern is picking out a place to land and gliding for it, but your options are much more limited. So in the end, which is more safe is hard to say.

For flying over open water. I would bet it is still safer to fly a twin, since you can cruise down to sea level if you have to.

For flying over remote mountainous terrain, it may or may not be safer to be in a single. (Lower stall speed if you have to put it into the trees)

[Rocket_Bird]

As with any aircraft, the good pilot should of course know their machine and prepare for the worst.  Distractions happen, granted, but that's why pilots constantly train and improve their skills, whether it is formal training or even on a leisurely flight.  Aviate, navigate, communicate, with the first being the most important.  Even with distractions, the pilot shouldn't be losing control of their aircraft if they are on top of it or unless it is beyond their control. 

It's better to have more options than no options.  While not every twin can sustain level flight with an engine-out, it still gives you more options over water.  Ditching sucks. 

I agree about the mountain terrain part. 

[SaultFresh]

I don't think anyone has said this, but logically, with a twin, you have double the chance of an engine failure than you would in a single, haha, just logic. However, I would definitely suggest a twin. I did my training on a PA44, which is probably big enough for your needs. The cargo in that can hold up to 200 lbs... so you'd probably have to keep your golf clubs in the passenger seats with the dog (that way you have room for your wife's suitcase  ) Anyhow, I know that a lot of good information has been already given. Twins don't necessarily mean you're not going to be ditching in the water, but it does mean that you'll probably have more time to figure out where you want to go in the event of an engine failure. As well, something that I've learned, look for an airplane with a Lycoming engine as opposed to a Continental one. I'm not saying anything bad about Continental, but I know that the carb in a Lycoming is located at the back of the engine, whereas in a Continental, it's located at the front. The PA44's I flew never experienced carb icing in the air, and rarely on the ground. I'm not saying you could be that lucky, it's just something to consider. They're counter-rotating prop's, which means no critical engine, which is a big help, haha, and they can sustain flight on one engine (assuming all the different variable allow it). Just remember Control - Power- Drag, Fire - Fix - Feather

[beaky]

I'm in the "extra engine(s) are only useful for long flights over water or extremely remote areas" camp.
Twins have always tended to be designed so that they rely on that extra engine for normal ops, to the point where they are basically in "limp home" mode if one of them quits or has to be shut down. The difference in service ceiling (the alt. at which the plane will climb no more than 100 fpm) on one engine, for example, is huge. And in low airspeed/high power situations, if one engine starts misbehaving, the aircraft will want to yaw towards the weak or dead engine and roll over.

[DaveSims]

[quote]
As for parachutes, as long as the airplane will still at least glide and I can see where I'm going, I'm going to keep flying. Even into obstacles or rough terrain. Typical descent rates for aircraft under BRS canopies is about 400 fpm (once stabilized), and you have absolutely no control over where you will go. Most light singles can be flown at a lower sink rate with no power, and even a twin on one engine will do better than that. and both types can be steered without power.

[C]

As for parachutes, as long as the airplane will still at least glide and I can see where I'm going, I'm going to keep flying. Even into obstacles or rough terrain. Typical descent rates for aircraft under BRS canopies is about 400 fpm (once stabilized), and you have absolutely no control over where you will go. Most light singles can be flown at a lower sink rate with no power, and even a twin on one engine will do better than that. and both types can be steered without power.

I agree completely!