Single vs. Twin

[tcoll777]

twins

The second engine takes you to the grave site!!!!!!!!!! Unless you are PROFICIENT.......than it's all about the twin safty....

 

[bigD]

If I remember correctly, the actual rate of engine failure related accidents is lower in twins, however if an accident DOES happen, you're much more likely to die from it in a twin. Which to me points to proficiency being the name of the game.

 

[hyper]

BigD,
You're right. That's a more accurate statement.

RT,
I'll reiterate although you knew what I meant. No, I did not. The "present" wording was in respect to their level of proficiency at the time that they came to me. Get a little more time under your belt and you'll understand.

see ya

 

[jetdriven]

there are many times I feel safer in a single than a twin. Example, a takeoff in Santa Fe, NM or Gunnison, CO. The air density is above the limit for most non-turbocharged twins (B-58,B-55, duchess, semonole, etc.) So on takeoff at low altitude, an engine failure results in a crash landing. Same with a single. But a twin has at least TWICE the chance for an engine failure. Plus the crash would be less survivable, more mass crashing at a higher speed with no engine in front of you to bear the brunt.. So in that case I would rather be in an A-36 than a baron.
Flying hard IFR with 200-1/2 or at night (or both) I prefer a twin, because of the redundant systems and probably anti-ice and better performance. Same with night flying, no better feeling than two continentals humming in sync, all the needles matched up. OF course, if you're not current, then it all goes out the window. You're better off in a J-3 cub. It is the safest airplane ever made. IT CAN JUST BARELY KILL YOU..