Twin Engine Airplanes Are Less Safe To fly
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 พ.ย. 2024
- Follow MojoGrip on Facebook / mojogripaviation
JOIN / mojogrip
Used airplanes for sale www.aeroavion.com
Today we are going to make a case against twin engine aircraft more particularly light piston twins.
Full disclaimer: everything i'm showing in this video is based on my biased opinion it's biased because I'm a single engine pilot but a lot what I will share is also based on facts. So twin engines if you are either an enthusiast or say for example you are brand new and just starting your journey in aviation and perhaps you think of one day graduating from a single engine airplane to a twin piston this is generally the trend where you have pilots start out with a low entry single engine fixed landing gear aircraft and then as they continue to grow, you get your instrument generally you want to get your multi engine and that's how you graduate into the twin engine category. But is it necessary that's what we want to talk about today.
Let's go back to the very inception of light twins when you think of this category of aircraft the thought behind having two engines is you'd have more and better performance again you have two engines, you have a more capable aircraft, generally speaking you can carry more load so more useful load and you can fly higher. Now though there are a lot more single engine aircraft that can match those same performance and in some cases outperform a light twin.
Let's look at the numbers for starters a twin engine aircraft generally will be more expensive even an older model you'd be paying more upfront to buy a twin engine aircraft than you would a single engine airplane and your cost doesn't automatically stop there your operating cost for a twin engine will also be more in some cases exponentially more than a single engine airplane or single-engine piston airplane. When it comes to your maintenance let's just say the the typical maintenance for twin airplanes can get really high because again you have two engines to worry about instead of one and not just having two engines generally speaking in a twin you're also flying a complex aircraft retractable landing gear and you have more things that need to work together to operate that aircraft. What that means more parts that can break.
Let's talk about the safety record. It is a common belief that having two engines is safer than having one so you may have a pilot gravitate towards a light twin with this notion. Well the numbers doesn't show that. As a matter of fact the numbers show the opposite over the years when you study the accident rates of light twins and the fatality rates of light twins, it shows that compared to a single engine airplane you're up to four times more likely to have a fatal crash in a twin-engine airplane compared to a single piston engine airplane.
While there are some benefits to flying a twin, it will cost you more no matter how you bake and slice it. And it's not safer.
Manage your aircraft with COFLYT coflyt.com/moj...
My Merch www.bonfire.co...
Thanks Mike for posing the question. Having grown up on airports, and later becoming an aircraft dealer, and having Bought owned and sold literally dozens of single, twin engine and turboprop aircraft over 40+ Plus years. I might be inclined to agree that light twin engine aircraft, statically have a higher accident rate, but that does not make all twin engine aircraft inherently more dangerous than singles. Many factors have to be considered, and if you look at Scott Purdue's (Flywire) recent in depth look into the Bonanza's vs Barons he provides some insights into accident rates that suggest that some of the Baron models are comparable to some of the single engine Bonanzas.
The higher performance the aircraft, generally the greater exposure to adverse weather conditions, and many light twin accidents are weather related. Most pilots who would elect to not venture into conditions as a single pilot, in a single engine aircraft, would be more inclined to tackle adverse conditions in a Twin, and often conditions and missions that would challenge many commercial Airline pilots beyond their comfort zone or abilities. My opinion is that the safety of any aircraft is more dependent on the proficiency of the pilot and conditions and mission rather than the differences in aircraft.
There used to be an old adage that with a twin you have twice the chance of an engine failure and twins crash more often after loss of an engine, but when an engine fails in a twin, in the vast majority of cases the flight is competed safely and no report is made. In a single engine aircraft an engine failure almost always results in an incident and report. From 40 years of flying both, other than with greater performance requiring greater respect and ability I see no significant difference is safety between Twins and single engine aircraft, and I would say that a more experienced pilot in a 310, King Air or Turbo Commander is safer than a 300 hour pilot in a 172.
No offense intended, but I'd feel more comfortable as a back seat passenger in an old Lear 24, 310 or Baron with an experienced pilot than I would with you in a basic single, and I would not ride with you as a passenger in the back seat of a twin or high performance single even if you (or anyone) with only a couple of hundred hours.
As for cost, it depends on what you are doing. If you are flying around the pattern or making short hops, you will spend more per hour in a comparable twin over a singe. But if you are routinely traveling 250+miles, a twin can be comparable in mission cost to a single. I used to operate a T210 and a B55 Baron on the same routes. If the weather was bad I'd take the 210 to top the weather and dealt with ice. if it were VFR or light IFR I'd take the Baron on night or mountain flights as it was faster and had an extra engine. Fuel burn per mission was basically the same T210 burned 17Gph and did about 155kts., the B55 burned 24gph or 30% more and did the same trip typical at least 30% faster, The hourly engine reserve on the T210 cost about about 30% less then the B55 but took 30% more time to get there, engine costs were about the same. Annuals and maintenance were about the same cost on both the T210 and B55.
I once flew a customer from Oregon to to L.A. to pick up a Piper 235 Dakota in A Cessna P337. We both filed-up in LA., I went to about 15,000 to 18,000 ft and picked up a 30kt to 50kt tailwind, and made it home in about 3.5 hours burning 85 gallons, non-stop and in pressurized comfort. My Customer in the Dakota could not top the weather, had to divert, deal with headwinds and took nearly 8 hours and tow fuel stops to return to the same destination and burned 125gal. Give me the P337 any day over a fixed-gear single on a long haul for time and expense.
Maintenance costs are directly related to the honesty and competency of who's doing your maintenance and how well maintained or neglected, or mis-maintaind aircraft. I once Bought a P-Baron and, two 152's and a Hawk SP from a FBO. The Baron had not been annualed or flown in over 5 years. After getting it back to Seattle From LA. I spent about $3500 on an annual in my shop, I flew it over 300 hours in two years and spent about $1800 on one annual and $2200 on the third. By contrast, one 152 cost nearly $20,000 on the first annual to repair a botched airframe repair, and the other 152 with only 400 hours on the engine needed a new engine due to a bad OH. The Hawk SP took about $8,000 to annual due to a bunch of issues. After two years of flying I sold the P-Baron for $75,000 more than I paid for it. It cost me less to overall fly and per hour than any aircraft I owned because of the re-cap on the sale and was a low-time, well-maintained aircraft. I also operated the engines at the same power settings I used in a 340 or 414, reliably, I burned about 10% more fuel than the book recommendations that called for high MP, ow RPM and back of Peak TIT/EGT leaning that the POH and Flight Safety recommended. after two years the engines were running perfect, but the person who bought the 58P went to Flight Safety that insisted he use the Factory recommended power settings. He toasted both engines in 120 hours, I suspect due to the higher temps, cly loading and detonation.
A friend bought a B-60 Duke for a steal out of a divorce case flew it 3 years and sold it for over $100,000 more than he paid for it. Being an AI he did his own annuals with the help of an A&P, about what he used to pay on his old Bonanza. He Bought the old Duke far enough back of market that even if he lost an engine or he could sell it for what he paid for it.
I also had a friend to was just starting out flying and wanted a Citation, and was going to buy a 172 and spend two years moving up. I suggested he buy a 421 that was low time and well maintained, and priced well below market instead. I set him up with an ATP/CFI to fly with him him and his family on trips they wanted to take while he flew left seat. He flew the 421 for 250 hours the first year as a student and got his MEI and commercial, and in that year and actually soloed and took his Private pilot check ride in the 421. After getting his Multi-engine commercial he flew right seat with his CFI in things like Falcons, Citations and turbo props. Being very wealthy and having time to dedicate to learning In two years he bought a Citation and MD500 Helicopter, two years later, and became one of the best pilots I know because he was dedicated and could afford to learn as a professional. He said buying the 421 was the best advice and decision he made in aviation, because it matched his missions and ownership cost profile (that being a lot) in money and time.
I saw many pilots who could not afford to spend enough time and money to be proficient and safe, and safely operate an aircraft, add to that inadequate teaching, repair shops and ego, those people had a bad and high risk experience. Mike is a good example of doing it mostly right an being dedicated to learn, discover and share.
Appreciate this comprehensive response. You need your own TH-cam channel if you don’t have one already.
@@c.chavis6314 Thanks, At one point I thought about doing interview segments with owners, pilots about their experiences, tips and tricks and aviation businesses but it's a better fit for someone like Mike who's established, starting out with a love and passion to promote Aviation. I've been involved in TV, Radio and the movie business a bit and would not mind facilitating someone like Mike with suggestions and possible featured guests.
@@jackoneil3933 we need more guys with your experience contributing to the youtube-verse. Thank you for your input. I am a 45 yr old just starting my aviation journey, and your views really hit home, and I'm pleased to say (selfishly :)) align with the conclusions I had come to so far in my research
@@jackoneil3933 We definitely need Mike's voice. It's important for young or novice pilots to gain a better understanding of aviation and for those looking to buy their first airplane. The world can definitely benefit from your years of experience. You could of posted two videos based on your answer. I could see your channel taking off. Count me in as a future subscriber.
@@c.chavis6314 Thanks, I'll consider that. Anyone's welcome to contact me on through my About page And I'd be happy to share opinions and insights. There seems to be a little shortage of old school insights about piratical flying and ownership online.
I have a couple of old channels I never did anything with. I could re-vamp and talk with prospective, new and veteran owners about buying and ownership.
Here's an old sales clip of a 182 I had. Nice airplane and everybody went nuts over it with all the mods, but at the time I also had a 1966 T210F that was a better airplane nobody would even look at.
Cessna 182 285hp Conversion For Sale - Performance clips
th-cam.com/video/VjeEkzfGzj4/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/90KBh1BNeN4/w-d-xo.html
Perhaps you might enjoy this clip of friend I knew when I lived in Australia. He eventual sold the 182 to a friend and got a 201 Mooney for his outback flying to cut fuel costs. Most people think A Mooney is not a back woods airplane but Pete found it to be fine.
The Flying Vet Part-1 Northern Territory Australia
th-cam.com/video/LbD76Q6D2mA/w-d-xo.html
In this video, there are few mistakes. I found and downloaded PDF files of NTSB reports on a twin-engine piston aircrafts.
It turns out that in twin-engine aircraft, when one engine fails, many pilots successfully land, and it is not considered an incident, whereas in single-engine aircraft, it always leads to an emergency landing. Therefore, in the statistics, it seems like there are a lot of fatal emergency landings for twins, but only very serious incidents are included. Depending on the year, the incident rate for twins can be 7.5 per 100,000 flight hours, while for single-engine aircraft, it's 15. The number of fatal incidents remains the same for both, in my document it was 2.04 for twin and 2.31 for single. In other words, we simply don't know about cases of engine failure in twins where the pilot continued to fly or landed safely.
So of course in the case of redundancy in the aircraft systems the probability of not encountering an incident is lower. But on a more complex aircraft the pilot's qualifications should be higher of course.
But considering the number of single engine is higher than twins?
@@nilosantos4862 He's talking about the rate per 100,000 hours.
If your mission is flying over water, a second engine could improve safety.
For sure
It's the whole point. Lindbergh had just one but 4 were safer and necessary for carrying more. Then 3 (one on the Tail). Regulations now permit just 2 for Passengers (and Freight). due to increased power AND reliability.
@BravoCharlie ETOPS - Engines Turn or Passengers Swim 😅👍
@@bravocharlie639 You're talking turbojets.
@@EJWash57 Well, I know of no other kind but if you mean that they replaced the old propeller powered aircraft then yes but 4 (747) then 3 (DC-10) Turbojets were still mandatory for years.
I lost engine in the Cessna 414 over the Bahamas last year. Made it home safe that day. Than God for the second engine.
I lost my left engine on a Queenaire, at night, coming home from Vegas to SMO...thank God for that second engine when I was over mountains at night. I only buy twins for that extra added insurance.
I trained for my multi-engine sign-off on an old Army Queenaire back in the early-'80s, so I have to ask: Why would you fly over the mountains in a Queenaire - at night? (just messin' with ya!)
@@EJWash57 LOL...but I can testify, that a queen aire will hold 8,000 ft msl, single engine, with 4 souls on board.
Exactly!
I agreed to that.
The twin engine is still the best.
This has been a career-long debate in my field. I'm not a pilot but a flight paramedic, have been in the business since 1997 and have flown in turbine twins and singles, helicopters and airplanes. A lot of our flying is over the mountains and if you lose 1 engine in a single your chances of survival are poor. I've also been in a twin that had a governor failure on takeoff that resulted in a "hard landing" where we crushed the skids and sustained minor injuries. If we hadn't had that 2nd engine 4 of us would have been killed that day. I prefer twins but I'm not paying the bills either.
Mountain terrain. Single engine. Total failure. Hardball IFR at night... Your chances of surviving are zero.
@@quoderatdemonstrandum5442 Near Zero I'd say. Does seem to make the case for a Parachute system, but I''ve met pilots who then launched into high risk situations because they deemed the BRS system made it safe.
It seems to me that too many make the argument for single over twin for night IFR when the greatest danger is not from an engine failure but poor judgment, low or improper experience and/or improper pre-fight and inflight planning and decision making. Most accidents seem to be related more to inherent pilot deficiencies rather than the equipment.
@@jackoneil3933 YES !!!
I disagree with you, until you have went through the training and spent time flying a multi I don't think you should be posting a video that will regardless of it being your opinion influence people. I say this because you really are giving opinion and you do have influence over people because of your popularity. Twin engines are 100% more safe than a single the with proper training, mulit kill people because of something that will kill you in any plane, "Pilot Error!" Lack of training and keeping up proficiency in twin is what people fail to do, this is just as dangerous as you in your single engine airplane trying to fly IFR and not being proficient enough. Let's keep this straight, "Less safe" and "more expensive" are completely different. Just because something cost more has nothing to do with something being less safe. If I could afford a twin I would take two engines over one any day, with proper training the twin is always safer than a single. After your first engine failure I ask you to come back and make another video on this same topic. Cheers and yes I'm a fan of your channel just don't agree with your opinion here.
thank you, so much misinformation here
Depends on your mission profile and the experience of the pilots. That being said, I spent 13 years working for a 135 operation in Alaska, I personally saw 7 Piper Navajo chieftains lose engines, they were all shortly after takeoff and all were in a loaded configuration with passengers and or freight and all but one aircraft made it back safe on one engine. Those statistics don't reflect the number of people who were actually saved because an aircraft had power plant redundancy and that's the other number that you need for determining the ultimate safety of any multiengine aircraft type.
I am reminded of my Navy experience of half a century ago. The DD was a twin screw four boiler Destroyer. The DE ships was a single screw 2 boiler Destroyer Escort. The single screw Destroyer Escorts were more reliable in the sense of unscheduled return for repairs. The navy didn't care whether you limped into port or had to be towed, the criterion was mission capability. If you were unavailable for duty, you were a broken link in the chain and that rippled throughout the fleet. With twice the equipment, the DD had twice the maintenance needs, but didn't have twice the failure rate. A DD could cruise on 3 boilers with 17 degrees of rudder to offset the asymmetrical thrust. So some boiler maintenance could be performed while underway, but flank speed was unavailable. Although the DD had twice the parts, the DEs parts were bigger. That also meant that the engineering gang had half the gauges to watch and they didn't have to synchronize the props. You can live with props that are way out of sync, but if they are almost in sync, you will go nuts. There is a reason it is called a beat frequency. Elon Musk may be right when he said, "The best part is no part." Twins are attractive from an aerodynamic perspective because they have lower parasitic drag since the prop wash bathes the wing and not the fuselage with more drag. There are also more choices available for landing gear retraction. For the designer, twins make sense. For maintenance, they make things complicated. Even simple things like a mixture cable can be a headache because it has to shake through the wing instead of just going through the firewall in a single. Control cables should change direction as little as possible.
As a former SWO and EOOW, I agree, Go Navy!!
OldSlo: what an interesting write up about the twin screws ship v. single. My favorite comment I've seen in a long time. Very much on point here. Want to hear some more commentary from you. Real knowledge as opposed to some who, bless their hearts, just don't know a whole lot. About anything.
What part of the world are you? What are you flying now?
When your mission is 64% flying over rough terrain, mountains, large bodies of water a twin is way to go safety. Loosing an engine while at a stable cruise isn’t scary. Majority of fatalities I believe happen by loosing an engine on takeoff or landings when your configured with flaps extended & gear down at low thrust settings.
Once gear is retracted & flaps up with proper airspeeds a twin is safe. A twin with one engine -you can land on the runway. Loose an engine with a single & you might not even be able to make the runway etc.
That is true. Twin pilots need to practice engine out recovery procedures regularly and diligently, preferably in a real simulator if available, or if not on MS Flight Simulator/X-Plane/P3D. These are better than non at all. At least you'll get the correct procedures down pat.
Last year one of my engines ate shit over lake michigan at night. If I'd been in a single, I wouldn't be alive. Multi engine aircraft are more expensive to operate and maintain and are more demanding to fly, but if flown correctly with good aeronautical judgement, being in a twin is much safer when flying over water, at night, or over unforgiving terrain. The only advantage single engine aircraft have is when operating on short runways, since an engine failure below VMC mandates chopping the power and stopping and is twice as likely to happen since you have two engines. A nice day in Kansas is a different ball game than flying down to minimums at southern vermont regional. It just depends what your mission is.
Well known expression in the general aviation communities is that “with twins when one engine fails, the second engine is there to take you to the scene of the accident” There is no end to this debate, it depends on the pilot the plane and the situation. Sloppy pilot in a twin is usually worst. Great pilot in a twin has better odds.
And why is that? Notwithstanding loss of control accidents stemming from airspeed decaying below Vmca, but because the airplane would have typically been overloaded beyond its single engine performance limited weight. Just because you're below MTOW doesn't mean you're below other weight limits. Some piston twins do perform better than others. Thankfully, I never had an actual engine failure, but when conducting simulated failures for training purposes, I always found the Beech B58 Baron to perform ok (note that the best I could muster was an "ok" 😆) on one engine. On the other hand, a fully loaded Piper PA31 Navajo/Chieftain was the exact epitome of what you described.
One engine dies so the other one will take to the scene of the accident well that’s only correct if you don’t know how to fly the twin. And many people don’t you have to spend hours and times in the cockpit knowing how to handle the airplane if you lose an engine. But like when a guy said if you’re over water or you’re over mountains that other engine can be your best friend
stupid to have two props so far from each other
I hope you're not actually a pilot.
@@coronalight77 that’s an old aviation joke, it’s not really true yes I am a real pilot :)
Retired freight dawg here... Love ya Mojo, and this sounds rough. But no. Multi-engine airplanes are NOT more dangerous. Or more safe either.
Because its all about TRAINING, PROFICIENCY, and EXPERIENCE. So to all the pretenders out there who can't really haul the mail, don't start the engines. Just saying.
Keep up the good work. And God bless,
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Everything you said very realistic save and except traits of the DA62 where computer management reduces danger during engine out, allowing climbs to continue and safe return to land again. All while using less fuel compared to most single engine aircraft, despite being a twin. Safety in DA62 is easily assured compared to historical twins failure to deliver safety as you mentioned.
The DA62 rocks and I think it's safe to say that it's the safest twin-engine piston (diesel) in the industry. I like that aircraft a lot :)))
How bout the DA42? I like them both but a DA42 seems more attainable price wise.
The DA62 is a nice plane, but like any piston twin there are situations where it does not have enough power to continue takeoff on one engine.
@igclapp I watched full gross DA62 similated loss engine on takeoff, and it was able to maintain 900ft a minute climb. Maybe high altitude affects that big time. In the video at full gross, they were at sea level. Video conducted in a very transparent way.
what about full blackout event? Both engines gonna offline immideatly because common rail
I can completely agree that a weekend warrior probably is fine with single engine.
I was under the impression climb out engine trouble on a twin is extremely dangerous and few have the training and expertise to handle it. But then I saw a video that said engine failure at altitude is "more common" in which case a second engine could be awesome.
But what do I know, I just watch TH-cam videos and dream of flying.
Every twin pilot learned how to handle an engine out during training and had to prove it during the flight test.
Twins are safer if you lose an engine at altitude but can be a handful if you lose one on takeoff.
I have never piloted a plane, flown in many, want a license to fly. Thought I'd start in a twin, maybe not.
Every experienced pilot I have seen interviewed says that if money if no object: 1. dual turbo prop, 2. single turbo prop, 3. twin piston and 4. single piston. I will get a twin over a single if flying over water is part of your mission. If flying a single piston I will definitively have a parachute. I wonder if there are statistics of how many twin engine plane had one of their engines quit, but still made it to an airport because they had the 2nd engine.
I think the safety in any aircraft is based on pilot proficiency. If you purchase a twin be ready to also invest in consistent training ~and know the aircraft.
Twins can be safer depending on the problem, but twin engine planes are for completely different people with completely different bank accounts
I think nowadays most pilots aspire to own a Cirrus. A twin might get you an extra 10 knots for more than 2x the operating costs. Still worth considering a twin if your mission involves a lot of flying over water.
I can buy a lot of gas for my 310 for the extra $300,000 I saved not buying a cirrus
@@clt72pilot How much shy of 300k is two overhauls?
Agreed. Cirrus is the way to go.
As others have stated the safety of a twin is really tied to the proficiency of the pilot. If you can perform the "Twin Engine Drill" fast enough in the event of an engine failure you will already have prevented an accident that otherwise would have resulted in an emergency landing or crash in a single.
We previously owned a Piper 235. It was a great airplane with a ton of useful load. However, where my family and I fly (Bay Area California) there is almost no where to put an airplane down in the event of an engine failure. Each time we'd take off in the 235 it would make me really nervous about the fact that I was putting my entire family's survival on that 235's single engine.
As for the non-safety reasons of flying a twin there are many and they all have to do with the "missions" you intend to fly. Our mission is generally carrying 4 people, sometimes a dog with a ton of stuff. While our 235 was mostly capable of doing this it was only with everything crammed in. While that lack of room was annoying, what was worse was the intense game of "Tetris" that needed to be played to get everything in. It was to the point that all of the fun was taken out of flying because it too so long /was so hard to get stuff in. With our 310 we can load all the stuff we need with space to spare. What also doesn't hurt is the fact that we can fly a lot faster and thus a lot farther.
My CFI told me that if one engine fails, the second will be sufficient to carry you to the site of the crash.
..one of the most beautiful twins in the market: Beech craft Duke. 2 powerful engines right? If 1 engine quit at takeoff under 150ft forget it! You are 99% dead. That thing has so much torque power, literally will spin you upside down in 2.5 seconds.
Piston Twins suffer from more non-recoverable stall/spins than single engines, that’s for sure. Once you get all that inertia spinning, it’s hard to undue… you’ll notice most piston twin crashes are laying flat on the ground like a pancake… flat spins kill a lot of twin engine pilots…
I believe you have a strong case here for private ownership, in my case, as a trainee pilot looking for a future airline job, I do some of my training on a twin to become more employable in the near future. And when it comes to range and performance, you can get a single turbo for the price of a twin piston, it's a no brainer.
Which is preferable?
@@8500Rask I'd rather burn jet A than 100LL
Agree that’s the way to train and become proficient
I think you meant single engine turboprop when you said "turbo". In any event, there is no way a single engine turboprop is going to be as affordable as a twin piston.
Fair points. But in these single vs multi debates, I always ask one simple question. You are in IMC conditions with ceiling at 500ft or you are flying over water or mountains. Your engine fails. Would you wish to have a second engine to limp to an airport and shoot an IFR approach? Or having no second engine and blindly gliding to a crash landing in IMC?
I've made nearly that same point many times. I've had four, no five cases of major to total power loss in a single in VFR conditions near an airport and came out alive, but just barely. One I nearly drowned in a resulting ditching.
First was on Cessna 320 that sucked a valve on the left engine resulting in precautionary shut-down.
Next, the left engine of a E55 Baron got hit by a massive lightning strike between buildups the middle of nowhere south of Reno, and experienced at least an 80% power loss for about 10mins We continued about 200 miles no radios and #2 running pretty rough.
After that, I was right seat in D model 310 that had a catastrophic engine failure where we watched the prop and front of the crankcase ditch in the Colombia river as we returned securely returned to the airport (no feather required)
Next, we had a TSIO 520 on a P-Baron blow its only magneto on the right engine (complete power loss),, at night, IFR on top, over icing conditions, We flew about 150 miles and did an IFR approach into Boeing Field . I say single mags should be prohibited.
And lastly I had a P337 blow an intake runner on a night takeoff from a very short, dark grass, one-way strip and continued into IMC. Having that intake runner literally explode essentially killed the rear engine, but I was able to climb at about 400 fpm to 3000 ft., intercept an approach at an airport about 60miles away, then fly and miss the back-course and come back for the ILS, with only minor pucker factor.
At lest a couple of those twin engine failures, if happened in a single could have been fatal.
@@jackoneil3933 Thanks for sharing your experiences!
@@Adalla My pleasure, thank for reading responding
@@jackoneil3933 "no feather required", lol.
@@FamilyManMoving Just a new engine, some sheet metal repair some engine oil clean-up.
My first thought is always safety. It just seems that two engines is better than one in the event of engine failure. Maybe the best option is a single engine with a ballistics chute attached.
Yes what you said is correct. The reason why the crash rate is worse is because in take off a twin can be deadly, but when your cruising a twin is so much better than a single without a chute b
The best safe condition for a twin in case of engine fail in cruising is turn off both engines when you approach and be in flight pattern over the airport, I had saw a lot of fatal crashes when the aircraft are in curve to the final approach and reach the minimal control speed and spin into the ground killing all the occupants. Horrible scenes to watch.
Hi Mike great presentation. I'm currently a Commercially rated single multi engine instrument rated fixed wing pilot and helicopter flight instructor to include twin engine helicopter. Everything that you mentioned is correct but I would also add the reason the reason why a lot of twin engine pilots become twin engine is the single engine flyway capability especially over mountain ranges. I also agree that Maintenance is a bear as you said double the trouble.
I fly a family pretty often on a 680 mile journey, mostly over terrain you really don't want to have a forced landing. We were using a piston single Bonanza. We replaced it with a 340. two engines, pressurized, de-ice equipment, and more power makes significantly safer for that mission. An engine out will take us to an airport. and we can climb higher giving more time and options. They cost 150% of a single and only go about 15% faster but the added safety of that second motor. Now to be fair, flying is my profession and I take yearly model training so I may not be the target scenario, but to flat call twin engine aircraft less safe is just wrong
This is a great topic. I enjoy both single and twins and yes you’re right mostly. This all comes back to pilot training and proficiency. Most of these accidents single or twin mostly due to pilot error. Learning and becoming one with the aircraft type and category is very important.
Have to agree with you Mike. I flew both. Piper Lance 300hp. Seneca 1 - 2x 200hp. Basically same plane. If you lost an engine in either you were going down.
I had several Seneca IIs and a III, and a couple of Lances, the turbo Lance burned more fuel per mile as the Senecas ,and toasted the accessory case at 800 hours. I lost one mag at night and nearly didn't make it back. Seneca I was not much of an airplane. But the Seneca II and III were better than the Lance in most regards and the Seneca was even better short field.
@@jackoneil3933 Seneca one is a joke, not really a fair comparision
@@jeffking3693 Not a fair comparison to to a Lance or something else?
I'm not at all a Piper fanboy but I flew an early 78' Turbo T-Tail Lance and it was not as bad as I expected, and I sort of liked it except for the 20gph+ fuel burn. I had a Seneca PA-34-200 (Seneca I), It was slow and noisy but better than a Cherokee 6, Dakota, Seminole or Beech Duchess. And if it had turbos I'd take it over a Lance, but I'd rather have a Cessna 337 (I've owned 15 337's), or better yet a B-95 Travelair. For low- powered time builder. I had a 200hp D95 Travelair with a turbo kit for a few months and preferred it to a B55 Baron.
The Seneca II and III are one of my favorite cheap twins. Not fast for the fuel burn but super easy and forgiving to fly. Great short field, much better than a Lance, 210 or even 206 for getting in and out short with a load, and manual flaps are a plus.
@@jackoneil3933 As stated, Seneca One. I almost bought a Seneca 2
Mike, you forgot to mention that single engine planes are required to stall at 61 knots or less. Flying Cessna's and Piper singles, solo, often brings your landing speeds down to the low 50's while any headwind lowers that even further. Landing distance is shorter as well, by being lighter. Twins, land faster, and require more distance to stop the heavier mass as well. We had a Seneca II in my flying club, as well as several Saratoga's. It was generally agreed that when carrying 4 or more on a trip, the club preferred the Saratoga's before the Seneca. The reason was that in the event of engine failure, 200 hp was not enough to carry 4, plus the asymmetrical drag induced. I myself, find the Saratoga to have the perfect balance of speed, comfort, and endurance. Also in my based opinion, twin pilots are more likely to try to push on to an airport when they should be looking for a suitable place to put down. The old saying about the second engine carrying you to the scene of the accident comes to mind here. In a single, the choice has already been made for us!
My twin engine Aztec with VG's could take off quicker and land shorter then my Cherokee 6.
You make so much sense. I agree 100%. Always informative stuff from you.
Point of correction: the plural of Aircraft is Aircraft😉
Yup. Although, even You Tube has a "aircrafts" category. We need more nuns wielding their yardsticks in the classroom. Maybe move up to a hockey stick.
The issue is when 1 of the engines fail you have only few sencods for react and keep the airplane flying safe, but nobody is waiting for a engine fail, in a single piston you never gonna loose the control in a engine fail if you have speed and altitude.
The only time that is an issue is at take off, near VMC. And yes, you'd better be ready at that point, that is what we train for
@@jeffking3693 it's not only an issue during take off, this case is an example what the desperate can do if you don't pay attention during the approach for landing:
th-cam.com/video/YZIzEtHzbNU/w-d-xo.html
An excellent presantation on the pros and cons of liight twin aircraft. As an old flight instructor, it is important, and expensive, to get reacurreent training in a light twin. the reason that the fatealities are higher in a light twin is the lack of proper proceedures in an engine failure on takeoff. The engines are being placed under the most strain at this time. A loss of one engine while slow and low is very dangerous in a light twin because the plane may not have sufficient performance on one engine to climb away. If it is possible then the performance margin will be close to zero, forcing, at best, a controlled crash. Another problem is that most light twins stall speed is higher than a single engine plane. A small increase in impact speed makes a BIG increase in impact forces.
I agree with your accessment of most light twins, A turbo charged single will get up there above the weather and offer a pressurized cabin. Good jolb !
DA 42 or 62. Tough to go wrong if you have the cash. I’d take the extra engine over a parachute especially if flying over water or mountains frequently. Enjoyed the video. Great info.
what's will happend with both engines if da42/62 will lose electric system?
@@struvrim7637Each engine has its own independent backup battery that will keep the engine control unit running for half an hour.
In the 1970s I ferried 12 single-engine Beavers (without floats) from Ottawa, Canada across the North Atlantic to Oslo, Norway; one every 5 days. Two of these were turbo Beavers with the PT6 turbine engine but the other 10 were piston engines. In my entire flying career I have only had 3 engine failures; all of these were on multi-engine aircraft, two while flying with a major airline. At this point in my life I do not want to fly in a single-engine aircraft. I feel that I have enjoyed a long history of good luck in single-engine aircraft; luck that I do not wish to push any further. I know what the statistics say, but with proper training and with a diligent, prepared pilot, flying a twin is always going to be safer. If you are not properly trained or you are not diligent, then drive a car.
This is a totally off topic question. I’m not a pilot and rarely have been flying, so other than TH-cam videos, I claim ignorance of airplanes. So when I start my car, in a couple of seconds I am ready to drive and the engine runs smooth. When I see small aircraft engines start, they seem to sputter and put out a puff of smoke before they finally get running. If that was a car engine it would be going to the repair shop for at least a tuneup. So my question, is what is the difference in the engines because I know the airplane engine in very reliable but they sound like they have a hard time starting?
A really good video discussing this is from Mike Busch of Savvy Aviation: th-cam.com/video/WeQhkOBDsN8/w-d-xo.html
TL;DR: airplane engines haven't changed much in the last 70-ish years.
I own a 1964 Cherokee 140 airplane with a Lycoming O-320 engine, which was first produced in 1953.
The Rotax engine in Mike's airplane is a *HUGE* reason why I am debating whether or not to build a Sling TSI. It was first produced in 2016. That's a 63 years more modern.
All those aircraft engines smoke at start up, in my experience. Aviation fuel is also different and therefore contributes to the burn-off seen.
Automotive applications have things like catalytic converters and sensors that control combustion and exhaust. Piston engine planes basically have headers so you're definitely going to see excess smoke at startup as fuel/air mixture happens.
Regarding "sputter," or "loppyness," a lot of that is caused by "ignition timing," and other mechanical parts that control when valves open and closes in relation to the crank moving the pistons to complete cylindrical compression "stroke."
This is my best layman explanation.
Great observation. Simplicity and reliability are the main reasons this happens. The Lycoming O-360 piston engine in my Cessna Cardinal is based on tractor technology from the 1920s. The O-360 was certified by the FAA in the mid 1950s, and even though my engine was “new” in 2018, it conforms to the standard 1954 engine. The engine is air cooled, has relatively few moving parts, no onboard computer, etc. Therefore, the O-360 does not need electricity to run like your car engine does, which is a great asset in the event of an electrical failure. It’s also doesn’t need coolant, hoses, thermostats, and the weight of a coolant system. Engine timing is fixed on most piston singles, because it is simple and reliable. Because the timing is optimized for cruise flight, piston singles have a tougher time starting (as you observed). Several companies have tried to bring new engines to market over the years, but designing, testing, and proving “new” airplane engines are at least as reliable as the old tractor engines they are meant to replace has proven elusive.
aircraft engines are designed to run optimally at high power not idle. Many piston engine aircraft use up-draft carburetors that have to suck air and fuel up into the engine and it takes a bit to get the fuel up and into into the engine. Aircraft fuel injection systems are completely manual and not computer controlled as in modern automobiles (Imagine trying to start your car if you had to control the fuel injection manually), so until they fire up and warm up even fuel injected aircraft engines can be a little rough
@@cessna177flyer3 Thanks for that explanation. The tractor engine makes perfect sense. We had an old 2-cylinder John Deere that we started by turning the fly wheel. It would spit and sputter when it started. But it pulled a set of disks that were literally under the ground without stalling. Thanks
Twin engines are unsafe financially. I’d be more afraid of going bankrupt than anything inflight. :p
"How do airplanes fly?" THE BANK!
Like someone has probably already said, the statistics are flawed. Personally over 35 years ive been in twin flights where I had to shut down and engine or it just quit. VFR flights at night over the Midwest. Never declared an Emergency and landed just fine at a field with a shop for repairs. All in light twins and the FAA, NTSB or Insurance company wouldn't have that sort of data. Because the airplane flew as it should under POH Single Engine Ops conditions. Your risk is first 2 min of takeoff and initiating go arounds... that's the worst time to lose an engine IMO. I'll take a twin any day, I fly at night and during the winter that's night most of the time anyway. Stay proficient and train often.
Interesting content. I give you credit for challenging the subject. Also very interesting responses and valuable information form the pilots.
I might be wrong, but altitude limitations of piston driven engines don't go away if you have more of them. If you have two normally aspirated engines, you aren't going to get more altitude than if you just have one of them. But if you turbo charge them , then you can go higher. etc.
As a former owner of a Beech Bonanza for 12 years (I do miss it). I went with the single over the twin when I brought it.
I believe that is has more to do with what the purpose of the airplane. For example, if you are flying over large bodies of water, mountains or remote areas. Give me the twin. If you are flying over mostly land in mostly non remote areas, give me the single. Todays singles, have many of the redundancy and weather capabilities of a twin engine airplane . Such as dual alternators, known icing (TKS), radar (stormscope), just to number a few of them.
What happens with a total engine failure. Flying a light twin at night in the mountains (High Altitude) with a caged engine GOOD LUCK it may not matter if you where in a single or a twin, you are most likely have to land ASAP off field or airport if you are lucky. With a single you will hit the ground (assume proper pilot technique) at around 60 kts. The light twin light like a Beech Baron, a best single engine speed is around 91kts . Hitting the ground assuming a controlled crash at 60 kts vs 91 kts. I would much prefer the slower crash speed of the single.
Significantly higher chance of an uncontrolled crash landing in a twin than a single.
Well, on a twin you can also turn off the engines, feather the propellers and land at a lower speed. The danger of twins is when the engine creates thrust. No thrust, no control asymmetry. Therefore, the pilot can control what he wants to do, the pilot can do exactly the same as on a single in the event of an engine failure, that is, land without an engine.
Huge risks arise when the pilot does not react to engine failure properly. To reduce these risks, twins should be equipped with safety systems.
For example, automation that reacts to engine failure by doing everything the pilot should do, as well as protection against excess of the turning moment of one engine over the ability of the aircraft to maintain direction, the stabilization system should correctly handle the loss of an engine and correctly limit piloting in such a way that it is difficult for the pilot to lose speed, and even if this happens, the engine power should be reduced and the pilot should be informed through the interface what is happening and what to do, then twins will become much safer than singles.
It remains to add a parachute system. Now all these options are still raw, but time will pass and they will become standard, and then twins will be more popular due to their productivity, since with the growth of the world economy time will be the most valuable resource
As a twin owner I have to say all you said was true. But as others have said, training makes the difference in safety. Cirrus found that out in the beginning of their product life. As far as mission goes, I got one because I wanted one. I am still trying to validate the other items. I have an idea you should look at the pro and cons home built airplanes, I am sure safety will be the a concern as well.
Landing a twin on one and walking away is a non incident. So it's really a unrealistic comparation on safety. You have no way of knowing the non accident rate.
That's the same argument as defensive use of firearms.
Very few are ever reported, so they are not logged into any statistics list. Almost only offensive firearms uses are cataloged into any list.
The 4x more likely comment in this video is from an NTSB report in the 70's, and what you say is true for that report. There have been newer reports taking what you say into account, and they still show twin fatalities much higher than with singles (up to 50%). So not as bad as 400%, but the point still stands.
For a low time, inexperienced private pilot, I'd agree with your 'clickbait' title. I've seen quite a few pilots scare themselves silly in light twins because they bit off more airplane than they could chew. In fact, I'd go one further: any piston engined airplane, irrespective of one, two or more engines, is less safe to fly. If you want the highest degree of safety and reliability, go turbine (either turboprop or jet) if budget and circumstances allow - which I fully appreciate is beyond reach for many. But whatever you fly, good training and a healthy respect for cockpit discipline and performance limitations in normal and non-normal situations is key. Disclaimer: I'm fortunate enough to fly a twin engined jet for a living, but I certainly spent my fair share of hours flying clapped-out piston singles and twins back in the day. If I found myself over the Rockies at night with adverse weather on the forecast, I'd take the twin, thanks. But then again, most private pilots would have the luxury of being able to choose when they fly, as opposed to those of us who do it for a living and have to because the job says we gotta fly.
Mike, nice and thorough video! I agree with a lot of the things you said though but respectfully I will state confidently that a twin engine is safer than a single engine aircraft only to the extent that it correlates with pilot proficiency, knowledge and preparation. A good pilot (I am an ATP rated AGI that dives very deeply into fatal incident scenarios and the nitty gritty of aerodynamics with my students) will prepare for a departure with SE performance is limited, will have nearest suitable airports available on the EFB or GPS in case of an engine failure and will have more than ample time to respond to an engine out incident at cruise / will be more attuned and ready to respond to an engine out scenario at slower air speeds. Lastly, barring pilot error such as unintentional fuel starvation or poor engine management, the probability of a single engine failure may be doubled but the probably of a dual engine failure is exponentially reduced. With many light twins enjoying a single engine service ceiling > 8,000 in standard atmospheric conditions, that should create a greater level of safety for competent trained pilots than a single would ever provide. Much love for producing great GA content and am enjoying going through your videos!
Yeah I'm really not a fan of twin pistons either. Of course most of them are old but watching baron pilots on youtube, I'm appalled at their fuel usage. 46 gallons per hours is bizarre. And yes I could see overriding the safety issue by having a ballistic chute and a couple of minimum immersion suits just in case. Because some piston singles are much faster and cheaper to operate. Lanciar IV-P is fast and 4 seat but if you only need 1 or 2 seats then VL-3 915 can match a baron speed and a Risen 915 can exceed the speed while using 1/7 the fuel. without lead. it's a staggering difference. That said, there is the untapped revolutionary sweet spot of a lean aero twin jet that doesn't have the piston triple hull drag and maintenance drag and weight. A light sport weight class pressurized twin jet could change everything. Double the speed of a baron and better than double the mileage. It would blow everything away. Cirrus or Diamond should do that. Cirrus even means high altitude clouds. Imagine if for LSA money we could have private jet speed and reach and smooth quiet freedom above the weather. That has been possible for 45 years yet no one ever did it.
And it should have fuel sensors so the wrong fuel couldn't bring it down.
I have a 1972 Baron 58. At cruise I use 24/gal hr or less
@@jeffking3693 at what speed?
@@DanFrederiksen about 170-175 kts. Also LOP. There is something wrong with his plane if he is cruising where you say he is, other then on takeoff full rich
What Baron burns 46 gal/hr besides the 56TC?
@@jeffking3693 sure 23 gallons per side is likely max and there seems to be several variants. One source for a 58P says 38GPH at 75% so 46 isn't far off at full power.
A Risen 915, granted only a 2 seater, will match or exceed your speed at only 6.7GPH of mogas. So if you want to move yourself or 2 people around, it's a pretty savage difference in running costs. And a Risen does it in style. With a 20 or 23 glide ratio so it has reach in an engine out situation and it has ballistic chute. And it can go close to 400km/h if you feel the need for speed. where it burns around 11GPH. At 124knots is burns a little over 2GPH. For me personally I would not be able to enjoy flying a WWII noisescape costing a fortune in fuel and maintenance when such a stark contrast is known to be possible. A sense of effortlessness is worth a lot.
Mike you made some really good points. Keep up the work! Fly high and grin along your way!!! 🤩
Thank you for posting this video, Mike. I am also a relatively new pilot. I enjoy flying single engine Cessnas in VFR conditions. My "feeling" that twins are less safe is just that. I have not done a statistical analysis. I have noticed that, more than once, when a GA accident is on the nightly news, it's a twin. I have even said to my wife: I bet it's a twin. Sure enough, a twin, on takeoff, loses an engine and ends up flipping over and crashing. How many times has that extra engine saved the pilots and passengers? We don't know. So my vantage point, and yours, might be that the additional complexity and expense are not worth it. Why? Because we can't say definitively that twins are safer. Just look at all of these comments. It definitely is not a settled question. It is not a clear answer. With a fully trained, experienced pilot, well-maintained airplane, and where money is no object? Maybe a twin is safer. But that isn't the real world. New, multi-qualified pilots fly twins all of the time. They're not always flying well-maintained airplanes. Those stats factor in. Singles lose an engine and land safely. I think we can say twins are not safer - because we don't know for sure. Perhaps your headline is slightly too strong in saying that twins are less safe. But I'm with you; I'm not going to the airlines, so I'm putting my time and money into singles. Plenty safe, simpler, and less expensive.
I not a pilot but thank for describing the different in your opinion on single and twin, like anything else in life it boils down to $$ and what you can afford. Good video like always
Unless there are obstacles at end of runway. I don't rotate until BLUE LINE, stay in ground effect way past blue line!
My idea for the ultimate light aircraft came from reading about how the Seneca came into existence. The "original" Seneca had 3 engines. So my idea is based on that with a twist. My idea is you have a standard aircraft piston engine up front that uses 100LL. But here's the twist : On the wings you have 2 lightweight electric powerplants rated at 1/2 the power each as the gasoline engine. On a standard takeoff you would go full power on the piston engine and maybe 50% of each electric. On the electric wing engines, the props are counter rotating. So the aircraft is going to get in the air very quickly. The standard procedure would be at 1000 feet AGL you momentarily level the aircraft and feather both wing electric motors. Then you continue your climb with your piston engine. If during takeoff, you have the piston engine "blow" you just increase the power with the electrics to do what you have to do to return to the airport. If your piston engine "blows" during cruise, you start your emergency glide like normal and you bring the electric motors back "online" - the props come out of feather and now you have options. I would like to see the battery packs be capable of 20 minutes of flying at the equivalent of the piston only economy cruise TAS. So you not only have power off glide distance, but you have 20 minutes to actually get to an airport. Now some will say, why only 20 minutes ?? well, the answer is because aviation is a compromise. We're only interested in making a single piston aircraft ultra safe. We want to be able to lose the piston engine on takeoff and return safely to the airport. And in cruise if we lose the piston engine, we just need to buy some time. Also by having the electrics we eliminate the need for turbo charging because remember, a standard takeoff is piston engine full power and the 2 electrics at partial power READY to go to full SYMETRICAL power IF needed. {hopefully the piston engine will NEVER fail} So it's a total compromise. 20 minutes of electric power can come from small battery packs. Battery packs are dead weight, so we want to limit this dead weight. What could possibly be engineered is these 20 minute battery packs could be installed in the outboard section of the wing which actually could have a benefit - that is lowering wind bending moment factors and possibly increasing useful loads - although the wild card is the effect on spin recovery - but that's above my pay grade LOL - that would be an engineer on that !!! But hopefully you get my point. The point is to solve all the problems !! And I think my idea does just that. It gives you multi engine redundancy but with single engine economy , it eliminates turbo charging, and it POSSIBLY increases useful load - the same concept as the tip tank STC on the Bonanzas. If anyone one wants to chat with me on this or anything aviation related, feel free to do so - I'm Brian - my Email is wcsmrtante21c@gmail.com - thanks.
I would say it depends. Depends on the pilot, his/her experience and the aircraft itself. Some single engine pilots will say a second engine just gets you to the crash quicker while almost all twin pilots will say a second engine adds insurance over water or inhospitable terrain. The DA62 is the most docile twin piston ever made. And it's safety record is excellant. I feel safe in a DA62 but in another twin, I'm cautious.
In the takeoff phase of flight is typically were a twin takes a quick and nimble pilot,in the event of engine failure. A single the decision is made.
yes
Points to remember about twins. A lot of people believe that just because you have an extra engine, it means you can return on it. which is not always the case.
most piston twins cannot climb on a single engine and some can only hold altitude with others not even being able to do that.
A more detailed brake down on incidents and accidents between piston, twin and jet twins compared to single would better reflect things as twin jets and props often have vastly better performance then their piston counterparts.
Further more aircraft age also plays a huge factor though is also a case for twins. I believe human factor is one of the biggest contributors though, perhaps a twin lures people into a false sense of security for those that haven't done their performance calcs or think they can fly into worse weather.
On the hands of a highly skilled pilot, it can be a safe option although it still poses difficult challenges during TO and or climb out. For weekend pilots, I’d say stick with single engine. This is my biased opinion as an expert R/C aerobatic fixed and rotary wing pilot. I used to fly full scale single engine many years ago.
Two engines means two overhauls, two props, two oil changes, etc. Definitely stay away if you’re a casual or recreational weekend pilot.
Regardless of what you buy or fly, if you have options, that's a plus. Twin engine aircraft doesn't necessarily burn a lot more fuel because once you get up to thinner air, it gets a little efficient. I like the idea of the single engine if I have to pay for maintenance because of affordability. But if money isn't an issue, I'm going twin.
Conventional twins are a complex and demanding. They do require a lot of training and practice to stay ahead of, however there are twins like the 337 that are not as demanding to fly. They still require continuous training and practice to stay proficient but are easy to fly. Any aircraft you fly you should be proficient at and do those things that make you safe. Using good judgment on when to fly, what kind of weather you are willing to fly in, planning and all the steps necessary for a safe flight is important no matter what kind of aircraft you fly. If you are a safe and competent pilot in a single, you will be the same in a twin. If you have aspirations of becoming a airline pilot or charter pilot then you have to get some multi time. If you use the same determination and dedication to get a pilots license, you will be as safe in a twin as a single.
Excellent job on explaining why twins may or may not be the best option for any pilot mission.
Yes twins are more expensive, but less safe it is not. I had a flameout in a Piper Seminole. If not for the second engine, we would have not been able to return to the airport. It happened during a non precision instrument approach prior to the procedure turn.
I have been flying my Cessna 340 A for about a year now. I would say a twin can be every bit as safe as any airplane. However it requires recurrent training. AST is a great place to practice emergency situations in a simulator. I go there once a year and am always learning something. Besides being on top of what I will do. Also a serious before flight briefing makes a difference in any plane single or twin. Since I make long trips a few times a month I get a lot of use out of my twin. Planes are only as unsafe as the pilot operating them. As you state in your video twins account for only 9% of GA accidents.
This is a pilot training and practice issue. The second engine will lead directly to your crash site. Single engine operation depending on horsepower and weight may not give you positive rate of climb or even maintain level flight. Counter Rotating engine to put the line of thrust back toward to center of the aircraft. More money better spent on proper equipment. Doctors and Engineers are more likely to ride in your twin. Go single Turboprop. Less moving parts.
If you're flying a twin, and you do your calculations, and you determine that you can't maintain altitude with an engine out, then you should not take off. To do so is reckless flying in my opinion. If you got baggage, then here's what you need to do: put your baggage in a cardboard box and Fed Ex it to your final destination. Now you're lighter. Then recalculate. What you're looking for is at the absolute minimum, the ability to at least maintain altitude on one engine. Or just treat your twin as a single engine - if you lose an engine know what your decent rate will be and be ready to feather the other engine and pick an emergency spot just like if you're flying a single.
Didn't you recently ride in the Technam P2006? It has mild characteristics and low fuel burn. The Diamond DA42 and Velocity Twin are also modern and have economical fuel burn. I don't think it holds water in modern planes.
and barely holds water in the older ones. So much misinformation in the video and the comments
"Twin Engine Airplanes Are Less Safe To fly" is a hasty generalization fallacy. That's like saying "Red airplanes are less safe to fly" or "High wing airplanes are less safe to fly"
Now one could say "Twin engine airplanes are less safe to fly after one engine fails" and make a convincing argument because a light twin typically loses 80% of it's performance with one engine inoperative.
Also, the aerodynamics in single-engine flight get very hinky. In particular, the Beech Baron and Travelair have a propensity to enter flat spins when a single-engine stall is entered. My source is NTSB docket CEN17FA005. I am not a disinterested observer. I knew the CFI killed.
Mike, I love your videos, and you do make some good points. But money is not the only consideration sometimes. It all boils down to good training and staying current, knowing the limitations and quirks of your particular aircraft and training with that in mind. The Diamond DA-42 and 62 are very safe twin pistons, even when flying single engine, and if you have to go more than 50nm from land, having a twin is always better.
Have you been in a real emergency? Money IS a very serious matter. Once you are in one you'll realise the importance of the money you didn't spend in better equipment, better airplane or better maintenance.
You can't take your money with you. These words get to make all the sense any words ever can make once you are in a real emergency. Believe me!
Would you rather fly true IFR in a single engine or a twin? What happens when you loose an engine?
Second, my wife will not get in a twin.
Third, most singles cannot carry your family.
Most twins for the performance, are cheaper than a single for the pure performance.
I will end with this, what is your mission. Fly with family, more than three, a twin all day long.
The useful capacity, and the speed of a light twin is much more than any single could offer. The problem is that it is way too expensive right now to even fly one if you’re not a pilot hired to fly it. Unless you are well off rich, just attempting to rent one would put you in the poorhouse. I obtained by multi engine rating over 25 years ago but only have 28 hours of flight time. Back then it was only $160 an hour to rent a multiengine plane. Today you can’t touch one for less than 350 an hour. Since I’ve been away from it for so long, it would take a minimum 10 hour check out. I just don’t have that kind of money, let alone have any of that money to just tote around 1 1/2 hours around the patch to keep current. As you know, it’s very difficult to find passengers who will share the cost with a single engine plane let alone a twin.
Range is going to be a big factor for me. I'd like to stick to a single engine but my mission includes trips from Edmonton to Houston.
Stirring it up today. Haha! Nice job. I learned quite a bit.
Love that you're poking a hornets nest and discussing the issues with twins. My view is your probably right. A twin without an engine out is a hazard. Proficiency and experience should handle that hazard well and mitigate the risks of accident to negligible levels. I think the trouble is staying proficient in a twin is expensive and time consuming for some pilots so their skills lag. For these people i think the extra hazard of an engine failure increases the risk of accident.
It’s all about training and proficiency in whatever you fly. A well trained/proficient multi engine pilot in his/her airplane is the safest pilot in aviation.
Great discussion!
I have over 12,000 hours in twins, but little time in piston twins. The main justification for twins would be mission capability. Flying IFR or at night over the mountains or the ocean with high single engine drift downs altitudes and farther distance from shore let you complete more missions more often, with more safety in the event of engine failure. Now, you will also have twice the chance of losing an engine of course. Piston twins have low single engine climb rates and low drift down altitudes and therefore higher accident rates. Also, I believe twins require more proficiency training to stay safe and we see less of this because it’s so expensive although insurance companies encourage this. Some twins were certified to be capable of climbing on one engine, while others were not. Look at the DC3. It had to be capable to cross the Rocky Mountains on one engine. I fly out of Colorado Springs at 6,200’ field elevation were it would not make sense to fly a piston twin without turbocharging. But now you have more components to go bad and would much better off with a jet but now we are talking much more money.
The why twins is "capability", and the costs may be higher when twin more seats are not filled. However, the safety perspective is skewed since non-accident twin data is not captured/recorded. The incidents where one alternator or one engine quits and the plane lands safely are not captured in the accident data. As such, the best metric to compare safety is fleet hours flown per accident/incident. Using this view, accident rate is lower in twins but fatality rate is higher given higher operating speeds and loads. Thanks for posting and for giving the community a forum to discuss issue.
I would love to see a new experimental design of twin centerline thrust like a push pull configuration. A slightly smaller Adam A500!
Weird topic to make a case against an airplane type! I love them all
Two engines are safer than one, since each engine are designed to have enough power to complete a take off of one should fail after passing the RTO point. However, depending on the distance from the fuselage, the handling of the aircraft becomes more difficult and without adequate training for EFATO conditions, a pilot is at high risk of poor outcome. As a pilot, the most stressful and dangerous parts to flying are taking off and landing. In both instances, you're at risk of stalling, at risk of wind shear and downdraft, and engine failures. You must have plans in place for a single or double engine loss in both situations, so you have alternate landing options, whether it's a field, a road, a taxiway, or ditching in water, to avoid casualties on the ground and aircraft, if possible. If you lose an engine on a wing mounted twin, the first thing to do is reduce power to prevent a stall spin, and nose down to get airflow over that dead engine wing, then yaw that dead engine side into the wind and reapply power slowly. Always remember to fly the plane first. Don't overwhelm yourself with the radio or any other task. Keep yourself in the air, and then worry about heading, position, altitude, before making a radio call. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate! Those are a list of priorities in order, not just a mantra. If your flying twins, at some point you will be put in this situation, so practice these maneuvers safely, with a type rated CFI. There's been too many losses in recent days because pilots are rushing for their multi engine ratings and losing their lives.
Twin pistons are not required to be designed to be able to continue takeoff on one engine under all circumstances. Multiengine jets are.
Yes the point also is in a twin if one engine fails at any time you must act fast on opposite rudder.
Im getting my multi this week and I fly an non conventional twin and we don’t have a critical Engin which I believe are safer than conventional twins which have a critical engine. This plays a role in safety when it comes to that. I have an engine out I can maintain the plane alot Better and fly to a airport no problem with 1 engine
Yes, not all light twins are capable of continued level flight or climb with one engine. However the bigger twins do cost more to run, but assuming the pilot is competent they can be much safer and have better flight conditions.
It takes significantly more money before a Twin Engine can fly faster than a Single. Yes, the Twin will likely be able to fly above the weather so, there's that.
yeah, you are right on the point, I learn to fly in Sanjose, so we did fly to Reno and lake Tahoe a lot, a buddy was looking to buy a Piper Malibu but one of the guys we few with had an Aero Commander he had been trying to sale. the Commander was cheaper and older by a lot, this was in 92 so thing may have change some but the cost of these two planes was about the same, he did buy the Commander and man it's an easy flying plane put hard to get use to taxiing. as far as I know he loved that plane he had 4 kids and they fit easy. but most people don't fly to Lake Tahoe all the time, but if you do twins are the way to go.
Weight x Arm = Moment
Now let’s replace weight with:
Thrust / Drag x Arm = Moment
In an engine failure, particularly critical engine failure, the moment (both thrust & drag) will impose upon the aircraft a considerable load.
The answer is to decrease aerodynamic loss of control by reducing the moment arm. The ideal configuration for this would be a canard design with pusher props closer to the CG.
Velocity put such a design together and it’s showing tremendous promise.
When you fly with the family beside and behind you, twins are the indicated planes!!!.
When you fly over sea or the high Andes you need a twin engine!!!.
Sorry. I don't agree!!!.
Once you have flown a twin, you don't want to fly a single. You never hear of twin single engine failures, they rarely make the news. Most UK accidents are folks running out of fuel.
Good information, thanks Mike.
These are good points that apply to cars as well. Someone buys a $50k SUV that gets 20mpg on a good day, and uses it to commute to work 95% of the time. Not a good deal. Better to get two cheapies. One for commuting (lower mid quality) and one for utility (cheap.) Or vice versa in terms of cost. It's the same with everything. There is no "do all" device for any field it seems. But, I will always recommend a good multi-tool knife. Buy a good Leatherman
Your wrong,twins are safer you just need to be skillful at flying on one engine! Practice man practice!
Twin eng aircraft required a higher level of competence as a pilot. Their is a reason why most commercial aircraft are twin aircraft. The Safety Operation of an aircraft is ultimately the pilots responsibility. Small twin aircraft are more costly to maintain and operate. They get a bad reputation due to high performance and low pilot competence at the control. As an airline capt and a former recruiter… I would not even look at a resume if it did not have some twin time … it forces a pilot to be more competency and have a higher understanding of aerodynamic.
FYI - That screen shot said single engine "turboprop" rather than "piston".
Probably the main advantage to a twin is the useful load. But I personally have no current plans for an ME rating.
Hey Mike! I figured this video would be a little more controversial. When flying a twin, if you have an engine out, I understand you are supposed to feather the prop and that should reduce the drag. Great video as always!
And on take off you lift the landing gears, remove the flaps,and most definitely feather the prop and a lot of rudder
Well.. It depends. Let's say you figure out the problem (maybe a fuel valve) and want to restart the engine. A windmilling engine is far easier to restart than a feathered one. Ironically when you might need it more (low and slow) is when it's now difficult to get it done.
Do you have an emergency field in range? Check the obvious (mags, valves, fuel x-feed, etc..) and if nothing works go ahead and feather and land ASAP and do the investigative work on the ground.
However many engines have feathering locks that prevent the prop from feathering on a normal shut-down. If your engine is running rough and RPM drop fast you might not have a second chance to feather.
But if you feather right way and are far from any alternate or surrounded by higher terrain then you might have dommed yourself.
So you see.. Is not as clear a cut as it might seem.
So Mojo has a point. Twin safety is not a given : You need to do some research. Airplane performance, route, alternate suitability, pilot training, etc..
There are a lot of factors to consider. Find someone really knowledgeable about ME's before making any buy decision.
Many times the working engine on a ME what it does is make the accident happen faster.
Have a good argument on expenses and the benefits of performance in many cases.
Now the odd thing is the technology is out there for a single thatbcan meet and exceed the performance of many entry and even some mid-level twins.
It is an exciting time to be in the aviation world a lot of break-through ideas that just need a little push.
I have to give you credit on this one. Normally I watch your videos because they just pop up and I find them funny. In this video you were humble and didn’t profess knowledge beyond your scope. I’ve had singles for many years but now own and fly a Seneca. The Seneca was less than 1/3 the price of a comparable Saratoga. The fuel burn, rop, is within 4 gallons an hour of the Togas. Engine costs are very similar on the pair of 360’s vs a 540. Particularly when looking at the speed and performance differences.
I fly between central Texas and the Phoenix Valley regularly with my family and/or employees. I like to depart before sunrise for the smoother air. We typically fly about a third of each 800nm flight in darkness. Arizona is not a very hospitable place to do a forced landing. Especially in the mountains. I hope to never need that second engine. But how much would it be worth to me the one time I had an engine failure scenario in a 210 or my old 182rg? In my mind it would be priceless.
The twin requires more training and is more crucial to maintain currency. Everything else aside it’s a lot more fun to fly! When those props are coming into phase and suddenly the world goes from a roar to a purr. The world, in my mind, becomes a better place. I am the captain of my airship and destiny within my own little airliner. Even in a relatively low power light twin like the Seneca. Holding the brakes at the end of the runway while I power up to 35-38 lbs of manifold pressure. It feels like holding back a thoroughbred. At that instant of brake release, once the power is verified, she bolts off like a dragster and begs for the sky. I enjoy flying anything. But I’m passionate about my Seneca.
There are different comparisons to use when looking at twin vs single. The textbook comparisons are between the Bonanza and Baron and Saratoga/Lance and Seneca. Same airframes, basically same wing, same interior volume and dimensions. All four are great airplanes. Two let you get comfortable and two make you be a pilot all the time. I’m considering trading to a 340 but haven’t convinced myself yet. It’s mostly a money comparison and the Seneca is definitely the cheaper date. I’d hate to see someone restrict themselves to a medium or “big single” just because of the data. As mentioned in a previous comment. Most engine failures in a twin do not require an incident report. When people lose and engine we just hit the checklist and if no restart fly to the nearest practical airport and land. End of the story. When a single loses power the only guarantee is a decent. In conclusion, for our missions, my passenger’s safety and my own pleasure. A twin checks all of the boxes for me.
Twin pilots do not practice REALISTIC engine out procedures enough and a sloppy or slow reaction to engine failure in a twin at a critical phase of flight produces catastrophic crashes. The most common error in twin-engine training is starting to secure the wrong engine. Engine failure in a twin demands quick & correct actions.
great info...did not know about the safety record...
Twins are definitely not for a novice, casual or a pilot not committed to constantly practicing and training EPs. Lots of people die after an engine failure, airspeed loss and spin-stall on a twin because the EPs are very easy to botch.
Still, you have a better chance to land safely with one engine running than no engine at all. Cost, maintenance, etc. is another matter.
I wonder if the higher accident rate on twins is do to pilot/owner complacency or over confidence? There was a complacency and over confidence issue in the early days of Cirrus. Pilots took more risks believing they could use the CAPS if they got in trouble. Then when an event actually happend they would get mentally locked into trying to recover, and fail to activate the CAPS in time.
This might also be an area where you really need FADEC and ESP to get a safty benefit, like the DA62. Otherwise the workload during an emergency might just be to great for a single pilot.