Sure, I feel safer with an engine on each side, but the stats do say you are 4 times more likely to die in a twin than a single in the event of an engine failure… Something about increased workload etc… blah, blah, blah… Now, I would love to fly a PC-12, TBM, or Meridian as well but for the money…? It is possible to find a VERY nice King Air 90 for less than the price of any of the 3 of those. I personally like the F-90. High tail just looks nicer but is a large sail in a crosswind (also a large surface for a company logo… selling point?) Anyway, the Cessna’s previously mentioned would be the next closest step I think… Take note of what a lot of medical transport companies fly… They are big into single pilot, low overhead, reliable, efficient aircraft and most I’ve seen fly twin Cessnas… good luck!
Before anyone gets cranky about my post above referencing the KA350 and Merlin, I have no idea how it got here!!! It was posted months ago in another forum and seems to have wandered over here on it’s own. How very odd. Any Moderators have an idea wat happened there?
That stat is very misleading for the following reason:
When an engine quits on a single engine plane, close to 100% of the incidents are reported. When an engine quits on a twin, a high percentage (no-one knows the actual number) of planes fly on one engine to a safe landing at an airport and there is no report of anything. So the fatality rates for single engine failures in twins are way overstated because the denominator leaves out most of the engine failures where nothing happened. For example, if 75% of twins go on to a non-fatal landing when one engine quits, the actual fatality rate would be identical to single engine aircraft. If more than 75% (and I suspect that it is), then twins are safer than singles for engine failures.
I’ll admit there is a flaw in my example but couldn’t the same be said about uneventful landings of single engines that don’t get reported? (although I am sure the number would be much smaller) Correct me if I’m wrong but all in flight engine failures are required to be reported, right?? I like the math used here, but the statistics are based on the actual data collected after a crash not on speculation. My example was merely meant to point out that sometimes less IS more… The usual reason the twin crash has a higher mortality is pilot overload. Highest demand on the engines is during t/o right? Low and slow with the sudden change in thrust on one side causes an unrecoverable stall, spin, or roll. The twins tend to hit the earth at a less survivable angle and at a higher rate of speed than do singles. I’m not saying singles don’t stall or spin on t/o, just that if they do they tend to come down slower and flatter (i.e.- more survivable). For the record- I agree with what you are saying. Twins are, for the most part, a much safer way to travel thanks to the redundancy of the other engine. I am simply playing devils advocate for the sake of a good debate…and defending the stats. There may be more single crashes than twins. It’s just so much more violent and devistating when the twins do come down. Tx–
I am no FAAR lawyer, but I believe that there is no necessity to report a landing without engine power unless the airplane is damaged, or someone is hurt.
There is no requirement to report anything unless it results in significant injuries or significant damage to the aircraft (there is a specific dollar number, but I don’t recall what it is). So an uneventful single engine failure in a twin is never reported.
As to your point about the severity of a twin crash vs. a single: the failure mode in twins that frequently leads to fatal crashes is that the pilot fails to recognize that an engine has failed and which one it is and make the appropriate aileron and rudder corrections fast enough. In that case, a twin can roll over on its back and things get worse from there. So an engine failure in a piston twin quickly becomes all about pilot skills and timing.
In a single, while there is a high pucker factor, an engine failure results in a very straightforward piloting situation: fly the plane at best glide speed, attempt to restart the engine, look for the best place to land. A surprisingly high percentage of off-airport landings in singles do not result in fatalities because the pilot ‘just’ needs to get down near some more or less smooth surface in a landing configuration at a slow but controllable speed. However, almost all of these off-airport landings result in enough damage to the plane (or violation of some other law) so they virtually all get reported to the FAA and included in the database.
If an unskilled twin pilot shut down both engines rather than mismanaging the engine failure, the fatality rate should be approximately the same as a single.
Which leads me to wonder if the best thing for a twin pilot to do might be to idle both engines. Assuming sufficient altitude of course.
I suppose most of the problems occur in climb when their is more engine stress, and less time to react.
Thank you for the clarification on the reporting requirements… I clearly was unsure about that… And thanks for making my point more simple. Well put!!
Comparing a Merlin IIB to a King Air 200 isn’t a direct comparison exactly, to be more specific, I was referring to a comparison between a Merlin IIB and a C90, or a Merlin III vs. a King Air 200. The King Air 350 is not a direct comparison either. I think King Air’s are great airplanes, I’d just like to point out the facts.
Here are the advantages of the Merlin IIB; 245kts vs 220kts, cabin larger than KA200 with 8-9 seats, more range, higher useful load, higher pressurization, lower fuel burn, lower engine reserve, lower aquisition cost, quieter cabin.
And by “blow the doors off” a King Air 200 I refer to 30kts faster, 800mi more range, 9" wider cabin, larger luggage space, 1000lbs more useful load, 15gal/hr less consumption, 1800hr longer TBO, higher pressurization, low maintenance costs, lower aquisition cost.
These are facts, opinions aside, speaking from 25yrs of owning and operating Merlins and over 50 aircraft.
Prob better to look at all cause fatality rates between planes of similiar missions, like malibu, 210 to twin piston. And single to multiengine turboprops. I’m pretty sure that fatality rate for lets say 210 is higher than a baron, do not really know abt. turboprops.
As stated previously, there is no way to do that because no-one knows the correct number to use in the denominator. There is no record of the number of times one engine fails in twins. There isn’t even any precise estimate of total number of hours flown in any type of aircraft, any class of aircraft or even all aircraft together.
I understand this, thats why the only assumptions that can be made are to take the so called a/c with similiar missions and presumed exposure time and count the number of people that have died in each type as long as other causes of accidents are similar between the two. Personally I like the twin and feel safer in one. There are also ways to hedge your bets in a twin. For instance, if you have the luxury of a medium sized runway the vmca problem goes away. Take off at nml speed and stay in ground effect, essentially 1 foot above rwy until vsse speed then bring the gear up and fly away. The point is that the engine fails bet. these two points just cut the throttles and and apply brakes. Thats the way I do it in my baron.
Better yet, you take off in the single engine of your choice, I’ll take of in a Kingair , we both lose an engine (the engine?) after rotation, and then we’ll get together later to talk about the results!
Using what you call “presumed exposure time” essentially makes the whole analysis useless since the answer is then completely dependent on what assumptions you make. That is why this subject continues to be debated in the aviation literature - it becomes a debate about which assumptions are correct and no-one knows.
I am always amused at the twin vs single discussions. I know of many twin pilots who have lost engnines and landed uneventfully. Aside from actual failures, all beginner twin pilots lose an engine (thanks to the instructors leaning to shutdown) and fly around without incident as part of their daily training.
Every twin pilot only needs to focus on one thing… Airspeed. Even in dirty configuration where you cant keep altitude, pitch for airspeed just like a single and you will lose altitude at a much slower rate than a single until you clean things up.
2007???
He took his time formulating his response J.
How big are you looking, Baron 58P or C421…
Baron tight 4 pax or 5 5 one in front.
C421 good 4 pax and 6 pax one on potty and one in co-pilot possy(not recommend).
Low end cost entry turbo prop C425.