Single Engine or Twin?

learhawkerbe400 said:
Right. I'll take another engine vs having some shmuck in the right seat. You can keep your statistics.

What about 2 pilots in a twin??!! Ultimate safety
Click to expand...
Why would invite a "shmuck" to fly your own personal plane with you? I'd much rather have someone I liked and respected to fly with, and if you're going call someone derogatory terms I can only imagine how you would treat them. What happens when you're the "shmuck" in the right seat? Is everyone safer at that point?
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
I'm leaning towards Seneca. Though I've decided to wait a few months now. This whole thing got started by my friend wanting to sell me his Lance. When that fell through, I started looking at what the market has available. That was a mistake! Now I'm trying to talk myself off the ledge. Lol

I'll probably get a Seneca this fall, once we get all settled in MCO.
Click to expand...

Have you flown the Seneca before? We've got one at FXE if you're ever in the area and want to feel it out. Very nice airplane.
 
That's true and I'm not aware of any control for that, but practicing single engine ops in a Boeing or Airbus has almost nothing to do with single engine in a piston. To this day the most difficult airplane I've flown single engine is a pa31. I don't know if I could hop in one tomorrow and make it through what amounts to a V1 cut.

Also, I don't want a twin because they are unable to do almost all of the flying I do.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
I'm leaning towards Seneca. Though I've decided to wait a few months now. This whole thing got started by my friend wanting to sell me his Lance. When that fell through, I started looking at what the market has available. That was a mistake! Now I'm trying to talk myself off the ledge. Lol

I'll probably get a Seneca this fall, once we get all settled in MCO.
Click to expand...
I don't know much about Senecas but as you can tell I'm a bit of a Cherokee fanboy and since a Seneca is basically a twin engine Cherokee 6 seems like a good choice.
 
z987k said:
That's true and I'm not aware of any control for that, but practicing single engine ops in a Boeing or Airbus has almost nothing to do with single engine in a piston. To this day the most difficult airplane I've flown single engine is a pa31. I don't know if I could hop in one tomorrow and make it through what amounts to a V1 cut.

Also, I don't want a twin because they are unable to do almost all of the flying I do.
Click to expand...
At the risk of making too many generalities, from what I've seen the folks that are/have been employed as professional pilots (121/military/large 135 or 91K) tend to take the training and proficiency standards they're accustomed to maintaining for their day jobs into the GA world. Obviously exceptions exist, just as there are plenty of competent and proficient doctor/lawyer et al pilot types out there. But from what I've seen, folks with a professional aviation background tend to take their multi-engine proficiency a little more seriously than the PPL with an IR that can afford a twin and the insurance. I suspect anecdotal exposure to the real world consequences of bad piloting (which is inevitable if you fly for a living) plays a part.
 
Last edited:
Cessnaflyer said:
When I was training I always thought turbine pilots that said they would never fly a single piston were being completely irrational. Now I easily see that view and it would be hard for me to buy a single piston.
Click to expand...
But you can't even have fun in a twin. I mean it goes A to B as long as A and B are big runways nicely and that is the extent of it's abilities.

IDK, once I started flying multi turbines I became jealous of the single piston guys actually out there having fun. I guess a Twin Otter can be fun, but outside some specialty turboprops, it's work. And I don't own an airplane for work.
 
Cessnaflyer said:
When I was training I always thought turbine pilots that said they would never fly a single piston were being completely irrational. Now I easily see that view and it would be hard for me to buy a single piston.
Click to expand...
I rationalized the P210R all the way up to the flight home from CA to MD. FIKI, pressurization, AC, dual everything except engines. It was within the first hour that I realized I was never going to be comfortable in that plane. I was never able to get logic to overcome emotion. I need all weather, all the time capability; and relying on a piston single for that just plain made me nervous. If money is going to trump safety then I'd just as soon drive.
 
z987k said:
But you can't even have fun in a twin. I mean it goes A to B as long as A and B are big runways nicely and that is the extent of it's abilities.

IDK, once I started flying multi turbines I became jealous of the single piston guys actually out there having fun. I guess a Twin Otter can be fun, but outside some specialty turboprops, it's work. And I don't own an airplane for work.
Click to expand...
Going from point A to B as safely as possible is the point. Fun is fun, but for a lot of us it's secondary to the mission of just getting there.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Alright guys. Keeping in mind that I can't afford anything that drinks kerosene, what would you guys do for a family airplane?

I'm moving to Orlando in May, and that's going to put me out of easy weekend driving distance of the family in NC. That means I can either buy tickets to go see them, or I can buy a nice medium distance piston aircraft.

I was leaning towards Cherokee 6/Saratoga/Lance, but for similar money I can get a Seneca and burn more gas! I like the idea of having two motors if I'm going IFR with the wife and kid.

Thoughts? I'm going to keep it in Orlando, so in thinking about maybe seeing if the Orlando Flying Club might want to get involved with it.
Click to expand...
If I could, I'd always get a twin. I like the DA42, but if money is an issue, I'd pick a 182 easy. IMO it is Cessna's best single.

Take Care
 
z987k said:
But you can't even have fun in a twin. I mean it goes A to B as long as A and B are big runways nicely and that is the extent of it's abilities.

IDK, once I started flying multi turbines I became jealous of the single piston guys actually out there having fun. I guess a Twin Otter can be fun, but outside some specialty turboprops, it's work. And I don't own an airplane for work.
Click to expand...

I hear you. What I want is something that flies low and slow, and occasionally upside down. What my wife wants is something that will fly from A to B quickly. We are compromising and looking for what my wife wants.
 
learhawkerbe400 said:
You're saying having 2 pilots in a single is safer than one pilot in a twin? If so, that's the dumbest thing I've heard. Well, on second thought, maybe the other guy can help you find a field when your one engine craps out and you're a glider. No thanks️
Click to expand...

Pilot error is by far the most likely thing to kill you. By far. Also, the most common cause of engine failure is fuel management. Which pilots manage to screw up more often on twins, and manage to kill more people.

In 2013, the last year complete data is available, there were three fatal accidents due to engine failure in singles. Three. It was the cause of a fatal accident about 1% of the time. You are probably about as likely to die due to mechanical engine failure in a twin. 75-85% of the time, fatalities are due to pilot error. Having a CFI on board, or a second pilot improves your odds there more than a second engine does.

There are lots of things that can kill you. You are hundreds to thousands of times more likely to die from swimming pools, icy sidewalks, motorcycles, ladders, electrocution, firearms or any number of other mundane things. Single Engine Airplane Failure doesn't even register on the scales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top