Single Engine or Twin?

According to an old Cessna engineer their wind tunnel testing showed that the nose gear accounted for like 70% of the drag of the landing gear. On the 182 he proposed leaving the mains down and having the nose retract but for some reason marketing didn't buy off on it.
I also want to say the original Lancair 400 held the speed record for a piston single or twin, fixed or retractable and they used to market it that way. Cessna has since backed off that claim. Now fl250 is a stretch for an unpressurized piston single. It'll still do 235kias at that altitude. Pretty quick for a lone piston engine hanging the gear out. In fact, I'm pretty sure a turbine Meridian will only do about 250kias at the same altitude with a turbine and the gear sucked up.

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2004/August/1/Lancair-Columbia-400
 
Wouldn't call it nonsense - if he still had the Bonanza, the engine failure would be half as likely. So equally likely it never would have happened. But yes, at altitude in cruise, of course we would all rather have a twin. But the cases where people are killed in singles or twins are almost never are in cruise with an engine failure. The forced landing isn't what you ever want, but it is in most cases survivable. And also incredibly rare.

The case when I don't want a light piston twin is heavy, just after V1, losing the engine, and deciding if I will wreck the plane straight ahead and probably live, or try to fly it. Which happens to be when a huge number of fatalities occur. And I have never heard many stories from people that have successfully flown it, as you usually read about them in NTSB reports. And I don't think most multi pilots do a very good job computing detailed enough performance numbers in light aircraft to make that decision - it would take me an hour for every departure - and I wouldn't actually do a thorough enough job, either.



It is a lot more than 1% of the time. At MGTOW, most of the time that light twin, in warm weather, will be a very uncontrollable single looking for a place to land. It would be a much safer glider looking for a place to land.

Sure, 90% of the flight at altitude, a second engine is fantastic to have. But very few accidents actually happen in cruise.

Put it this way - if you had a choice of two cars, one that was 1% less likely to kill you due to a faulty airbag, but was 4 times more likely to kill you because of the gas tank exploding, which would you say is better?

For the record, I have no problem with multiengine aircraft. If I could afford to operate one, I would probably buy one. I'm not even multi rated. But the FAA makes me read all about the accidents they have to renew my CFI nonetheless. With sim time every six months, and computing detailed takeoff data, I absolutely do think they can be operated safely. But they aren't 737s and they aren't magically safer. They just have risks in different phases of flight. For twins, much more so from loss of control, which happens way too often in singles too.
I've made my point. I'm not going to argue this subject with someone who talks about piston twins having a V1 speed who doesn't even have a multi.
 
I've made my point. I'm not going to argue this subject with someone who talks about piston twins having a V1 speed who doesn't even have a multi.
Hey! Plenty of multi pistons have a V1 speed.
1024px-Douglas_DC-3%2C_SE-CFP.jpg
 
http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepApache.html

Always a good twin review.

On the piston debate, I'm never quite sure why people make rules for themselves. I know people now at airlines who won't fly in a Cessna, though they taught me in one. I get it that understanding and minimizing risk is part of their culture now, as it is in flightschools, but every flight needs to be judged on its merits. Is (he in a) 172 or (me in an) a320 more dangerous?

I did my MEI in a C-310 and my instructor said they would never set foot in a Seminole. I get the power and performance difference but the 310 systems are more complex and could get a novice in trouble. Flying the Seminole in Phoenix didn't give us a lot of options but as long as we understood that and planned for it...

Alex.
 
Aside from ultralight type things I've yet to see an airplane that I wouldn't like to fly.

I got a joyride in a weight-shift ultralight while on vacation in Mexico a few years back. Easily some of the most fun I've ever had in an airplane.
 
I think there are some things that aren't accounted for in some of those statistics. Like how many twins land after an engine failure uneventfully that never make it into the NTSB database. Or the fact that people are probably less likely to be flying that single over long stretches of unfriendly terrain or weather. If you lose an engine at altitude in a single on a nice VFR day, you should be able to set it down safely. Add in some terrain, at night, with hard IMC, maybe not. You're probably more likely to stay at home with that single where you might decide to go in the twin.

It's also hard to discern how many accidents were caused by just being complacent about emergency procedures, planning or whatever else. Hence why the second pilot reduces the risk considerably. Probably a number of accidents had what you might call "facepalm moments" that contributed. Making regular efforts at recurrent training and studying emergency procedures, as well as spending the appropriate time before each flight coming up with a plan to deal with low altitude engine failures BEFORE you takeoff would probably go a LONG way toward making either one much safer.

Even twin turboprop airliners with two pilots will drop out of the sky and crash into a bridge after an engine failure if the appropriate procedures aren't followed to the letter. I'm not familiar with the ATR from TransAsia 235, but I believe the engine failure procedure in a lot of large turboprops is essentially, "Fly the plane, and DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING, STUPID!", and yet they still managed to screw it up.

You can get into trouble with either one if their limitations aren't respected.

So, my 2 cents: Money is not an issue so, Single vs. twin? Yes, please! Buy both and I'll fly whichever one you don't want!
 
Back
Top