Why Singles are Better & Safer than Twins 

Which airplanes were you in?

Being over water is not a good idea if you fly on a single-engine plane.

Cannot beat having two engines.

@@flybobbie1449 Kind of, but also not, if my choice is between a piston twin and a turboprop single engine I'd probably take the turboprop.

Yes if you are going over any kind of major water 2 engine aircraft would be without question the way to go. Glad everything ended up fine for you on those two occasions you lost an engine. take care, and enjoy the skies!

Would u like to elaborate ? What did u not agree with ? Not dismissing u as totally wrong ❌ but I would like to know what I should know about what is not good with this video.

@@andrebello4191 If you’re familiar with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, this video is an excellent example. It’s got a lot of inaccuracies, such as exponential operating cost increases, acquisition costs specifically on older models being higher, and lots of little nitpicky things like talking about piston airplane when he shows turboprop versions. At the crux of this, what he is trying to get at is that twins are dangerous and cost a lot so why get one. Maybe that’s true for a low experience pilot comparing an new baron to a cirrus, but it’s not scalable. You don’t see large single engine jets, why? You could put a 1 CF6 on a 737 and have the same amount of power, centerline thrust, reduced maintenance costs, and jet engines almost never fail. But nothing like that exists in the market. It’s because the redundancy of having 2 engines is worth the additional costs. Large jets have asymmetric thrust issues too during a power loss on takeoff, but airlines train the hell out of it. Most of my friends and I are 10k+++ hour jet guys and we all have reservations about single engine flying in anything other than day VFR. Why is that, we all have experience, we all have scared the crap out of ourselves a time of two and we all know how quickly a situation can go to hell. Every single one us prefers twins, other than at the fuel pump, but it’s a small price to pay for the added safety.

single engines are better than twins, in about every way. and i have a great example case: Celera 500

@@iheart545x39 You are correct. I am an experienced, twin engine, GA pilot who travels long distance regularly. I fly IFR 99% of the time, and I stay current. If fuel costs were a serious concern, this would just be a hobby, not transportation. Even then though, costs are not exponential, and pound for pound, twins are actually cheaper because demand for pistons twins is obviously lower than it is for singles in GA.

Ooook 🆗 this makes sense. Thanks for feedback. Well I do watch Dwayne's Aviation quite a bit. I have come to like it and trust it for reliable knowledge etc. And this is the first time I seen so much negative feedback. Kinda surprised me. But I guess 🤔 u got to think about things for yourself sometimes, not just follow everything u hear 🙉. Sometimes people think they know. Hence Dunn Kruger I looked it up. Well the argument for a twin or even 3 or 4 engine aircraft as opposed to a single is really a no brainer. Even with modern turbofan engines, they have become extremely reliable (except for those gear turbofan they seem to be having problems, and even those GE 90 with the sophisticated turbine cooling systems got a problem before too, and once inna while uncontained compressor disc ayle stub turbine disc fan blade but some of that is maintenance error or negligence), there is no such thing as an engine that can be 100 % guaranteed not to fail. Even pt6a. Like anything mechanical, electronic, technical, things can go wrong. And its not like we can pull over to the side. Hey like u say theres a reason why a 737 doesn't have one engine. And if I'm over a big ocean like the Pacific a 4 engine A340 is even more comforting. I didn't pay for my ticket so I can swim the rest of the way if thats even possible. We have a responsibility to protect people on the ground too. And as for piston engines, they fail all the time. Not relatively speaking but u always hear about it from time to time. Got to land on highway that's risky. On the other hand I have heard from other sources too that stats don't show twins are any safer. I don't know about 5 times though. I know stats can be misleading but theres always a takeaway. Apparently piston twins tend to be unable or have difficulty sustaining flight with an engine out. This is because they tend to have less power/thrust for their size and weight and also just how the thrust drag power required curves work out. And also having a wider propeller engine spaced out further relative to size asymmetric thrust p factor torque VMC tail etc etc. Apparently some of them won't sustain flight if the gear or flaps is down. The power available is not much more than power required especially with the angle of attack and rudder and bank required to counter the asymmetric problems. They say if one engine fails on the takeoff roll don't even try to lift off it won't fly ditch the plane. Apparently a lot of pilots don't know how to handle the engine out situation, its tricky. Have lots of pilot workload too. Even though training is required for multi engine rating. I'm not a pilot yet but I have a clue. Well, if an engine fails on a twin, u spin out or stall or can't sustain flight, that's not much better than an engine fail on a single and no suitable landing spot within glide. My conclusion is its still better to have a twin, but u got to know how to handle it if one engine clunks out. And make sure the gear retraction works. And the plane is not overloaded or cg outta limits. Which I heard of. I heard of pilots shutting down the wrong engine too. The celero has one engine but with some redundancy built in. Its diesel tends to be less reliable than turbine. If I got to cross ocean rather with twin or multi and turbine. Don't think it will meet performance projections either my opinion. Thanks for your time 🕒.

Just show him how many single Airliners are there.

@@fdzaviation They should show him how many piston airliners there are... Twin piston is more reliable than a single piston (more complex as well though, which can be its own hazard), but even a single turbine shits on a twin piston in terms of reliability. Turbines (whether as turbofans or turboprops) are a different league.

Easy. Don't fly IFR at night. It's just not necessary.

@@TecnamTwin Maybe for you its not, but for some of us its a necessity and a safe efficient use of an aircraft if its capable.

Honestly night vfr scares me just as much if not more than night ifr.

jets are different than piston twins.

@@SoloRenegade true

@@SoloRenegadei dont think he is talking about jets smarty

and your second engine in most twins isn't enough to continue the flight. and he cited the stats proving you wrong to boot.

​@@SoloRenegade Single engine planes come with free parachutes. 💥🪂

@@SoloRenegade in most conditions it is able to keep you flying at a reasonable altitude. And those crash statistics are because of people Vmc-ing at low altitude and not being proficient in single engine work. They are as safe as the pilots proficiency is.

@@lukekirk7487 Oh, i totally get what the cause is, I am a commercial pilot with mutli. but the fact is, the statistics don't lie. Whether those accidents were preventable or not is not relevant. if twins have a higher accident rate, for whatever reason, then they have a higher accident rate, Period, end of story. When the statistics flip and single engines have a higher rate, then we can't bash on singles about having a higher rate. but multi has all the same failure modes as singles, with Additional failure modes on top, that pilots aren't proficient enough in, especially when considering the piston twins and who is flying them (not commercial operators for the most part, other than flight training). So, more failure modes than singles (have you seen a C310 fuel system?! I'm an aerospace and mechanical engineer also and feel the designer of that plane deserves a painful death), less common, not widely used in commercial operations outside flight training, prevalent use in flight training, and more chances for mechanical failure, etc. All combine to ensure a higher failure rate.

@@SoloRenegade the 310 fuel system is stupid.😂 I’m a Comm multi pilot too and MEI not that it really matters.🤷‍♂️ I think it is worth noting the cause of the crashes though, if it was pilot error then it shouldn’t be counted against the type of airplane. Stats don’t lie, but they can be interpreted incorrectly, I don’t think the higher fatal crash rate means it’s not as safe, but shows trading because of the reasons for the crashes. I think twins are innately safer because you don’t turn into a glider when an engine fails. I wouldn’t fly a single over water at night, but I would in a twin. That’s safer.

Yup. We have a much greater likeliness of survival if one engine goes out in the middle of the Atlantic ocean in a single engine 737. Than to have to deal with the asymmetric problems from the one remaining engine.

jet engines are different than pistons

@@SoloRenegade … ya don’t say … 🙄

@@flitetym and this is about pistons, not jets. general aviation, not commercial. and twins are statistically more accident prone

@@SoloRenegade may I assume you’re a “doctor”? Good. Please review the methodologies used to come to your conclusion. Please examine factors such as maintenance, training, and phase of flight. Please “compare apples to apples.” Twin engine aircraft are not “… more accident prone.” There is nothing inherently deficient in the design of the wing-mounted engine planform - which has been around since the birth of aviation. A well maintained aircraft with a current, qualified and capable pilot is the greatest safety measure for any aircraft. If these do not exist, well, then take the bus. 🙄

The idea that a twin is safer flying over water or mountains just isn't backed up by the data. Singles are not unsafe. Twins actually have a higher accident rate than singles. While the extra engine might give you peace of mind, the jury is still out whether that belief is justified. Well maintained engines don't just conk out.

@@TecnamTwin - just curious, what are your bona-fides regarding aviation?

Although the higher initial climb rate of the twin is nice, I've never heard of that being a significant reason why people buy twins.

Had a customer who climbed to 14K single engine in a 42 (not sure if he was exaggerating)

Getting back into GA recently. I just feel so much better about flying little airplanes if a second engine is turning. Hence the baron in the garage. It’s more than just a day VFR airplane. I don’t sweat being over mountains or water either.

You can fly single 135. They just don’t like doing it. And you also have to carry a raft and be within 50 miles of nearest shoreline.

​@@TheReadBaron91 I don't believe that at all.

I was choosing between the same planes to go the same places. Perfect info for me. No if I can make not get the money 😅

👍👍

And proficiency of who is doing the maintenance. Which I think most pilots would choose to do themselves because they have an eye for detail exceeding most people, and pilots know how to get things right the first time. Plus, pilots don't want to crash their aircraft more than anyone else. Flying isn't a hobby, it's a way of life.

Less redundant is less safe. No matter how proficient you are.

Twin

get a 4-engine, even safer

Yup

I fly all those destinations…. IN A TWIN!!! They’re safer if you know what you’re doing. A single over water or mountains is asking for potential trouble.

I'd have zero problem flying in a Cessna Caravan or Pilatus PC-12. As an A&P, I don't trust piston twins.

Same goes for pandemics. Wars in foreign places. AI. Murder Hornets. Local government budget decisions. Etc. The interweb has made experts of all of us. About everything.

Very good point.

For those who may not know what acronyms/abbreviations mean when a commentor uses them without giving a description or context for what they mean. IFR = Instrument Flight Rules IMC = Instrument Meteorological Conditions

Twins are absolutely not safer then singles. AOPA has always pointed this out. Roll over in a twin is dangerously high with loss of engine.

Trying to keep a plane from flipping itself over and IMC is really difficult, and controllability issues are not really visible in IMC or IFR flight. Also, with modern avionics, You can hold down the direct two button and the autopilot will set best glide directly to the nearest field, that it can make. Twins are absolutely not safer, in any way she perform, and the AOPA, FAA, and NTSB has pointed this out many times. Even an engine failure is safer on a single than a twin because you're more likely to crash the plane trying to control one engine at power then you are likely to crash from unable to glide to an airport. So a lot of pilots who fly twins will pretty much kill their engine and glide to an airport anyway because it's not really safer. It's not like you can even go around with a single engine anyway on most of these twins, there's only one exception and that is the DA 50 and DA62, both of which still cost twice as much for only 10% more payload than their single engine counterpart

@@mauriceevans6546 First, AOPA has never said that twins are not safer than single engine aircraft. They say that people advance into high performance twins without the training or respect for the aircraft - and in fact AOPA also says that high performance singles are just as bad. The point of most these articles in AOPA is to respect your aircraft. Also, I assume you're talking about a VMC (minimum control speed, not Visual Meteorological Conditions) rollover when you say "roll over in a twin with the loss of an engine". It's very easy to "not roll over" - keep the plane above the applicable VMC, this is trained and demonstrated during your multi-engine rating and known by any pilot flying a ME aircraft.

@@etops8086 there are unfortunately many instances of twin engine pilots who don't correctly follow the engine out procedure during an emergency. They forget to feather or set flaps wrong or who knows. Anyway, it doesn't usually end well.

It’s better than becoming a glider when your engine fails… Also that’s a stupid thing to practice, on one engine your not doing a go-around that’s just inviting Vmc to flip and kill you that close to the ground.

​@@lukekirk7487 Should have simulated it at >2,000 ft.

The thing is, it also depends on the mission. For example, A fully loaded beach craft on a single engine can barely maintain 3,000 ft, which means if you have an engine failure, In Colorado, you're going to hit the ground no matter what, whether or not it's a single or twin. The difference is, a twin has twice the chance of a failure in the first place. Additionally, VMC roll issues Make flying it difficult and two engines is twice the maintenance.

Like this video said, the main reason for a twin is pressurization, and that can be solved. Some airplanes are unpressurized but just fill the cabin with oxygen.

If you're going to be crashing into the ground no matter what engine failure you have, it may as well be a single because you have half the chance to failure

@@pilotavery Re read what I said

@@Bullhead_JW I did. It just doesn't sound like you fly twins...

I’m very happy with the piper M350. It’s a turbo charged piston aircraft. And it’s pressurized. That’s a big plus when I have people on board as I i’m not limited to 8 to 10,000 feet.

Probably the DA50 RG as far as non pressurized single engines go.

680FL Aero Commander, Howard 500, Cessna 421

Thankyou. I used to fly light aircraft as a hobby but had to give up because of health problems. These single engine fanatics are deluded.

Tell that to the guy solorenegade in the reply sections of various comments 😂 he really stood by that single engine over multi thing.

in light twins, lose an engine and you're a glider.

@@skyboy1956 After 50 years and many thousands of hours flying them, I’m glad you set me straight…

@@CLdriver1960 appeal to authority fallacy rejected. Do you have a valid form of argument?

@@skyboy1956 sure do: FAR 23.67: Cimb - one engine inoperative.

@@CLdriver1960 FYI, your citing regs that have been obsolete for 6 yrs now. Nonetheless, under the old regs, a light twin, i.e., one that weighs less than 6000 lbs and has a stall speed of

caravan seaplane

wrong, a diamond twin burns 2x the fuel as a diamond single with teh same engine.

Awesome, just fly a glider then.

He just lucky that radial engine didnt quit on him on his nonstop flight in the middle of the Atlantic.

@@linkfreeman1998 Luck is what you believe when you go to Vegas. Linberg likely bench tested that engine until he was satified that it would make the flight.

FWIW, I can rebuild both my IO-320's for less than the 550... Price was a fraction of the price, and I sip 14 gal/hr in cruise

should always buy a 172 instead of a 182 because they burn less fuel, lmao

stats say otherwise. we're not talking about jet powered airliners here.