Why Singles are Better & Safer than Twins

[@johnpatrick1588]

In 40 years I have had two engine failures in twins over the ocean and never wound up in a raft or as shark food.

[@Pa27pilot]

Which airplanes were you in?

[@Quisqueyax]

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

[@flybobbie1449]

Cannot beat having two engines.

[@ska042]

@@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.

[@johannjohann6523]

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!

[@FlywithMagnar]

Dwayne, I don't buy your arguments. For a starter, for the same payload and performance, a twin doesn't burn the double amount of fuel. For example, a single engine airplane may need a 300 hp engine to have the same capability as a twin with 200 hp engines. Regarding acccident statistics, most accidents with twin engined airplanes can be tracked back to insufficient pilot training and recurrency. This has resulted in loss of control. A twin has more limitations, but as long as you respect them, you will find the twin to be safer than a single engined airplane.

[@iheart545x39]

This is what happens if you don’t know much about aviation and decide to start a KZbin channel where you need to pump out content all the time

[@andrebello4191]

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.

[@iheart545x39]

@@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.

[@SoloRenegade]

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

[@421CPilot]

@@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.

[@andrebello4191]

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 🕒.

[@marcpasquini1029]

Someone needs to make a video on why twins are safer than singles.

[@fdzaviation]

Just show him how many single Airliners are there.

[@ska042]

@@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.

[@troylowell]

I fly a Diamond DA42-VI. When I bought it, I decided between the Diamond and a Cirrus SR-22 G6. They both have about the same cruising speed, fuel burn (14 gal/hr at 165kta/10k ft), useful load, range, and even about the same price (assume both are loaded). Advantage Cirrus: annual is cheaper (one engine). Parachute. Wingspan

[@TheReadBaron91]

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

[@iheart545x39]

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.

[@mowtivatedmechanic1172]

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.

[@TecnamTwin]

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

[@factsondeck1552]

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 😅

[@overthehorizonadventurerid108]

In all phases of flight if you loose the engine in a single engine aircraft, your’e eating dirt for lunch. Even in a light twin, a properly managed engine out situation does not mean your eating dirt. If I'm flying IFR at night in crap weather I'll take a twin any day.

[@TecnamTwin]

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

[@overthehorizonadventurerid108]

@@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.

[@tylerbrown4483]

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

[@LukeKirk1113]

1. Twins are not usually more expensive, the buy price is actually usually less compared to a similar single engine because the operating cost is higher. You can buy a good light twin for the same price as a 172 or Mooney and way cheaper than all the other certified planes you mentioned. 2. Twins are safer, if your trained and proficient in handling engine failures. Imagine that, you still have to be proficient to be a safe pilot. Having a twin means you don’t have to land in a field 50 miles from the nearest city if an engine fails, or in a Black abyss at night.

[@johnpatrick1588]

In a twin, you have a choice to fly or not fly. In a single, the choice is made for you. The problem with the twin is it is the competency of the driver that will make the choice work.

[@jorgedelgado3357]

The title is true until your single engine fails.

[@SoloRenegade]

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

[@tumslucks9781]

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

[@LukeKirk1113]

@@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.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@LukeKirk1113 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.

[@LukeKirk1113]

@@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.

[@leerobertarzt3555]

IT’s remarkable that much of the visuals in this video shows a Diamond DA 42, that burns about 12 gals of Jet A an hour. That’s for both engines!

[@philrandell8069]

I can’t even say this video is a joke because it’s not even funny. When I’m flying over the sea with my family on board, I’ll take comfort in my second engine, thank you.

[@SoloRenegade]

jets are different than piston twins.

[@mowtivatedmechanic1172]

@@SoloRenegade true

[@maliksworld8467]

@@SoloRenegadei dont think he is talking about jets smarty

[@alphahrd19]

THIS IS A GREAT VIDEO.......would you fly from Miami to the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico or anywhere in Caribbean sans Bahamas in a in single? Or would you want or prefer a twin?

[@mandymedichi1135]

Twin

[@MrTONYTONYM]

get a 4-engine, even safer

[@LukeKirk1113]

Yup

[@mowtivatedmechanic1172]

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.

[@TecnamTwin]

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

[@flitetym]

I guess airlines should skip the next generation of twinjets and demand singles from Airbus and Boeing. 🙄

[@andrebello4191]

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.

[@SoloRenegade]

jet engines are different than pistons

[@flitetym]

@@SoloRenegade … ya don’t say … 🙄

[@SoloRenegade]

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

[@flitetym]

@@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. 🙄

[@quantomic1106]

Thank goodness for this video. Now I'll only run one engine in my 310 for an extra layer of safety.

[@marcusdoven5284]

Safety... it's a twin every day. Cost...... it's a single every day

[@HH-mw4sq]

The reason one buys a light twin is for the much greater initial rate of climb after takeoff. Not for range, payload, or cruise speed. Besides a twin is much safer for flying long distances over water. So this guy is not particularly knowledgeable on this topic. The only time an engine out in a twin is potentially more fatal than in a single piston airplane is shortly after takeoff. However, if a pilot is proficient in light twin operations, then it isn't a fatal problem.

[@TecnamTwin]

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.

[@HH-mw4sq]

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

[@igclapp]

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.

[@lancepeltier1081]

If it were possible to eliminate all comments made by anyone other than experienced real-world pilots, I wonder what the comment section would look like.

[@OhNoNotAgain42]

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.

[@doit.20]

If there are 2 engines you can go for x2 smaller engines if you want to save the fuel but don't want more power. twin engine planes are more safer then single engine planes.

[@jamesb7807]

Hey brother,,, tell me what your engine out climb performance is in that PC12, TBM, or a C210?!

[@scarpaz]

Every time you hear anybody use the word "exponentially" when speaking about 2 data points you should question their quantitative thinking.

[@ilovemuskoka]

Very good point.

[@BlueMax333]

Cessna Stationair is a versatile STOL aircraft. It has large doors and removable seats to choose between passengers and cargo.

[@fdzaviation]

They’re not safer. They’re as safe as the proficiency of the pilot flying.

[@LukeKirk1113]

👍👍

[@johannjohann6523]

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.

[@tylerbrown4483]

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

[@mindfitnessmovement]

I would prefer twin over single anytime. Having a backup when flying over water or mountains is non negotiable for me. Peace of mind is more important. 🙏

[@chunder64]

a twin does not use quite twice as much fuel for a given route given the same weight single plane. You are not comparing apples to apples. With a single, you have twice the chance of a power off forced landing.

[@johnpatrick1588]

In day time with good weather, the big problem of having a plane turn into a glider is if there is a suitable place to land.

[@JorisRobijn]

You are completely missing the IFR aspect. In IMC you don't want to have a single engine. Further twin engines don't necessarily use more fuel, however in practice all do because they are more capable. E.g. faster and/or 4+ seaters.

[@NorthGaReptile]

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

[@mauriceevans6546]

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.

[@pilotavery]

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

[@southseasflying]

@@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.

[@gottesma]

@@southseasflying 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.

[@Bullhead_JW]

The ONLY reason that twins are statistically more dangerous than singles is because of pilot error. More can go wrong on a twin, and single engine ops are difficult and need to be practiced regularly. As long as a pilot practices engine kills regularly (personally I say at least every month by yourself for currency, and 3-6 months with an instructor), twins are VASTLY safer aircraft. Trust me, the last place you want to be is over tall mountains near mountain obscuration with a single. That engine fails, you are almost certainly dead. A twin offers the ability to remain aloft in bad conditions and limp to a landing at a nearby airport. Turbo twins are even safer for this reason as they have a significantly higher single engine service ceiling and can likely remain above the terrain single engine (look up modern G58 Barons vs a Seneca V which is turbocharged). Additionally, Turbo twins have quite a bit of extra compressed air in cruise, and instead of dumping it all overboard as waste, it can be used to pressurize a cabin, or inflate deice boots and allow these aircraft to perform where singles wouldn't dare tread. Again, twins are complex aircraft, and complex aircraft require more practice and training to remain proficient in. They aren't a Cirrus where you can just hop in and go whenever you want and not fly that much and have the safety net of just pulling a parachute.

[@pilotavery]

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.

[@pilotavery]

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.

[@pilotavery]

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

[@Bullhead_JW]

@@pilotavery Re read what I said

[@pilotavery]

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

[@elpidiomanuelalvarenga4223]

Seriously? A 12-minute video on the subject, but only 4 minutes really on the subject? It would have been better to use the remaining 8 minutes to show the numbers and variables, data that supposedly support your claims.

[@willthompson83]

I think single engines are great for building time and getting comfortable with GA as well as day time somewhat long distance flights. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but its just something I've noticed but then again I only have 12hrs 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@johannjohann6523]

I really can't get over the HP numbers of these aircraft. 140 HP 4 seater just doesn't sound right even though I guess it is, as long as there isn't much of a headwind. I've been in a small 4 seater Cessna due to a headwind the cars below us were going faster on the highway than we were. Yep, one of my last flights on a tiny Cessna, won't do them again.

[@robinj.9329]

In study after study; if you loose an engine? You have 10 or 20 times better chances to survive the landing in a single then in a twin! When one of your two engine quit in a twin, the aircraft can instantly become uncontrollable! Not so in a single! And remember folks! Piston engine technology was so advanced IN 1927 that Charles Lindbergh flew one, solo for a continuous 33 and a half hours! To become the first man to fly New York to Paris, non stop! This May will mark 97 years since then. So, give me a good, sound running single anytime!

[@rangelso]

Unlike jet aircraft light twins usually don't have possibility to operate efficiently in engine-out scenario. Will maintain the altitude but usually very poor on climbing after take off. There was accident in Poland involving Tecnam 2006 few years ago where plane crashed while simulating go arround with 1 engine shut. Unfortunately both flight instructor and student died.

[@LukeKirk1113]

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.

[@TecnamTwin]

​@@LukeKirk1113 Should have simulated it at >2,000 ft.

[@johnmorris7815]

So this is it, a single engine aircraft with an engine failure is now a glider, if you’re over water you’re soon to become a boat, that is not the case on a twin.

[@jamesnelson7415]

Ah yes, the old "singles are statistically safer than twins" argument. I strongly disagree. I have been flying for neatly sixty years, have owned quite a few airplanes, both singles and twins, and am here to tell you that statics don't measln a darn thing when your engine fails at night over the mountains in a single engine airplane. Been there, done that, and, luckily, survived. Needless to say, I no longer fly single engine airplanes. I do, howevet, stay current in emergency procedures, and always pre-brief engine failure procefures just before takeoff (the most critical phase of flight for an engine failure in a twin). Not only is a twin, properly flown, safer than a single, it has two of every system, should one fail (such as a vacuum pump or an alternator). Statistics do NOT reflect the number of times a tein has safely reached an airport to make an uneventful landing after failure of one engine. In my lifetime, I have experienced six engine failures, all in singles, all but one in rental or other people,s airplanes, so yes, they can and do fail. After the ladt one (at night ovet moubtains) I swore off single engine airplanes, as much as I love many of them. I just don't wish to hasten my demise. Do twins cost more to maontain and operate? Yes, in my experience about half again the cost of flying a high performance single, such as a Turbo 210 or Bonanza, both of which I have owned and have extensive ecperience in. Is it worth it? Absolutely. Remember, statistics are irrelevant when it is your butt in the left seat over mountains at nighr and your single engine decides to pack it in.

[@tumslucks9781]

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.

[@linkfreeman1998]

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

[@johannjohann6523]

Good point a pilot making about having 2 engine aircraft if you are going over any type of major water.I definitely concur with that idea. No reason to feed the sharks. lol

[@coasternut3091]

The only single I'd fly over open ocean with is a turboprop

[@barryhall3971]

No, twins are clearly safer because if one engine fails the other one will fly you to the crash site... or was this just a common joke around the flying club?

[@Tabithanyambasi]

Which is the most comfortable piston aircraft

[@farwalker3672]

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.

[@LukeKirk1113]

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

[@skyboy1956]

680FL Aero Commander, Howard 500, Cessna 421

[@merc340sr]

I used to have a Rotax engine in my snowmobile!

[@deltagolf9266]

Generally it is the pilot that is unsafe not the airplane. The difference between professional pilot and a weekend general aviation pilot is training. A professional pilot gets professional recurrent training every 6 to 12 months. The GA pilots gets a biannual flight review and doesn't think or practice emergency procedures again for 2 years. Why are airliners designed with 2 engines and 2 pilots. SAFETY and the airline or corporation provides the training to keep it safe.

[@tonyl9051]

You have not shown any safety data to back up your claim about twin engines are not safer than single engines. Then you move on to single engines to recycle past information you presented to make this video. Not good.

[@larryfinke6133]

Doublng something is not “exponential”.

[@aaronmuller5891]

75 percent of this whole video is wrong. All these planes are diamond twins which burn the same fuel with 2 engines as a piston single.

[@SoloRenegade]

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

[@jimmysalt8825]

Wow, this is not very reliable information.

[@EricPham-gr8pg]

Not really , two engine is better but must be having a way to link it so if we lose one engine other kept power but if single engine then if one gone then entire plane gone...the Navy before always chose twin engine but must linked as an option otherwise it useless also torque propblem need to considered and measure and calibrated correctly

[@CLdriver1960]

The only accurate comment you made is: if you lose an engine in a single engine airplane, you’re a glider.

[@skyboy1956]

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

[@CLdriver1960]

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

[@skyboy1956]

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

[@CLdriver1960]

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

[@skyboy1956]

@@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

[@markpaolino4264]

Yo nimrod, no way is a single is safer then a twin, especially on take-off. If you are a good pilot, follow your checklist, and keep on your tows during take-off a twin is safer. If you are not doing that, you have no business flying.

[@randywilliams324]

It's a Matter of option buddy.

[@juliojames5986]

Let me do the math for you, lets say you are flying a single engine plane, one engine quits…..your options are limited ! Duh ! No need to go through the hypothetical of being in a twin, one quits…duh….statistics do not always tell facts…. Looking for a tri motor ??

[@fsodn]

The title of this video is disingenuous. The title says that "better" and "safer" than twins. Then in the first few minutes of the video, you start making the argument that twins are *more expensive*, which, while true, is a completely separate argument.

[@conradsenior5843]

Because if you lose one engine you crash?

[@scottfranco1962]

They are awesome in getting rid of all that pesky cash lying around...

[@skyboy1956]

single engine planes are not safer than twins. Better is subjective.

[@scottfranco1962]

There is always that comment, I believe by Lindberg, when asked why he didn't choose a twin to cross the Atlantic "its just twice as much to go wrong".

[@whoprofits2661]

Awesome, just fly a glider then.

[@linkfreeman1998]

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

[@scottfranco1962]

@@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.

[@ibkickinit5580]

"twins are expensive and dangerous, get a Lancair instead" 🤣🤣🤣

[@ibkickinit5580]

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

[@kaushikvishwas9060]

Your sound is so low pls use Mike.

[@tatoo99999]

diamonds DA42 and 62 debunks this whole video. what is funny is that he is using a diamond plane background video to speak about failed twins. hilarious.

[@joeobrien3541]

This is BS. Competent pilots land on a runway after an engine failure.

[@roadcyclist1]

I can't tell if this guy is making such ridiculous statements because he is that clueless or just wants to get views. And no, a single engine plane is not safer, unless you are a terrible pilot. Twin engines burn more fuel so dont buy one? Haha..do you think anyone cares about the extra fuel burn if they had the means to purchase a twin in the first place?

[@skyboy1956]

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

[@kevinmurphy3464]

This guy needs to go back to school.

[@mandymedichi1135]

This video is horrible I live in the Caribbean nothing better than a twin engine.

[@SoloRenegade]

caravan seaplane

[@skippyfixit]

2 is 1 , 1 is none

[@joshschwartz5663]

This video is 90% factually inaccurate - if you’re trying to compare singles vs. twins I’d find another video to watch…

[@abrabutler]

Too much false information! From pressurization, to acquisition cost.

[@christophergeorge6581]

Your premise that said gles are safer than twins is false, if you have ever had total eginefai.ure inside gle at night your chance of survival is very low, had several gi efailures inside gles one close to the airport so made it, second flying from one airport to another about 20 miles apart climbed to 8000ft engine crank broke past glider pilot landed OK, my last single after that a. A.ways twins with over 5000 hours, twins with proper train are far safer, Christopher Ottawa canadA

[@sj8016]

So biased and absolutely unprofessional going over Diamond D62 footage when ranting over twins and moving onto compare kit and experimental aircraft with fully licensed and approved GA aircraft ... Do us a favour

[@cliffbruner4281]

Anyone who has basic knowledge of Diamond aircraft knows this is a crock.

[@flybobbie1449]

Problem is no record of single engine twin landings. We hear about the crashes, but never the single engine returns. If i had the money, i would buy a twin. In 17k hours instructing had several engine problems and 2 into a field.

[@xbutterlicousx]

this is the most awful video ive watched

[@bryantlaws4187]

This is absolute false nonsense other than yeah the cost more. Please do not listen to this, almost none of this makes any sense!

[@markwolfgang7407]

What is wrong with your voice?

[@rchrdsn]

The content is good, but I don't like this narrator. I disliked it for that.

[@christianmehl7394]

Haha, no, ney never!

[@SoloRenegade]

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