single-engine or twin engine airplane,which one is safer & why ?

Question

add prices or companies if you want too!

Answer 1

for7949 forgot weather conditions. Which are one of the leading causes of most accidents.

Linda R is not totally accurate. A multi engine is usually always a complex class aircraft, but that because of the landing gear and the propeller. And it's that feature that makes a twin harder to fly, but there are single engine complex aircraft also. Common twin-engine airplanes with counter rotating props have no p-factor making it actually easier to fly than a single engine.

Chuck is incorrect in his answer. An engine is an engine and the same lessness goes wrong in a twin. And a twin also becomes a glider if both engines quit. And feathering a propeller is not hard, you just pull a lever. And you don't have to feather the propeller. Feathering only reduces drag. If you're at 10,000 feet and an engine fails, and you don't feather the propeller, your climb performance is reduced but it doesn't mean you'll crash.

eferrell's answer is good. and fit more with the facts.

But there is a factor to consider. If you're flying in IMC conditions or above a heavy cloud layer, which would you rather be in? A twin engine or a single engine? In a single engine, if the engine quits, you're going down, period. And in IMC that can be dangerous.

In a twin, you can still fly if one on your engines quit. Although climb performance is dramatically reduce, you can usually at least maintain your altitude and can make it to an airport to land safely.

So my answer is: All planes are safe, but a twin engine adds redundancy and two is always better than one. Plus twin's fly faster and when you get somehwere quicker, you reduce the time in which things can go wrong.

Answer 2

In theory, a twin would be safer, because if one engine quits, you can still fly on the other. Old twins, which were described by the military as having a negative climb rate with one engine inoperative, were only good for carrying you a little farther from the scene of the original crashsite.
Modern twins are better, having a climb rate on one engine.
However the statistics show that there are fewer fatal crashes in singles after the loss of an engine than in twins. This could be due to the fact that there are a lot of successful engine out landings in twins that are not reported.
It all depends on the pilot. How good are you?

Answer 3

Wow, there are a lot of variables in that question. First, a bit of advise. I'm sure you'll get a lot of opinions here that may or may not be valuable to you making this decision (including mine). You'll just really have to do your homework yourself to come up with the best plan. Do you have a few different types of planes in mind? That would help narrow it down. There is such a wide range of aircraft out there, both single engine and twin engine. Your budget will probably be the ultimate deciding factor. Take into consideration the mountain crossing. Most trainer-type airplanes (single or twin) will have a hard time clearing the Rockies unless you take a more southerly route or do some mountain pass flying (if you are considering that, make sure to spend a lot of time with a qualified instructor first! I have over 3,000 hours and I wouldn't do such a trip without an instructor). A high-performance single or twin to get you across the mountains easier. A turbocharger and oxygen system will help with the altitude issue. Additional instruction is still prudent if you choose to fly high above the mountains. Winds and weather patterns are completely different when you bring mountains into the equation. The downside to high performance planes is that is you may be hard pressed to get insurance coverage until you have more time. Insurance may also be an issue in any kind of twin engine plane at this point. With all of that said, a single engine plane is certainly cheaper all around. Your fuel burn will be less, and there's only one engine for inspection/overhaul when that comes due. Landing and parking fees are cheaper in a single engine plane. I can't give you any kind of exact numbers because they will vary greatly depending on if you're talking about a Cessna 150 or a Piper Malibu. A twin engine is nice because of the systems redundancy, but this isn't as critical until you get an instrument rating. The extra engine is certainly a feel-good thing to have, but especially with low-time pilots, it isn't a safety feature. The biggest advantage is for flying in clouds or at night. You'll have two independent vacuum systems, independent electrical systems, and yes, the second engine will keep you in the air longer (but not necessarily to an airport for just about any piston twin in the mountains) if the first fails *IF* you are sharp on your procedures. My first stop would be to an aviation insurance agent. Find out what you're insurable in and what premiums are in your range. Then make a list of possible planes that you can fly. Build a decision matrix listing all of the variables you are considering and look at the tradeoffs. Single vs. twin? Turbocharged vs. normally aspirated? Fixed gear vs. retractable? Fuel burn? Cruise speed? Engine TBO? Expected annual hours vs. time-limited ADs/inspections/etc.? Sorry, no specific answers from me, but I hope this helps you start your research. Good luck!

Answer 4

If it's safety that is your primary concern, what you want to look at is your deadstick glide ratio and stall speed. The further it'll glide and the slower its going when you touchdown the more likely you are to find a suitable emergency landing spot if it dies on you and the less energy involved if you hit something landing.
I regard most twins as being somewhat marginal in single engine mode and requiring even more constant practice to remain proficient with than single engine, which can have that one engine very well pampered. This is a personal preference and also has to do with costs and the ability to also pay for the necessary maintenence.
Again, if safety is your ultimate requirement, consider getting one of the whole airplane parachutes. (Brand name not mentioned in deference to Yahoo). But, nothing will help if you fail to exercise good judgement or don't understand what the airplane is actually doing and capable of. Remember the ultimate rule, "No matter what happens, FLY THE AIRPLANE."

Answer 5

Statistically speaking, single engine is safer. When the powerplant fails, you have no choice but to become a glider pilot. The light twin guy, who probably hasn't had any recent good recurrent training, is a bit rusty on single engine stuff and will usually try to ask more of the airplane than it can give. He usually ends up as a smoking hole in the ground.

The real key to safety is how well one is trained and what one does to stay current. Being able to consider the "what ifs?" for each segment of one's flight ensures that one will always have a plan of some sort when things head for the weeds.

Answer 6

I prefer single engine, there is less to go wrong and it turns into a glider if the engine quits.
The argument for twins is there are two engines you have a back up in case one quits, but you have to feather that one engine and not many pilots are proficient enough to do that in an emergency. Look at the statistics, I think you'll find more twins than single engines, when you take away the pilot error factor which is the leading cause of accidents.

Answer 7

The most important piece of equipment is the "nut behind the wheel". If its loose then God help you. If its tight then God help you. Its got to be "just right".

Most of the time the pilot is the difference between what might have happened and a newspaper story. Get the proper training and stay current and the question is irrelevant.

Answer 8

single engine airplanes are easy to fly. Simply because of the fact that there is only one engine to worry about. try both and you'll find out what you like.

Answer 9

All of them are safe, it's either the pilot or mechanical errors that cause unsafe situations.