Love reading about these; although, it would hurt my retirement:-).

There was a good article in Twin and Turbine October called, “The Big Things About Little Engines”. It points out how little difference there sometimes is between flying a PW-21 v a -35 in the jet prop. When flight planning, the small time differences between some smaller and bigger engines. I understand why some need what’s in the topic, for most, the small gains in time savings may not be worth the extra costs.
At least, that’s my story and I’m stickn to it :-).

I don't think the twin/single debate is all emotion and OWT...sure you can look at statistics and you can choose to modify your search a bit to tweak the outcome to your desired intent, but the facts are still the facts. Many pilots screw up engine failures in twin engine aircraft and we read about those regularly. Many don't (and you don't hear about those). In an aircraft with sufficient power on a single remaining engine to hold altitude or climb, with a well trained crew, I think it's obvious that a second engine is safer. There is a reason there are no single engine airliners...it's not just a design restriction, they could be built and they would be very efficient...but unacceptably risky. If you fly mostly in day-time, good weather, in relatively urban areas, the chance of doing just fine with an engine failure in SETP is excellent (thus the low fatality rate, as most do fly just that way). If you fly a TETP and don't stay current, don't train, etc., your chance of engine failure is twice as high as in a SETP and you might get killed while you try to manage the situation. But if you train similar to the airlines, have a capable twin that can perform on one engine, and tend to fly at night, over mountains, in poor weather (all of which make dead-stick off-field landings harder), in regions that don't have lots of airfields (where I live, they are often more than 100 miles apart), or do lots of over-water trips, a twin makes sense. IMO, it's not about emotion and OWT's, there are very good reasons for choosing one or the other approach for each individual; it shouldn't be a cookie-cutter decision.

Putting all airplanes in either a "single" or "twin" category is the "emotional" part of the debate which creates the OWT.

All twins are not the same. All singles are not the same. Simply look at the stats for the airplane you fly. That's all you need to know.

Actually, there are airlines that use a single.

https://www.boutiqueair.com/p/our-aircraft

Botique Air is fast growing airline that uses PC-12s. 30+ aircraft.



How many MU2 fatalities were caused by an engine failure?

Everyone defends what they do and what they fly because anything else infers one isn't operating 'safe'. So yes I think SETP/METP is an emotional decision.

A decision that, at the end of the day, doesn't have much impact in your overall safety.

The PC-12 is a fantastic aircraft (I’m Swiss too, they are VERY detail oriented people and have a great product). But it’s not an airliner and Boutique Air is just another Part 135 operator. Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, heck even Dassault, Cessna and the other large business jet manufacturers...not a single one engine design among them. They are very cost conscious and so are their customers. Yet nobody wants a highly efficient, low maintenance, single engine aircraft...just an emotional reaction?
It’s the ops specs, pilot training and equipment of course. As to the plane I fly most, absolutely the MU-2 has a pretty poor record. Not so bad when type specific training became mandatory. B747 statistics (even with 4 engines) would likely be pretty poor if you only needed a multi engine rating and flew single pilot.
It needs to be a mission specific decision, not an emotional one. In my experience combined with our corporate pilots at our company, we’ve had 3 partial power losses in twin pistons, one in a piston single, one outright failure in a piston twin, and one catastrophic failure in a turbine twin. That’s counting since ‘83 with one Centurion, two Aerostars, one Baron, 4 King Airs and one MU-2 over the years. It happens. It can usually be managed well in a single, but it depends a great deal where you fly.

The airlines are driven by regulation that requires redundant engines. So a self fulfilling prophecy, whether or not driven by data. 121.159, single engine aircraft prohibited. Doesn't mean it is data driven, but then again the stakes are high, so 2 pilots, 2 engines, etc, although there have been many dual engine flame outs, and surprisingly many of them with good results in off-field landings.

Well this thread went to hell in a hand basket.

I’ve got a C172 that stalls at 49mph. I’ve got a Baron. Which is safer?

See yah. Have a good day.

Actually, I think your question has a definable answer. Depends on what you want to do. As a tool to train a new pilot, hands down the Cessna. Daytime local trips with little weather, still the Cessna (but slower and less carrying capacity). Nighttime over mountains with weather (and proper training)...Baron.

This was suppose to be a thread on the three planes in title. I come back daily excited to see activity and see more pc12 stuff.... :(

So there’s your answer. It Depends

Flew to Orlando last Friday ....weather terrible. Thunderstorms everywhere, probably the most turbulent flight I have ever been on. Two days at Simcom and flew home crossing multiple fronts, more ice, more turbulence, dodging thunderstorms, approach to minimuns
torrential rains, winds gusting to 25 sixty degrees off the nose. Ten thousand feet higher at 41k with some hot wings would have made this trip a lot more comfortable?!?
I’m beat....

Haha. Cool post.

Even at 45k I’ll, be saying if I could just get another 1000ft

Andrew

You'd be wrong there. The standard southbound departure from KDAL in a PC12, assuming north flow, is initial 2000ft, then 3000ft, until you are pretty much outside their B. (JPOOL9 departure, CLL or WINDU transition) On a good day, they step you up to 4000 or 5000ft. The arrivals are inbound at 5000 above you.
We often burn 600lbs between KDAL and KAUS because of their "efficient" routing.

I do agree with you though - you can glide to a safe landing anywhere in the metroplex in a PC12 from 3000ft.

I second Miko's Dallas departure description. Texoma departure from ADS and I am always kept low, doing 250 IAS at 3k waiting to climb. Not sure where you would land if you lost an engine and were over the meaty part of Dallas though. It's a concrete jungle.

I think an underrated positive to the jets mentioned in this thread is how smooth and quiet they are from the pilot seat. I have flown the various SETPs, while smoother than pistons for sure, none of them are quiet and none of them are vibration free. Most of the twin TPs I have been in are better in that regard.

Back to original posting - I flew a Honda Jet and spent a lot of time digging through the POH. The payload/range was a bummer for my typical profiles as was the high/hot, or lack of, performance. That said, it was the easiest plane to fly I have ever been in. By a mile. Intuitive and handles great. Pulling one engine was the definition of a non-event.

If I could afford one of these, I would upgrade in a hot minute and occasionally stop for gas. I love flying as much as the next guy, but it doesn't take too many flights in the winter time getting crushed by 100 knots on the nose to want to be able to go 400kts. I think you buy all of these for the headwind days. Even a Pilatus seems fast when you are heading somewhere with a brisk breeze on the tail! I used to sit in the Malibu for 7.5hrs. The Mitts can go for 5.5. 3.5 in a small jet sounds about right.

The M2 seems sweet from a pilot perspective but if passengers opinion matter, I found the other two significantly more comfortable.

I wonder which is faster at max altitude on a hot day? When I was looking at Premiers, I was surprised how slow they got at 410 when loaded up and it was warm. The Honda Jet took a big hit in those conditions as well.

I've been making it a point to take note of headwinds at FL450 on ADDS in the last year and rarely is it so different.