BDS wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote

Sadly, light twins have nearly become economically unfeasible for anything
but multi-engine training. Between acquisition, fuel, and maintenance
expenses, they've been driven to near extinction.

If you stay current there is the arguable added advantage of the extra
engine, and the duplicate vacuum and electrical systems, and the big plus of
easy loading of heavy items. I brought a snowblower home from across the
country in the back of ours a few years ago - try fitting one of those in
the back of any single - and have transported lots of equipment over the
years. We went to a trade show a few years back and had so much gear in the
back it would barely all fit into the rental car.

The added safety truly is arguable. I've seen comparisons over the
years that don't show any real advantage for twins. The added safety
provided for an engine failure in cruise is offset by the added risk of
an engine failure during takeoff and initial climb.

And the fuselage of most light twins is based on a single so the cargo
space isn't much different other than having baggage storage in the
nose, but you won't fit a snow blower in the nose on most light twins.


The extra engine and duplicate systems have also come in handy. Over the
years we have owned this particular aircraft I have had one complete engine
failure (sheared oil pump shaft) and two vacuum pump failures. When your
engine takes a hike over the mountains of WV it's nice to have another
completely good one still making noise.

Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy
(other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.

However, it definitely is getting too expensive to keep and operate since
the hauling type trips are getting more and more rare. We need to find a
fast single that is easy to put a 100-lb piece of ungainly demo equipment
into, and easy to get it back out.

Yes, it is probably almost as cheap to operate a single turbine engine
as it is two piston engines.

Matt