A Lieberma writes:

Since I operate in a REAL WORLD, please provide proof of the above. I want
you to provide real hard facts instead of simulated theory.

It's not simulated theory; it's simple math.

If the probability of an engine failing is p, the probability at least
one of n engines failing is 1-(1-p)^n. The probability of all of n
engines failing is p^n. This holds for both real life and simulation.

Thus, if the chance of an engine failure is 1 in 1000, the chance of
at least one failure in a twin is slightly better than one in 500.
The chance of both engines failing in a twin is one in a million. The
chance of one engine failing on a single is 1 in 1000, the same as the
chance of all engines failing.

The above is NOT a question, a statement. What credible source do you have
to support that twin engines suffer a higher rate of failure besides thw
words out of your mouth.

I have an education, which serves me pretty well.

Based on what you say, it should be raining twin engines over our skies.

No. However, I think you'll find that engine failures occur more
frequently on twins than on singles. You'll also find that the
complete loss of all propulsion is more common on singles than on
twins.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.