sigmatero wrote:If you could have a 2-place, ~200 hp (total), twin experimental that would perform as well as a single with the same operating costs and identical build price, would you prefer it when flying in the backcountry?

And assume: IFR capable, high performance, turbo-normalized, with a high single-engine service ceiling.

In other words, does the fact that it's a twin turn you off because of the extra flying requirements, or does the added safety of the extra engine in the backcountry make up for the complexity?

Are you asking because you think there is a real possibility of it performing as well at the same cost, or because you are wondering about it being safer because it has 2 engines and you would be willing to pay the higher costs?

There's a lot of talk about odds of an engine failure.
With a twin you DO have twice the chance of an engine failure. Just as you do have twice the chance that an engine will come up for an oil change.

If one engine does fail can the aircraft maintain altitude? if not then the 2nd engine will only increase your glide distance (which may help).

My own opinion is that simpler is better when it comes to backcountry planes. Single engine means: less things to go wrong, lighter, less fuel to carry, less oil to buy, lower maintenance costs etc.

But if what you want is a twin and are willing to spend the extra, go for it.
Have fun!!!

The AirCam is what you want. Single engine economy, twin redundancy. They are even building an enclosed cockpit version now for LE.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1pG9LylhzQ

When I got my multi rating a few decades ago, my instructor bombarded me with "on take off, depending on your currency, you have a single engine aircraft until you feel that stay in control and continue in a climb if you lose an engine. That may be anywhere between 200' and 400' AGL. Below that, you have a multi engine single. If you lose an engine below that, power off on the good one and set it down straight ahead".

I believe, if you can afford it, what a twin provides is safety over mountainous or wooded terrain where there is no place to land safely. It is not for saving an engine out on take off. I have a few thousand hours on twins, and I have lost an engine 3 times: once on take off at about 400' and two at cruise (both over inhospitable terrain where a crash landing might have killed me). That's not counting the 2 times I did a precautionary shutdown. The fact is, that although there were twice the chance of losing an engine, I had another good one that took me safely to an airport, and here I am.

I understand, agree that simple is better in the backcountry. And I accept that with a twin you have twice the chance of losing an engine, but what are the chances that you'll lose it low after take off instead of anytime during the flight? And, in my case, if I were to lose it under 300' or 400' the other engine comes off, and I land straight ahead. So, a twin is not any more dangerous than a single under the same circumstances. IMHO!!

Eduardo