To reiderate what some have commented on already:

The single engine service ceiling for a twin is usually pretty low. (my twin commanche was like 5000 feet)

If you define back country flying as short unimproved strips (some of which may be above 5000 MSL) the extra engine creates more of a disadvantage than an advantage. Maybe the Cessna 336 or the 326 which have a centerline thrust would be an option. I have never flown one and they arent seen too often in the back country (by me at least).
Very few twins will have minimum contrallable airspeeds that are slow enough to allow for a short take off and landing. Also consider accellerate stop distance. An engine failure on takeoff is the worst scenario and unless you have enough runway to accelerate to takeoff speed and shut down and stop before the end of the runway, you can kiss your ass goodbuy.

If given the coice of a C310 or C210 for crossing a high maountain pass, I would choose the 210 hands down. The failure of an engine is easier to deal with IMO. If you need to look for a clearing to land in while trying to keep your crippled twin flying, you are going to spend too much attention to controlling the plane or not enough on finding the best place to land. Better visibility below with a high wing too. Twins are overrated. I only got my multi engine ticket so I could work as a pilot. The more I learned about flying twins , the less comfortable I was with them. Flying a twin in IMC alone is a chore too. A twin otter may be the exception to all of this, but that's a lot of expense for flying the backcountry.

sigmatero wrote: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?

Not at all!
This was built to explore that exact idea, and the rumor mill suggests the idea is alive, well, and potentially moving towards a marketable direction...



Take care, Rob

soyAnarchisto wrote:Blu - odds of engine failure are purely independent. It is a mathematical impossibility to double the odds of failure with a second engine.

You are right and then less right.

They are independant, but think about it this way. If an "average engine" fails once in 10,000 hours, and it can happen anywhere in that 10,000 hours (random failure pattern - not a good assumption but for this example we'll assume).
Then if you took 100 engines and ran them all at once, you would expect that one fails every 100 hours (every combined 10,000 hours of service life across the fleet).

So while the probability either engine fails remains the same (you're right), the cumulative chance of a failure occurring anywhere in the system is increased.

i thought that aircam looked impressive,docile single engine operation.

Aeroprakt took a stab at this concept with their A-36 twin, but it's out of production now. Cruise around 120 knots, cost about $175,000. They claimed 800 fpm climb and a 15,000 ft ceiling on one Rotax 912S. Details: http://www.dreamwings.co.za/Other_aircraft/a36.htm

With both engines running it does this:

Wow that's pretty impressive
Wonder why it didn't catch on?

hey I think I would fly this twin in the bush helio courier h-500 twin

cstolaircraft wrote:hey I think I would fly this twin in the bush helio courier h-500 twin

What are those pods on the wing tips?
Seems a strange place for extra fuel (high bending moment).

Rob,
What is that? I want one...

Dornier DO28
Not 200hp and not good on 1 engine, but is pretty decent performance, Looks like it would work tho.

Rob wrote:

sigmatero wrote: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?

Not at all!
This was built to explore that exact idea, and the rumor mill suggests the idea is alive, well, and potentially moving towards a marketable direction...



Take care, Rob

Well I guess I misjudged. Something like this would make a great back country plane assuming it performs like it looks

soy
Call me weird, but I think that is one of the most beautiful aircraft built!!
GT

I don't think you are weird. I think you are right. Rutan is a genious.

I was going to mention the Defiant. Two o-320 Lycomings. Not a bush plane by a long shot but a nice traveler. Cheap.

EB

Hey GT, don't mistake the Dornier D28 D with the D28 B-1. They are completely different airplanes. The D model is a big heavy clunker with gear engines. It's pretty good for skydiving from long runways.

Now, the B-1 is a whole different airplane. Used by Air America in SE Asia extensively from jungle strips (or more like clearings), is the real STOL version, much smaller with Lyc 540 290hp engines. Here is a picture:



Eduardo

I don't know how much this has in relation to the original post, but there are a few posts and pictures of light twin so I thought that I'd throw in another. According to wikipedia, the Pilatus Twin Porter never went beyond a prototype. Once the Turbo Porter came out it probably wasn't really needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-8D_Twin_Porter




-Nate

PatínLoco wrote:Hey GT, don't mistake the Dornier D28 D with the D28 B-1. They are completely different airplanes. The D model is a big heavy clunker with gear engines. It's pretty good for skydiving from long runways.

Now, the B-1 is a whole different airplane. Used by Air America in SE Asia extensively from jungle strips (or more like clearings), is the real STOL version, much smaller with Lyc 540 290hp engines. Here is a picture:



Eduardo

Yep Thats the one
Has about the same specs as my Broussard, just goes a little faster
Seeing as it's a twinn, when you come up Take me for a ride and then we'll fly the Wilga and the Broussard, Makes 2 for 2 right!!

Blu wrote:
What's the saying about light twins "the second engine has just enough power to get you to the scene of the crash"

..which is convenient since you are headed that way anyway..

You got yourself a deal, GT!! Those are two airplanes I've wanted to fly for a long time. And, if you come to El Salvador, you can fly a C-47, L 4 Cub, and 450 Stearman. Wow, have you noticed that there are a lot of pilots out there that do not understand us!