Okay, single or twin??

AusCan said:

Neither singles or twins are better, its just a matter of suitability to the owner and the boat.

Click to expand...

Very nicely said!!!

Direct, all-around engine access:

That's kinda like "boxers or briefs" it's whatever you're comfy with. Personally, I drive and prefer a twin, but, if I'd found a boat that fit everything I wanted as this one does with a single, I wouldn't have hesitated to purchase it either. It's more about the boat than the engines in my opinion.

Erikj said:

First large boat for me and using primarily as live on board. Planning on having slip in SF Bay Area location or possibly as far inland as Antioch. I'd like to be able to take it out and do some fishing or cruising on multi day trips.
Will I be disappointed with a single engine vs. twins?
What are advantages and / or drawbacks from either?
I've got several on my radar but have been shying away from singles.
Please let me know your opinions and why.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Well... now that we've covered all the usual angles on this topic...

I shake my head at some of the responses. I wonder how many actually read the OP? All the usual banter about safety, "get-home" engines, unavailability of sea-tow, crossing oceans, and need for Nordhavns. Ok... there have been some good responses and information applicable to the OP including the very well addressed pros and cons.

Folks. To bring this back full circle. He's looking primarily for a liveaboard and will be cruising the SF Bay and Delta!!! Find a boat you can live with, and definitely don't exclude the singles.

Love this forum though.

Actually, there have been several responses that answered th op's questions, maybe with a little additional input .

Question:

"...Will I be disappointed with a single engine vs. twins?
What are advantages and / or drawbacks from either?
I've got several on my radar but have been shying away from singles.
Please let me know your opinions and why."

Answer (in progression):

1) don't know. Won't know till you try them both on for fit.

2) answered by numerous posters.
Advantages: speed, redundancy, manuverability, power to get out of a bad spot.

Disadvantages : cost, repairs and maintenance, fuel cost, unprotected props, ER space.

Here's where it gets tricky (lol):

"I've got several on my radar but have been shying away from singles.
Please let me know your opinions and why."

That's where just about everyone answered his question. "Opinions" are, well, opinions. And everyone gave him theirs including me in post 84. That's what he asked for.

I'll add one more "answer" to the list.
Don't shy away from either until you've tried them both under the conditions you plan on using yours in. With some research, conversations with the owners, and a little hands on time, you'll probably be able to decide for yourself what fits your needs, lifestyle and budget the best

OD

As an operator, all my experience has been with a single engine (not counting motorless gliders, sailboats, canoes, and such): an outboard on an aluminum "row boat" on Storm Lake, Iowa, an inboard on an auxiliary sailboat in the SF estuary, an outboard on an auxiliary sailboat in the SF estuary, and now a single-engine cruiser with a bow thruster in the SF estuary. Also flown on a commercial single-engine plane between Albuquerque and Gallup (but not as the pilot). All my automobiles were single-engine. None ever failed me over fifty-plus decades.

Fifty decades is a lot, Mark. No wonder your posts always seem so wise!

As Richard ("Brittania") observed earlier on this thread, former sailboaters may by experience feel more instinctively at ease with a single-engined power boat. It's true for me - after years of maneuvering an underpowered displacement hulled 41' ketch with a little two-bladed prop, anything else seems positively luxurious.

Yeah, I got stranded by a bad starter once, with passengers aboard and not a breath of wind. Lashed my inflatable alongside and hip-towed back to the dock.

Also had a 3208 Cat in a twin-engined sport fisherman fail on a dark and windy night, and had to figure out how to back that thing into its slip on the remaining engine.

Off Duty said:

Actually, there have been several responses that answered th op's questions, maybe with a little additional input .

Question:

"...Will I be disappointed with a single engine vs. twins?
What are advantages and / or drawbacks from either?
I've got several on my radar but have been shying away from singles.
Please let me know your opinions and why."

Answer (in progression):

1) don't know. Won't know till you try them both on for fit.

2) answered by numerous posters.
Advantages: speed, redundancy, manuverability, power to get out of a bad spot.

Disadvantages : cost, repairs and maintenance, fuel cost, unprotected props, ER space.

Here's where it gets tricky (lol):

"I've got several on my radar but have been shying away from singles.
Please let me know your opinions and why."

That's where just about everyone answered his question. "Opinions" are, well, opinions. And everyone gave him theirs including me in post 84. That's what he asked for.
Snip

OD

Click to expand...

Well written, and I agree with most of what you wrote. Just a little observation that while we all have opinions, and I enjoy reading many of them, often the "opinion" that is posted has absolutely no relevance to what was asked. Just typical internet stuff! Maybe I'm just tired. I think I'll go to bed early. Wrestle with my kids mom.

Phyrcooler said:

Well written, and I agree with most of what you wrote. Just a little observation that while we all have opinions, and I enjoy reading many of them, often the "opinion" that is posted has absolutely no relevance to what was asked. Just typical internet stuff! Maybe I'm just tired. I think I'll go to bed early. Wrestle with my kids mom.

Click to expand...

Hey brother, I hear ya and agree!
Now, go forth and do battle with yon fair maiden:lol:

Blissboat said:

Fifty decades is a lot, Mark. No wonder your posts always seem so wise!

Click to expand...

Baker said:

...if they are not able to meet that specification, then they are required to have a stall speed of 61 knots or below...just like a single. I think a Piper Apache(PA23) falls into this category.

Click to expand...

Yes, the joke at HNL where there were several Apaches was the only place in the US an Apache can maintain altitude on one engine is Death Valley.

Baker said:

The certification of light twin engine airplanes requires them to maintain a climb rate(I think the spec is 100fpm up to 5000 feet) on one engine at MGTOW and with the critical engine failed. And guess what....if they are not able to meet that specification, then they are required to have a stall speed of 61 knots or below...just like a single. I think a Piper Apache(PA23) falls into this category.

Click to expand...

Marin said:

Yes, the joke at HNL where there were several Apaches was the only place in the US an Apache can maintain altitude on one engine is Death Valley.

Click to expand...

Baker: I believe that Piper's intention with the Apache was to have a low stall speed regardless of the certification requirements. Evidenced by the fact that the Apache's stall speed is 9 knots BELOW the 61 knot requirement that you cited.

Also, the published service ceiling is over 5000 feet. Even for the low power models.

Marin: There was I time when the Apache was one of the most ridiculed planes in the sky. The "plump" styling did not match the later trends and most Apaches were relegated to flight training and corresponding poor maintenance.

I suppose that the worst examples with filed down propellers (poor thrust), bristling with added antennas (drag), bad hydraulics that allow the gear to sag (lots of drag), and multiple layers of paint (heavy) may have performed well under the published data.

I flew my Apache 1000 hours over 9 years. I found the single engine performance to match the published data nicely.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to not want to own an Apache (there are over 100 ADs (maintenance directives)). However, I feel that the most common complaints (slow and will not fly on one engine) are completely inaccurate.

I miss flying this plane. I do not miss maintaining it.



Steve

I was not singling out the Apache as a weak or undesirable airplane. I was just saying that is likely where it fell in the certification process. I think the SE service ceiling was right at 5000 or just below...which required it to fall in the stall speed category and not the rate of climb category...if that makes any sense. Anyways, I have about 200 hours in the things. It was so long ago that I would be seriously dangerous in one right now. My 737 is easier to fly than that thing....on one engine anyway. Like somebody said....it climbs just fine...but it sure takes its time in cruise!!!!

Baker, I understand.

And with my little myth-busting rant, I hope I did not come across as a Zealot.

Cheers,

Steve

Panope said:

Baker, I understand.

And with my little myth-busting rant, I hope I did not come across as a Zealot.

Cheers,

Steve

Click to expand...

Not at all!!! Just defending your baby!!!

Marin said:

A common argument in favor of single-engine boats is that commercial fishing boats are generally single engine. But.... these boats are mostly crewed, particularly with the larger seiners, gillnetters, crabbers and combination boats used today. They tend to have at least one crew member who is a very good mechanic. And they have the space and capacity to carry a lot of spares and tools.

Click to expand...

Marin, that's misleading. For purposes of comparison, it makes more sense to concentrate on fishboats of size comparable to most recreational trawlers, say 32 to 42 feet... These modest gillnetters and trollers typically operate with a crew of two, and don't waste fishhold space on "lots of spares and tools". If single engines were a big liability for them, they would be twin engined -- but they aren't. Search the marine investigation reports for westcoast fishboats by Transport Canada and the NTSB, and let us know if you find any that mention engine failure.

QB said:

If single engines were a big liability for them, they would be twin engined -- but they aren't.

Click to expand...

Anyone who tries to earn a living from the ocean is going to be pretty cost conscious. A single engine boat is less expensive to build, buy, and maintain. One engine takes up a lot less room and weighs less than two, space and capacity that can be used for fish and fishing's supporting equipment.

The smaller fishboats would be single engine regardless of any differences in the reliability of singles vs twins because a twin engine fishboat would carry too great an economic penalty.

If I had a dollar for every book or magazine story I've read over the last 30 years or so about a one or two person troller or gillnetter working the BC coast that talked about engine problems creating bad situations that could have been avoided with a twin I could afford that Fleming I've always wanted.

Now these fishermen were not bemoaning the fact they didn't have a twin, they were simply describing how even a minor engine problem can suddenly put a boat in a very bad situation if the problem occurs in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Baker said:

I think the SE service ceiling was right at 5000 or just below...which required it to fall in the stall speed category and not the rate of climb category...if that makes any sense.

Click to expand...

I got my multi engine rating in 1967, in an Apache. All my SE work was done at Prescott, AZ (5,000 ft ) If you didn't nail SE best rate of climb on the airspeed indicator, you were coming down. I flew the plane out of Flagstaff and all over Arizona (both engines running) and had a wonderful time until my G.I. Bill money ran out.Later my multi engine hours were in a Cessna 337, a 310 and a Beach. Baron Best time of my life!

My example of work boats was lobster boats. They are mostly in the 35-45 foot size range and normally carry two crew (the license holder and a sternman). Those boats are universally single engine. Around here they all fish in the open ocean. The bigger boats that fish in the winter are in the 40-55 foot range with most around 45 feet. Most of them carry two crew although a few have three. Winter lobster fishing is mostly done 20 to 50 miles out and the boats tend to stay out for several days at a time. Again those boats are all singles.

I suspect that part of the reason they are singles is that a twin would have considerably more than twice the chance of fouling a prop on a trap line.

The Key West lobster guys LOVE huge engines.

I was aboard one where too rapid shifting spun the prop off the shaft.

He called his kid to come tow him home and the tow was done with both !!! boats up on the plane at a guess 20K.

That a big time single engine!

FF said:

The Key West lobster guys LOVE huge engines.

I was aboard one where too rapid shifting spun the prop off the shaft.

He called his kid to come tow him home and the tow was done with both !!! boats up on the plane at a guess 20K.

That a big time single engine!

Click to expand...

Why didn't he dive for his prop? What happened to the cotter pin and double nuts? If the son simply brought out a new prop, no tow would have been needed... Still, key west explains a lot.

Stu

stubones99 said:

Why didn't he dive for his prop? What happened to the cotter pin and double nuts? If the son simply brought out a new prop, no tow would have been needed... Still, key west explains a lot.

Stu

Click to expand...

I read that as he wrung (broke) the shaft at the prop.

Ted

lucky that it broke outside the hull

Twins - Cause I love ta hear em sing together in revolving harmony when rpm's are perfectly synced. That IS a cool melody!

Kidding aside (sorta)... IMO

Singles are only superior to twins on one aspect: Due to full skeg off keel and back to rudder that can greatly protect the prop during easy grounding. Therein also becoming enabled is cage affair installation to thwart line snags on prop. But, if you are really careful none of that should happen.

Otherwise - Twins and planing hull with hard chines is my boat design of choice. Just make sure you always watch your depth sounder, go very slow in shallow waters, swim a lot!!! And, Play Baby - PLAY!

Art said:

Singles are only superior to twins on one aspect: Due to full skeg off keel and back to rudder that can greatly protect the prop during easy grounding. Therein also becoming enabled is cage affair installation to thwart line snags on prop.

Click to expand...

Well I like a big rudder too, but that's just me - others may not be as picky about what direction they're going.

I'm also kinda partial to a low COG and rolling moment. And a flat shaft angle, and a big prop, well down in the water. Again, that's just me - others might be happy squirreling along with marginal efficiency and control.

Oh, and I like large tanks. You know, for range.

Keith

refugio said:

Well I like a big rudder too, but that's just me - others may not be as picky about what direction they're going.

I'm also kinda partial to a low COG and rolling moment. And a flat shaft angle, and a big prop, well down in the water. Again, that's just me - others might be happy squirreling along with marginal efficiency and control.

Oh, and I like large tanks. You know, for range.

Keith

Click to expand...

Keith you don't know how many people you have just PO'd with these truisms.

Saw a flight of five or six F6F Hellcats fly overhead last week. All single-engine; none fell out of the sky. (Different-from-the-norm-sounding engines drew me out of the house to see what was about.)

markpierce said:

Saw a flight of five or six F6F Hellcats fly overhead last week. All single-engine; none fell out of the sky. (Different-from-the-norm-sounding engines drew me out of the house to see what was about.)

Click to expand...

Tough game to play Mark. A sad one too. Became familiar with the Pilatus story and airplane a few years through a nephew who regularly flew one. While he was doing that gig another one went down in MT with 14 on board. Unfortunately sad stories of this kind involving small airplanes never seem to let up.

sunchaser said:

Tough game to play Mark. A sad one too. Became familiar with the Pilatus story and airplane a few years through a nephew who regularly flew one. While he was doing that gig another one went down in MT with 14 on board. Unfortunately sad stories of this kind involving small airplanes never seem to let up.

Click to expand...

Sunchaser, not sure if your were commenting on SINGLE ENGINE aircraft or not.

But just to clarify, That single engine Pilatus crash that you mentioned did not involve an engine failure.

The error chain in action: Pilatus crash at Butte - Air Facts Journal

I agree that in general, small propeller driven aircraft safety (single or twin) is poor when compared to other modes of transportation like jet airliners or cars.

Steve

refugio said:

Well I like a big rudder too, but that's just me - others may not be as picky about what direction they're going.

I'm also kinda partial to a low COG and rolling moment. And a flat shaft angle, and a big prop, well down in the water. Again, that's just me - others might be happy squirreling along with marginal efficiency and control.

Oh, and I like large tanks. You know, for range.

Keith

Click to expand...

Yup, and all that space on both sides of the engine.

Ted