At 4:14 into the video, the commentator misstates the Diamond twin's fuel consumption as "miserable" instead of "miserly" as shown in the accompanying subtitle.

No mention of the Twin Comanche, probably the best personal piston engine aircraft ever made.

It is unfortunate that so many of the DA42 specs are grossly inaccurate. The SE service ceiling is 16,000’ (on a standard day, 50 feet/minute SE climb rate). Fuel consumption is ridiculously low in the Diamond twins (and DA40 with the Austro). The author should really put in correction captions in the video - detracts from credibility otherwise. Also, the piece starts out by talking why people looking at expensive singles for their personal flying should consider light twins as an alternative (agreed), but then concludes that the “Seminole is going to remain the number 1 choice for the training market.” Talk about completely changing the point of your video! I also think the Tecnam twin is a nice alternative to a lot of other 140 knot personal singles - and their new interiors are among the nicest in the segment, actually, right up there with Diamond interiors (much nicer than a Seminole interior….)

Twin engine aircraft are an excellent value and safer than singles IF: proper training, and maintenance is present. The reason statistics show otherwise is myriad events where the second engine gets you out of trouble, no one ever knows and no data is recorded.

Great video, I did my multi engine command instrument rating on the Duchess, and did one renewal on the Tecnam P2006T, great planes and fun to fly

"Even with one engine shut down there is enough power to arrive at the scene of the accident.'

Diamond go to commercial schools for commercial reasons. Best twin cheap, Seminole. Next Duchess.

Interesting fact is fatalities are higher in twins with a single engine failure, than engine failure in a single. This is counterintuitive at first, but makes sense as so many singles are slow. Cheers

Great video, If you would be good if you added a comparison of rental rates, single engine service ceiling and complexity of engine failure for each model listed.

Cessna skymaster… with GAMIs, 18gph 150 knots, 1000 miles, with full fuel AND 950 pounds in the cabin. Under 75k for non turbo.

Those specifications on the Seminole are quite optimistic. If you want to cary 4 people they have to average 135lbs or you can't fly with full tanks. It's a great trainer, but you'd be better off with any number of singles over the Seminole.

I have done my MEP training in the tecnam P2006T and I can say it is really cold in there, having the two engines far away from the cockpit. Maybe it is better in the summer.

I am one of the caretakers of 5 count them 5 BE-76 Duchess and yes finding parts for these fun well designed airplanes is not easy. Throw in the fact that the last AD on the A-frames of the landing gear will set you back 9000 k $ per side to be compliant and you can see why these lovely ladies are slowly disappearing 😢. So you are left with the choice to do the MANDATORY 100 hour NDI testing on said PN: ( it is a real pain taking it off every 100) and send out for testing by a level 2 NDI tester. All this said i still love them. 😂 good luck.

Light twins are not under rated. The light twins that have similar performance figures as big singles and were only intended to be used for training are over rated.

Let's, take a look, Light twins in general cannot Fly on only One engine. Engine overhauls are expensive and you have two of them to do. Operating costs are higher in general. These are the main reasons why light twins are cheap and not as popular as singles. Yes I own a single and have for over 40 years.

Where did you get your specs. on the Diamond DA-42? You are way off on engine horsepower and single engine performance. Max. single engine altitude is 16,000 ft with much better climb rate to that altitude than you specify. With 168 hp per side it is a good performer with better Jet A1 consumption than most comparable single engine planes.

where did you find the 240/hr rental for the tecnam?

My school has 11 Da-42s, and at any giving time, there are 4-5 operational, the others have engines problems, since they are over-complicated engines, and it takes several weeks to get parts in.

Why can't you make the fuslog out of plxecyglass!!. Then you could see rilly good

Rental rates are a bit off in my opinion. For example a Tecnam P2006 in my local flight school is $435/hr wet.

Open question to anyone who wants to answer because I literally can't find the information - is Piper still producing the Seneca V ?? On the Piper website, they do NOT list it in their "aircraft model" list. I even contacted Piper and never got a reply. I googled it a dozen times and can't find anything. So if anyone knows the answer, please give us the scoop. Thanks.

At 1:38. - those props look pretty bent out of shape??

The tecnam twin burns the same amount of fuel as a 172 yet cruises like a 182. Higher overhaul costs are worth it for the spare engine IMO.

Twice the maintenance cost… twice the fuel

If you've flown a Seminole then you know it's a bad twin to own for anyone that's not a flight school. The useful load is almost always eaten up by the fuel and the CoG is almost impossible to get aft into standards with full tanks. The fuel consumption and cruise speeds really aren't that impressive.

It’s expensive enough to maintain one engine. And if there is no significant performance boost, then what’s the point.

So he proved you want none of those

Why buy a DA62 for $1.5M when you can get a much more roomy and capable C340A RAM 5 for under $200K. just the interest on the $1.3M price differential will more than cover the increased operating costs

The Seminole flies like garbage, the Dutchess flys very nice. More useful load, larger cabin. Much nicer airplane

Well here’s the thing. Twins don’t fly very well on one engine and you’ve got two engines to worry about. I’ll stick with my single engine Cherokee.

VMC was mentioned with the Seminole aircraft. This aircraft having counter rotating propellers is a safety factor which can not be denied, however............by definition as per the FAR's (Federal Aviation Regulations) the VMC (velocity of minimum control) With the aircraft loaded to maxim weight to the aft center gravity limit at sea level on a standard atmospheric day with the "CRITICAL" engine inoperative or windmilling VMC is reached at the point where directional control can not be maintained. By definition the word "CRITICAL" engine has to be there. Surprise ! ! ! ! ! any twin engine aircraft that has counter rotating engines, example, Piper Seminole will NOT HAVE a VMC speed. There are several other twin engine aircraft that have counter rotating engines. Now the BAD side of C/R engines. NOT good for multi engine training or flight test. There are a lot and I do mean a lot of twin engine aircraft that are used for multi engine training. On any check ride the student has to demonstrate the control down to and recovery from VMC. This can not be done with an aircraft having counter rotating engines. Background: Me ATP licensed flight instructor airplanes, instrument airplanes and multi engine instructor. Total flight time 14,000+ hours. Also captain for two commuter airlines and prior to that flew cargo form Florida to Central and South America, the Caribbean and the Bahamas, lastly air-frame and power plant licensed mechanic. I do think I know what I am talking about.

Beech Baron ...

Yea. Miserable. Hahaha

Yeahhh sorry but no. They are OVERRATED if anything