Crash? I live in Georgia. Haven;t heard this.

Stop changing the subject, we're looking for cheap gas evidence.....2.82 is an awful good price!!!

But the question was whether there had "ever" been a "crash" due to engine failure. Well... the answer is yes.

But the question was whether there had "ever" been a "crash" due to engine failure. Well... the answer is yes.

There's this one of a PC-12.
Another PC-12.
Another PC-12.
This PC-12 if you consider reduced power due to fuel icing, though other issues were involved too.

I'll leave it as an exercise to check for TBM engine failures.

There's one. How come this didn't make the news? Not in crash talk either?

That's actually not proven either. There aren't enough owner flown turbines to have any numbers.

Trying to get back on topic... Why would you buy a small unproven jet that can't carry much when you could spend the same amount of money and carry 2X as much and have more range in the Pilatus. Jason has proven that that plane is the best thing going.

There's one. How come this didn't make the news? Not in crash talk either?

But the question was whether there had "ever" been a "crash" due to engine failure. Well... the answer is yes.

Fair enough. Just hadn't seen it at all.

Now you're moving the goalposts. You asked when had there "ever" been a crash due to engine out. Well, I showed you the ones I could find in a couple minutes. I agree the outcomes are good overall. Yay for that, seriously! But you can't say that engine outs in SETPs don't occur.

And the Mits has a whole lot less accidents since the SFAR training regimen was put in place in 2005. Zero? No. But less than King Airs, for example (even accounting for fleet size/hours). So there are many ways to affect safety outcomes. Proper training is a very big one.

As for the single vs. twin debate, it seems to me that some pilots stay cool and fly a twin well on one engine (fewer of those pilots) while many don't. That accident in the Sea of Okhotsk is the one I was thinking about when I commented on my preference for another motor. I respect the fact that some others may not have the temperment to handle single engine ops on twins (you have to stay cool when things go sideways) nor the desire for constant improvement (you need to always be thinking, always be training), and I know that plenty of folks will forgo options to gain simplicity, especially when the statistics show that there are so few issues with SETP. I don't think either choice is wrong or right, I think it's just personal preference. That said, given the safety records and statistics, it's clear that operating a twin requires a superior degree of airmanship during single engine ops. If you lack those skills, a single is definitely a better bet, no dishonor in that. If you have those skills or are willing to invest in developing those skills though, I think we can agree that the Sea of Okhotsk is a lousy place for an unexpected swim. I lost a motor in a M20K Mooney (the single shaft driving both mags is a crap design when the shaft breaks) and dead sticked into Greenville, TN in '95? '96?, it was scary. I lost a motor in a PBaron in '96? '97? (fresh OH, infant mortality), and remember feeling in control of the situation. That PBaron was was far less capable on one motor than a 700A* or a Mits, these airplanes make the loss of an engine a really reasonable situation, IF you've got the chops.

Setting that aside, it's absurd to assert there are no twins on the ramp and even more absurd to posit that there is no market for the Mits. What's really not clear to me is whether the Mits is a more economical choice than a PC12 or a TBM850. I think it is clear that rising fuel costs would continue to favor the single and sinking fuel costs would favor the twins, but the P&W gang may be screwing up that differential by gouging operators of their bigger motors on MX. Additionally, since the market has clearly pointed out it likes newer SETP much more than legacy TETP, capitalism may have pushed acquisition costs high enough on SETP and low enough on TETP to make the twin a better deal.

To each his own. I'm pretty sure there isn't a correct answer here, and if there is with respect to economic feasibility the metric is so labile it's probably a crap shoot which side of the equation your on month to month.

My decision to own a Pilatus has nothing to do with "not wanting to train to own a Mits or KA". Is that what you guys really believe?

I don't want a Mits or KA. Never even looked at them. I do however want a CJ3 or Phenom 300. Those jets just happen to be twins. My airplane choice has nothing to do with single v. twin. It has to do with utility. The Mits and KA do not meet my needs. There is no benefit to me with the Mits of KA.

I can't remember the last time I saw a Mits on the ramp. What's a Mits sell for? The market speaks guys. Just hop on Controller and see what it says.

The extra training required to overcome the design flaw of the prop twin does not make you a better pilot than me.

Because it's a JET. See my post above. Seriously, this thing exists because little boys who wanted to be maverick or iceman grow up to be fat, bald 52 year old guys whose wives sleep in another room and this makes them feel 16 again.