JamesNoBrakes

I don't think so. This kind of reminds me of the almost total failure of the VLJ and LSA segments. Supposedly they were going to sell like hotcakes, and there were literally hundreds of companies starting up to all take a part. The VLJ one completely stumped me, as there were so many companies betting on selling hundreds of jets. There was just no way any market could support that, yet they kept springing up and securing money. Just didn't make any sense and was doomed to fail. The LSAs have gotten so expensive for the most part that you are better off buying something else or just an old cub that can fly in the LSA category. For some reason business-types get completely convinced they can enter the market and make money. It seems in some cases they can, but you gotta have EVERYTHING in place and really know the market. Too many people seem to get focused on their "dream" and not reality.

Ewfflyer

Wow, really? What does this have to do with anything.

Maybe we are receiving this wrong, what you meant was "if you can afford two engines, do it." Right?

Btw, 2000 in C310's flying freight in the Midwest, plus some pa30, pa31, pa44, C421, C404, BE20, duke, and Cheyenne time. I believe I know how to handle the handles!

AxialFlow

First: I'm not sold on the idea of pouring $2.5 million into a 421 for marginal performance numbers. For someone who "needs" to have a twin: there are plenty of tried and true King Airs out there.

As for the whole multi vs single, there are plenty of interesting articles on this topic. One that I came across references a study (albeit from '79) that shows multi-engine pilots are more likely to lose control after an engine failure

(Technique)

Granted, it all boils down to proficiency. To a professional multi-engine pilot who flies for a living: I suspect an engine failure in a twin is going to be rather ho-hum. To the weekend warrior recreational pilot...it might get interesting. Just my two cents.

ackattacker

This.

This argument has devolved to twin vs. single. When the real argument is "recertified" PT-6 powered C421 vs. King Air.

Beechcraft has an established safety and reliability record and excellent support. They're the competition to beat... what does this "new" airplane bring to the table?

CrimsonEclipse

Final comment on SE -vs- ME:
Flying in mountainous areas, IFR, at night and/or over cold water, also at night, stick with two turbines on a stable platform.

Final comment on Excalibur:
Preference will be a case by case basis.
Does its speed, range, runway performance and cost match your normal mission needs?

I'm with Ackattacker, Beech would also be a worthy consideration. Especially with their support. (how many out stations will support a turbine 421?)