Obviously the main consideration for choosing a plane may be an economical one. Also there is the ever recurring "increased risk" of twins regarding survivability.
Not necessarily.
Economy may be one reason for choosing an airplane, but it's a poor one in consideration of one's intended mission. If getting from A to B in the least expensive way is most important, then yes, economy is important. That's not necessarily the case if you want to get there quickly, or if performance is an issue, or safety, or avionics, or...you get the idea. There are many reasons to make a flight and many ways to conduct it. Economy is seldom the chief driving criteria in selecting the aircraft.
Ever-recurring increased risk? Not so. "Increased risk" is largely in the purview of the pilot...not a function of the aircraft. How you use the airplane makes all the difference in the world.
On what instruments are you always seeing a complete engine faillure ?
And please give me the SE ceiling of the seneca 1,2,3,4 since you flew them all.
I have to believe Sternone is a troll, or a very, very inexperienced pilot with a very, very inflated opinion of his own training and ability.
My Seneca experience has been primarily in the II and III, and mostly operating from rough dirt airfields in remote locations, always in mountainous terrain. Whatever the book published numbers may be, 8,000 feet at gross weight on a standard day seemed to come closer to the truth when doing engine-out work...which isn't bad for a light twin.
The twin kills you faster, most who get killed while lost of trust on one engine is because they let the plane go below VMC or they feathered the wrong engine. While it doesn't happen with you it happens with other GA ME pilots alot. Why is that ? In a real partial loss (and you know that) it isn't THAT easy to feel what side has failled...the plane just goes from left to right...
Is there some particular benefit to dying slowly in an airplane? If not, then arguing which kills you faster is really a mindless inroad into the airplane decision making process here.
You assert that most fatal mishaps occur due to assymetrical thrust issues, specifically loss of control. Perhaps you could back that up, because if you bother to do a little research I believe you'll find that's not the case at all. Other causal factors such as controlled flight into terrain, fuel mismanagement, and weather related losses account for much higher numbers of mishaps and fatalities.
Now Sternone, based on your VAST experience with simulated and real engine failures in multi-engine airplane, you assert that identification of the failed engine is a difficult task. How many actual engine failures have you experienced in a light twin?
The amount of rudder input is dependent both on airspeed, and on the power setting on the good engine. I've had very pronounced yaw and need for rudder input, with no question which engine failed, and have had no indication in feel when powered back and in a descent, when an engine failed in a twin commander.
Propeller RPM may or may not be an indication, as the propeller when not powered by the engine may be driven by the slipstream at a speed which approximates it's driven speed...or the propeller may experience an decrease in RPM...what occurs depends largely on the airspeed at which the power loss occurs. Further, if it's a blower failure, the RPM will remain unchanged, but manifold pressure will change.
Fuel flow is a good indicator, generally. Not always; the nature of the failure dictates. Same for manifold pressure, etc. An EGT drop is a good indication, however...though it may not show a partial power loss.
Regardless, your assertion that an engine failure is difficult to identify in a multi engine airplane clearly shows that you really don't know what it is you're talking about. Again, that really paints you more in the troll category.
I know some very good pilots who will never fly a twin over mountains.
To each his own. I won't fly single engine IMC. I have spent a lifetime flying single engine airplanes in the mountains, and have even made forced landings in the mountains following an engine failure. I prefer a multi engine airplane for IMC not so much for the redundancy of powerplants, but for redundancy of instrument power (vacum), electrical power, etc. I like the performance a twin gives. A twin can be operated just as safely as a multi engine airplane; the burden comes back to the pilot. I've spent a lot of time in multi engine airplanes and single engine airplanes of all kinds, from light pistons to heavy turbojets to turboprops in the mountains, in IMC, and everywhere you can imagine.
I find that most experienced pilots are reluctant to fly single engine airplanes in IMC, or do single engine night work. Count me among them. I've certainly done it. I've experienced an engine failure in a single engine light piston single in IMC...right to a landing...and yes, in mountainous terrain. For me, experience is a great teacher, and teaches me that I really don't care to experience that again. I find that the willingness to do single engine IMC or night tends to be much greater with low experience pilots, and dwindles considerably as pilots gain experience.
Having said this, single engine IMC and night flying is done regularly, and most often safely by a great many people. I won't. Conversely, I won't fly many light twins IMC either, except under specific circumstances...or at night, or over certain terrain or water...because one needs to consider the limitations that apply to that specific airplane. To assert that one is more safe than the other is ridiculous; it's the pilot that makes the difference between what's safe and what isn't.
A single engine airplane should be flown within the limits of it's capability, just as a multi engine airplane should be.
If you're not comfortable flying a multi engine airplane, then you have no obligation to do so. Your comments that you won't fly with others here, however, smack of an extreme arrogance borne of ignorance, and you seem really proud of your ignorance. Ignorance doth not evidence make...and is hardly an arguement for or against flying a multi-engine airplane. What you're really saying is that you don't like multi engine airplanes because you don't know anything about them and don't understand their capabilities and limitations. Perhaps you should learn a little more before you try to know so much.