I think everyone's post has some truth to it. But for specifics, here is a couple of things:
DOC/pricing:
According to the lastest Conklin & de Decker publishings, there are some twins that are cheaper than some singles (ie: the "fading" BO 105 which is losing popularity due to the 135 and soon the 145). You can actually purchase a 222, 105, or even some 109K's cheap(er) (with medical interiors and good time left). The DOC on these machines vary, but the DOC can be cheaper than some newer singles. So all twins are not more expensive than all singles.
Engine Failure:
Hear 10 different stories from 10 different people on "fly-away" capability of a twin with an engine failure. I never really knew the right answer to that until I experienced a demonstration of a 109Power and EC 135. They will fly on a single engine. Also heard that under the right circumstances, that most twins will. But can only say I witnessed the above two. I know that temperature, air speed, weight, and altitude all contribute to the capability of a twin to "fly-away" on single engine. So I think it is unfair to say "twins can't fly with one engine out"....that statement seems to have a lot of "if's" missing.
I think the initial posting that starting this discussion was someone asking to compare twin vs. single as far as purchasing/leasing for an AMS program. I suggest starting by asking the "higher powers" to give a mission profile and budget. That should eliminate some choices, then present the remaining in a side-by-side, objective comparison. The BEST thing to do is find a neutral AMS consultant, spend a little extra money (you will get it back), and follow their guidelines. Nurses and paramedics should treat, pilots should fly, and administrators should provide the adequate equipment. Let a consultant "weed out" all of the "bad" information. Sorry about the long post.
These are my opinions and not that of my employer(s)
