Only inexperienced pilots with zero twin time and zero actual IMC time advocate a light single is safer / better than a twin doing SPIFR Ops. 

ill take a 429 or 145 even a 135 over a 119 going IMC

and if you want a 407 over those options above your flat out retarded 

Who cares.  Flying is flying.  

Fact man should compare accident stats. before giving "facts" regarding 407.  Fact man sounds like a medical type and or a robi-ranger.

single engine IFR every day. tell me again about all your experience bro

Helicopters are so much like airplanes

IIMC is still inadvertent. I'd guess most of those crashes it really wouldn't matter what was being flown. Between panic or the typical lowering of altitude to get below the clouds that seems common would still be a pilot error crash.

I'm sure someone will find one, but I dont know of one crash that was attributed to an engine failure in IMC that a second engine would have made any difference.

It's all about profit margin.  If you have the demand for twin, there will be a supply.  IFR/VFR, I mush rather have a twin (barring cost prohibitions) just in casse there is that single engine failure, compressor stall, Hi side/Low side FADEC failure.  But I also understand economics and running a single isn't cheap either.  Especially for those tree-fiddy workers.

It's all about profit margin.  If you have the demand for twin, there will be a supply.  IFR/VFR, I mush rather have a twin (barring cost prohibitions) just in casse there is that single engine failure, compressor stall, Hi side/Low side FADEC failure.  But I also understand economics and running a single isn't cheap either.  Especially for those tree-fiddy workers.

Multis are generally more complicated even with modern systems- systems fail and often confuse the pilot. I'll argue that the advantage of a twin only applies in operations that understand the difference. Single engines are simpler to train and operate, without question. A single engine attitude in a twin results in stupid mistakes, typified by a newly qualified twin pilots' statement "I have two engines, I can fly in any speed/altitude/load condition I want to as long as I'm less than max gross..."

I flew a program with three twins assigned to the contract. In a fligh to base, light, an aircraft had a low side falure with only one passenger who had THOUSANDS of hours in twins with an overseas operator, who attempted to persuade the PIC not to reduce the good engines' power lever. In the water well short of the beach. The FAR minimum training time and flight test standards, I believe resulted in a poor understanding of identifying the issue.

I am all for twins, but without exception the ones that demand twins have never had an engine failure, let alone in IMC.

Of course I am discounting any engine failures that the pilot caused without having enough fuel, or oil. Or even leaving the fuel cap or oil cap off.

why the gripe OP?