Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Jim Macklin wrote:

It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine was not as quickly
detected since there was no yaw, just reduced performance. It did not
have good baggage areas and it was noisy inside.

Hard to imagine a pilot so sensory impaired that he or she can't detect
the loss of 50% of their power, which results in lost of far more than 50%
of most performance attributes. I'd really not want to fly with a pilot
who was that out of touch with their airplane.


Matt

It could happen and did. Engine loss on a rear engine twin can be very
deceiving, and it doesn't have to be a complete failure either. You get none
of the visuals and none of the physical feeling of loss you get in a normal
twin. The noise in the cockpit was quite loud, and if you didn't lead with
the rear engine and monitor the rear engine instruments through the TO run,
you could very easily get into trouble, especially going out of a short
field on a hot day :-)
Rear engine safety on the 336/337 wasn't quite as obvious as it might appear
on the surface. It's quite possible for a pilot to become passive in these
airplanes and in checking someone out in ours, I always stressed monitoring
those rear engine instruments on takeoff.
I know.......you wouldn't think a decent pilot could forget...but everyone
has the potential for a brain fart every once in a while, even the
Thunderbirds!!!
:-))
Dudley Henriques