Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

On 2006-02-28, Matt Whiting wrote:
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.

I don't think that was necessarily the problem - imagine being just
airborne on an obstructed and reasonably short airfield, then one of the
engines quit. Although you feel the loss of thrust, it's not obvious
which engine has actually failed from the yaw because there isn't any.
Add to that the typical market segment for a 337 (people who percieve
they won't be safe enough in a normal twin) and you're asking for
trouble.

The only way of figuring out which engine has quit short of pulling a
throttle back and see if you lose even *more* power (which is
ineffective if one engine is only losing partial power) is to look at
the gauges. You might not even notice the loss of an engine if it
happens on approach until you throttle up for a go-around and find up to
50% of your power is missing (if an engine fails on approach, the only
indication may be a decreasing EGT - the windmilling prop may still
make the same RPM and the manifold pressure does not change if an
engine isn't actually combusting fuel). Even if one fails on takeoff,
where the failed engine will almost certainly lose RPM you still have to
look at and interpret the gauges which is a slower process (particularly
if it's a high workload instrument departure) than 'dead foot dead
engine'.

The people who are liable to VMC roll a conventional twin are probably
the same people who will stall a 337 while taking their time over trying
to figure out which engine has quit.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net