Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:37:39 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

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.

Agree, but I can imagine a scenario where it could happen...

Imagine a precision instrument approach with both the engines
throttled way back to stay on glideslope. If the weather is at
minimums, the pilot is going to be focused on flying the ILS and
making the land/missed decision at DH. I think it would be relatively
easy to overlook the failed rear engine. Of course, after going
missed, it would become obvious pretty quickly...