Bristol Type 170
Proplinerman,
Was assuming a Bristol "Freightner" pilot - maybe one of my flying school contemporaries - would answer your post. (I went on the Heron and Dak instead.)
In case that's not going to happen, think I can say (from what I heard) that it is more of a handful than the smaller Dakota, particularly in a crosswind (not that any tail-dragger is a cinch). The flight controls, operated aerodynamically by pure servo-tabs, presumably don't start to do anything until you've got some sort of IAS. The aeroplane also has a very large keel area - particularly the Mark 32 with the extended nose, that our British United Air Ferries used in the 1960s (did they come with Silver City?).
The single-engine performance of any twin varies enormously with weight, pressure altitude, and temperature (WAT). You can also add the factor of how knackered the individual airframe/engine combination is. I suspect that, speaking generally, the 170 was below average for a 1950s piston design, probably a bit worse than the (1940s) C47-Dakota. But the worse-case scenario is partly in the hands of the airworthiness authorities, who regulate the MTOW that is applied to the CofA in their country. Most twin pistons fly quite well on one when empty, as in the film. On the other hand, one of our Daks used to struggle to climb on both at MTOW at sea-level on a hot summer's day.
As for those "clatter"ing engines: there's an excellent contemporary thread about radials going on in "Tech Log", but I haven't seen mention of the (2000 HP) Bristol Hercules yet - does it have noisy sleeve valves? Big radials are a handful to operate, and have to be treated with enormous respect.