as the aircraft should have been revoverable with or without power
Isn't this what IO540 is asking though? Surely I'm not the only one following this thread now wondering what was alluded to earlier regarding moth engine failures? I would have thought with correct handling the aircraft would be safe with the engine out, I've certainly read of a number of forced landings after engine failure on the type.
I'm not relating this in any way to this accident, but am interested to know what hatzflyer meant, it seems to read as 'well you should know already an engine failure in a moth is a big deal', well I'm a pilot and I don't know that and I'm sure others are wondering along the same lines. OK it's a draggy bi-plane, I'm sure an engine out is an emergency situation and time would be short, but what is it we are supposed to know? As hatzflyer obviously has experienced the situation by inference, it must be recoverable no?
**please note this post is not discussing this particular accident, simply the handling of the TM and as far as I know there is no evidence to support the engine failed or a failed engine was responsible for this particular accident**