Thanks, Okie, a good point about engine failure for a twin or even a four-motor plane.
I recall the DC-8 training flight at MSY back in 1967 or so during a "simulated" two engine approach. What would an AT do if you got a little slow?
I also like Okie's observation that you fly years with the AT, but then when airmanship counts, you can't or should not use the AT.
I have to fall back and lurk, now, and let the heavy folks contribute. but before I go....
We lost two folks in the A-37 during single-engine go-arounds( not practice, but battle danage or basic failure). The big motors caused the plane to act more like a "conventional" twin versus "centerline" thrust. One motor put out 50% more than BOTH motors on the T-37!! So even with plenty of power available, you had better get the ruddder in early and not cram the throttle forward. Otherwise, you began a roll and could not recover unless you eased forward and got the yaw under control. At high AoA, the thing acted like a swept wing jet, and roll-due-to-yaw was about the same.
@ Bloggs....... My perspective on flying AoA developed when I started in the SLUF ( A-7D). Being a Navy design, our approach was the slowest you could fly depending on weight with gear and flaps down. it was "draggy". I soon found that you had better get the power in early if pulling up a bit for glide path or to maintain the AoA you were supposed to use. I doubt if an AT would have helped much, but maybe it would have. My other jets were less sensitive to AoA and I flew the basic power for speed, and used AoA to confirm the manual's calculated speed. I would have liked the AT for cruise to optimize mach, but it wasn't a big deal to retard power a bit to maintain optimum mach.
and so I return to the lurk mode.