Clinton,
But what does ‘(possibly) different, but similar make of aircraft’ mean, FFS? If your employer said to you: ‘Your pay next week will possibly be different but similar to what we owe you’, are you really not going to worry about that? Really? If you purchased a part for your engine, and the LAME said: ‘It’s possibly different but a similar part, but she’ll be right’, would you be happy with that? Really? If the PIC in an aircraft in which you were a passenger said: ‘We’re going to climb at a possibly different but similar speed to the best angle of climb speed, to miss that mountain’, would you be happy with that? Really?
You lost me .....
If I’m digging myself a hole by pointing out that not all fuel/mixture/induction systems are the same, and therefore the objective and comparative safety of the method for simulating an engine failure is not the same for all engines, then pass me my Spear & Jackson #5.
Perhaps I should be more clear also. If the manual for a C310 says don't cut the mixture .... then I'm going to be a bit worried about cutting the mixture in my Baron ... even if the manual doesn't say so .... and even if they have different engine/induction systems. I'm going to err on the side of safety. Why go looking for trouble ?