jrenwick wrote:Wow, George! I agree with almost everything you said, except that leaving the mixture leaned through landing is really radical, and contradicts what almost everybody has been taught. GUMPS! "Red, blue, green, runway's clean" on final, etc. I expect an instructor would hear from the examiner about that if a student did it during a check-ride. It's a set-up to have the engine stumble at the worst possible moment when you forget to shove all three controls forward, at a time when you least want to be debugging a problem. Sorry, I just can't go along with that!
Yes, I know what you mean. But the masses are taught the "dumb 'em down" methods" and examiners feel the need to "teach" (even tho' that's not their job.)
Example: Newbies are taught to pull carb heat before power reduction in the pattern and leave it there until after touch down.
But... what about the go-around? Oh... now they're supposed to remember to turn OFF the carb heat.
What's different about remembering to push rich on the mixture on a go around?
And what's wrong with simply "clearing" the carb of ice with application of carb heat...check the tach...see no ice accumulated...then turning carb heat OFF for the remainder of the approach/landing? (and guess what?...no need to remember to turn it off in case of go-around.)
It's a matter of "dumbing down"... OR..... teaching the reasons things are done and then... simply requiring excellence in piloting skills.
If you want to teach dummies to fly...then keep pulling carb heat incessantly/forever in the pattern and running the mixture RICH simultaneously...and see what THAT does to spark plugs and valves.
I'd like to think my students are smarter and teachable and more capable than that.
Anyway...the question of the thread was for recommendations on leaning and avoiding stuck valves and that's the way to do it, IMO.
(And, by the way, ...if you want everybody to do "what almost everybody has been taught" ....then you can also forget about Deakin and Busch too.)
"What almost everybody has been taught"...also addresses constant speed props (among a host of other things.) Everybody has been taught to shove the props up to fine pitch before landing, presumeably in the expectation of the "Damn the Torpedos" go-around. Of course, that places unnecessary strain on engines, props as well as passengers...and creates drag when it's not needed which results in a necessary change in throttle to continue a stabilized speed.... but it does make the noise level sound like something important is about to happen so that pax can get concerned.
I don't know of ANY real professional that does that, they leave the props where they were during descent and all thru the touchdown, only moving them to fine pitch after touchdown or in the event of go-around.
I once had an Army C-12 pilot transitioning to the civilian King Air 200 (essentially the same airplane) on a trip to SAT. My cropduster director thought military pilots were the cats-meow. (And let me be clear. They ARE! They are the true professionals in what they do...operate expendable equipment for combat or support. The difference between military and civilian flying is similar to the difference between fresh water and salt water fish. They both swim. But few of them do well in the other environment without serious adaptation.)
<edit: Revisiting this thread made me realize I left a comment hanging...: My "boss" was the director and because of his opinion he had instructed me to let this newly hired former military man to fly on this, his first day on the job. It was unfair to the man because he had not yet received any orientation training to our operations. This flight was the result of that bad decision. I want to make it clear that I do not hold a low opinion of military pilots. I am fully aware that if I was put in command of an airplane in a military environment that it'd likely result in disaster because I've not been trained to operate there. I'm fairly certain that in a fighter jet I'd be the first casualty of the war, if not by my own ignorance of the operation, then at the hands of the enemy, or perhaps having been shot in the back of the head by my own backseater.>
Anyway, this Army C-12 driver was taught methods that his background required, including shoving those props up on final approach.
It apparently made no difference to him if the operational environment was changed.
SAT approach told us to reduce speed to follow traffic, (were doing 220 kts and he was to reduce to 180) so he put out appch flaps.....35 MILES from the final appch fix. (He had been taught to extend flaps when approaching an airport below 190 kts. He made no distinction to the fact we were not yet anywhere near the pattern.) When he intercepted the final at 20 miles, he shoved the props UP to max RPM. When the tower next asked him to increase speed (due to excessive slow down with flaps out and props at fine pitch)...his method was to increase THROTTLE...while leaving all that drag from flaps and props where they were. He refused to return to a previous configuration, so we screamed along at high RPM and high power with flaps out for 20 miles.
When we lined up for that 10,000 ft runway (we were parking at the far end) he reduced speed to cross the threshold at 105 kts in gusty wind. I was uncomfortable and told him so, but it made no difference. He had gear down, full flaps, high power, fine pitch props, and 105 kts all the way to touchdown and immediately on touchdown he slammed it into reverse-thrust and hit the brakes and made the first turn-off.
We then had to taxi nearly two miles to the ramp at the other end of the field.
It was the dumb'em down flying technique.
He did well after I demonstrated on subsequent flights that to slow down one only had to reduce power, and that keeping the airplane CLEAN with flaps up saved noise and fuel and made a more confortable flight for pax.
So much for what almost everybody has been taught by dumb'em down instruction. again...IMO.
.... 
