hazek

Try https://www.air-craft.biz/

And yet the jacobson flare does exactly that. How interesting, right?

Yes, indeed: This is nearly useless for explaining the technique how to land. Incorrect. The Jacobson flare method does this. I use my personal skill to execute that technique on every single landing and it has served me very well at my low 250TT.

Given that I’m not a native speaker I was worried I may be incorrectly using these words, but I have confirmed I’m not. From the dictionary: Personal skill (via “skill”): Individual ability to apply knowledge effectively in performance, dexterity in tasks, or learned competence/apptitude. Vs. technique: Method or manner of executing details/movements, body of methods, or specific approach to an aim. Vs. procedure: Ordered series of steps, particular/traditional way of acting, or a step therein. Key distinctions: Skill emphasizes personal proficiency; technique, the execution methods; procedure, the structured sequences. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skill https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technique https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/procedure

Have you considered to subscribe to Savvy’s analysis service? When I had a symptom last year they correctly analyzed my data and correctly diagnosed my problem. They’re very good at this. Might be worth the subscription.

But you are describing personal skill, not technique. We can never have the skill to fly like a computer but we can utilize exactly the very same technique. The Jacobson flare is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. It uses trigonometry to provide you a visually easily identifiable moment when you are at the correct flare height. Anyone, human or a computer, can employ this technique to flare at the correct height, but for humans it will be down to personal skill how well they employ this technique. No one can make an argument that there is a better technique unless they can prove objectively with calculations and evidence that there is another technique that can more accurately more reliably provide this outcome. How is this so hard to grasp?

Well, you can stop worrying about the CHT probe, nr 3 is clearly running hot. Also about any baffling issues, it’s connected with combustion from the moment you apply a high power setting. It’s interesting how the EGT spread drops when in the descent at descent power. So either fuel, air or spark is off - and only at high power settings. You checked the spark plugs, what about the ignition harness? Air - seems like there’s no induction leak. Fuel - can something be going wrong here? FF seems normal. I’m no expert, on the contrary. But this is what I noticed. I hope you get someone knowledgeable to take a look and give you their input. It’s an interesting case, sorry you have to deal with it.

I know you must have flown heavy, mean iron back in the day and have tons of experience, so who am I to question it, right? But this mindset frustrates me most in aviation: no universal, evidence-based prescription for the best technique. Instead, pilots wing it poorly and pass that on as “style.” Why do we tolerate every pilot playing artist with unproven flair, ignoring safety data? Only legends like Bob Hoover earned that through public demos of mastery. Where’s the authority for the rest? Just a license? A certain number of hours? Shouldn’t we do better? Shouldn’t we demand objective optimality: one proven technique per maneuver, via aerodynamics, NTSB/ICAO data, and human factors. Take landings for example, arguably the most critical maneuver: Why do we rely on vague “feel” when the Jacobson Flare offers a math-based geometric framework to pinpoint exact flare height for any aircraft? It’s quantifiable, consistent, and tolerant of variables, yet three years ago during my training, it wasn’t even mentioned, instead I was stuck with subjective methods that lead to inconsistency and had to find it myself. This ego-driven pride in suboptimal “craft” baffles me. Where’s the humility to seek better, data-proven paths? Aviation’s unforgiving nature calls for relentless optimization, not complacency in personal flair. We should stop confusing personal skill and technique. Personal skill of flying a technique is indeed individual, but physics and human factors dictate one optimal technique for safe, efficient flight. Let’s stop the confusion between the two!

Sounds like your cylinder is definitely running hot. For a single cylinder it probably means too much air, or not enough fuel. Too much air could be an induction leak, not enough fuel could be a blocked nozzle. Has the nozzle been cleaned? Have you done the soapy water induction leak check? An induction leak can also been seen on the EDM data? Have you downloaded the data and uploaded it to Savvy? If so share a flight.

This year was my first year flying above 13k where O2 is legally required all the time(it’s after 30min above 10k) in EASA land. I had a finger oximeter before but on flights it just wouldn’t work. On the ground it provided a reading just fine but in the air even at something like 6k it wouldn’t work on any finger. It’s as if the blood was pulled out of hands. So I bought one more expensive that was advertised working under tougher conditions and now this one works most of the time - sometimes I have to wait a bit to get a reading. It’s called Ninon 9590. I use Aerox’s Oxysaver cannula so I don’t go above 18k. So far highest I went was 17.5k - the problem usually for VFR is getting the clearance into class C. Anyway while I have the oximeter, what I found works better is just my Garmin smartwatch and the oximeter as a double check. I had the Venu 3 but I wanted better so splurged on the D2 Mach 1 Pro that has all the pilot stuff, among which is the Fly activity. If I use that, I can have it setup to take continuous, or rather frequent, O2 readings and with the display always on during the activity I can always just glance at my watch. Surprisingly it shows my SpO2 higher than the Ninon finger oximeter, and I suspect it’s due to the blood leaving my hands when I fly. I also noticed the setting on the flowmeter need to be a bit higher than what I fly at for me to have good SpO2 and feel good. Not sure why that is. I’m too chicken to test sats below 92% and I also start to feel “something” which stops when I increase the flow. I should probably do the chamber somewhere to learn my hypoxia symptoms.

And you guys are ok with potentially dropping a firebomb on someone’s house? What about dry forest? In Europe, SERA forbids dropping any objects for example. Of course an emergency allows for ignoring any rules but still, it’s also a consideration. So far this thread shows that basically there are no good options but thankfully and also clearly the risk is very low.

I did this last month and see the same.

Before you attack the engine with tools, maybe I suggest that it should be your top priority to figure out how to download data from your engine monitor and upload it to here: https://apps.savvyaviation.com/ (you can sign up for free) and share it. Think of it like going to your doctor and doing a blood test before surgery. Don't go straight for a surgery.

Could you share the data from a flight maybe via savvy? My CHTs easily stay below 400 in climb at 120IAS 34"/2400/cowl flaps open. And specifically nr 2 is the coolest of them all in any phase of flight.

Good lesson! Btw, I see no runup? Mag check before flight could have given us clues about nr 6? EGT increasing and staying constant while CHT climbing would indicate a more complete combustion for some reason. Initially EGT follows the family but CHT starts to depart immediately followed by EGT until you go mixture rich. CHT keeps climbing until you reduce power. After that CHT nr 6 starts to cool off and EGT 6 comes slowly back into family. Also your TIT seems low. Will be interesting to see what was going on in nr 6!