hazek

There is indeed a third option: I'm agnostic either way. I adhere to the POH and then the Lycoming best practices manual for my engine + an additional margin for a personal conservative approach on top. I do this because absent of hard evidence to the contrary, i.e. more than some anecdotes, I find that as the most credible source of information. I'm well aware though that the POH is marketing material, especially for the Bravo, so nearly worthless. And I'm also well aware that Lycoming's manuals in general are full of lawyer speak. On the other hand I know that metal expanding and contracting causes fatigue, this is established science and not up for debate. Also cylinders do crack and fail, this also cannot be up for debate, hell we have one such case in our closet at the club. So that's why my position is in fact agnostic. I take a conservative cautious approach to give myself the best possible shot at preserving my engine, which I value above convenience or comfort At the same time I follow what ever new evidence might come out to disprove manuals and show a better way and am open to adjusting. My only point of contention, which seems to bother people, is that I'm unconvinced that there is sufficient hard evidence to say that chopping power and allowing the engine to cool rapidly does not in fact severely impact the longevity of the cylinders. You say there is evidence and what you point to are nothing but anecdotes and fallacies. I just wish you'd actually supply evidence.

Where did I say that??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Truth emerges under rigorous reasoning. Reliable conclusions rest on valid logic. Below, each quoted statement is paired with its logical fallacy. Appeal to authority (argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam) – an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. Appeal to accomplishment – an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. This may often also have elements of appeal to emotion see below. Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so. Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa. Argument from anecdote – a fallacy where anecdotal evidence is presented as an argument; without any other contributory evidence or reasoning. Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam). I’m glad you’re open to data. I’m equally ready to revise my view if solid evidence contradicts mine. Until then, I hope these clarified fallacies help us keep the discussion on sound footing.

It didn't, at all. The only perhaps valuable evidence based nugget of knowledge this article has is what supposedly Kas Thomas has written some long time ago about some test stand data. My personal experience teaches me however that cooling rates of -50F/min are reached quite easily. At least on my engine measured by my EDM. The article is riddled with contrarian folklore and anecdotes. What I'm looking for is hard data and facts. Precise and hard answers to: procedures that were followed, exactly EDM data engine longevity data Anything short of analyzing that are conclusions which are not rooted in facts. That's another good nugget from the article: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” - Yes indeed, so what are the facts is my question! And I don't hear any.

Important point is that it did not drop to 0. This means combustion was still ongoing however under a very rich mixture. I had a similar experience on takeoff last year. Revving sounds from the engine, temps all over the place, reducing power brought it back to manageable for an immediate uneventful landing. On inspection nothing was found, on ground run nothing was found and this was my engine data:

A plugged air bleed in this range allows the exit of the fuel restrictor to be exposed to manifold suction, which effectively increases the pressure differential across the restrictor and causes an increase in fuel flow through that nozzle. Since this nozzle is now, in effect, stealing fuel from the other nozzles (injector servo output flow will remain the same) this cylinder will run rich and the other cylinders will be correspondingly lean. I read this as yes, three at the same time.

This actually indicates plugged air bleed of the injector: https://precisionairmotive.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/15-812_b.pdf

I would just like to see some concrete data from the engines of these planes and see exactly what the procedures they use are. Because a story is just a story. I could tell you the same story of our local jump club and their airvan but in reality they don't "just chop the power". They descend fast with power and keep cooling rate below a redline they chose. They also lean aggressively to peak to keep the temps up, use cowl flaps to precool and many other little things to reduce the shock of temp difference. An observer on the ground wouldn't have any idea about any of that and could be forgiven for spreading a story that they just chop the power and the plane is fine. I don't doubt the story, just want more details to see what exactly the story is. What were their procedures precisely? Any engine monitor data to see?

How do we know this is true? I doubt it's true. But I have nothing to go on. Do we have logbooks from his plane somewhere? Many times people make up stories you know..

I think I'll sign up for this, or at least ask for some advice.

Seems like no one else thinks so or wants to hear it

Can someone educate me why this isn't a solution?: Pitch up Slow below Vle Drop gear Resume descent?

Ok, maybe this is true. I mean we can only hope it is. I personally during my training had the same thoughts about a stall spin induced by trying to reflexively pick up the dropped wing in the base to final turn. I still don't know if I thought about this scenario enough not to do it. Unfortunately the human brain is very finicky when it's startled. Discussion sure, but the poll I find silly. I voted I would go around purely because I don't actually know what I would do. That option is missing in the poll.

Ok chief I'll try to remember that in that split second when I'm shocked by own stupidity for not extending the gear and startled by the sound and feel of the fuselage dragging along the runway. In that moment I will remember "Hank" from Mooneyforums, thank my lucky stars I saw his post, think better of adding power as a reflex and will not go around. I mean come on. This poll is silly. You don't know what any of you would do in that split second. And many of you including me would probably try to go around, not for wanting to save the plane but as a pure reflex that is ingrained into us to abort a bad landing. I for one totally understand the pilot in the video and would probably do the same stupid thing.

@Rick Junkin I think you just answered all the questions I have about GP. I'm pretty sure I don't even want to test it. I just hope FF wont get too much more expensive as I'm staying with it. It just works way too well.

Very interesting: https://simulators.redbirdflight.com/products/topic/simulators Would you know if these are loggable also under EASA? It seems not: https://simulators.redbirdflight.com/certification/easa

I haven't started my instrument training yet but I was hopping that when I do that I can practice procedures at home in X-Plane just like I do now sometimes even for VFR flying. Are X-Plane and MSFS not good enough for that purpose?

And another one. Was this pilot also banking on always keeping things IFR lite?:

One of the things I fear missing out on if I switched from FF to GP is my performance profile for my plane. It allows for super easy flight planning. Both in terms of fuel requirement and runway requirement. Another thing I would miss very much is the way NOTAMs are displayed graphically in Europe as well the vertical profile of the flight path. This allows again to do flight planning much much more quickly, especially when the airspace is complex and there are many zones overlapping.

All I can think reading various responses that mirror your story is that you and those who like yourself lack sufficient skill proficiency are liable to be this story:

I don't no, although I suspect I wont find quality of work as good and the range of options as extensive anywhere else. I'll ask ACG who they recommend for paint and interior. For avionics I've already made up my mind to go to Straubing. I don't know about what happened to them. But I was trying to get my oxygen tank replaced through them and it took 4 months and repeated asking and calling before I finally received a quote. In the end with no response for such a long time I actually gave up on them and I found another solution locally. This was right around the time when they finally did send over a quote but I didn't even respond to them. Perhaps this is the standard that many of these shops have? But I don't find this kind of communication and jerking around appropriate.

Hmm that makes little sense for the Bravo. First of all gear extension speed is 140 kt. Second of all if I take out so much power that I can slow to flaps speed then after going gear down I definitely need to add back power. This just seems like bad engine management. The way I land I almost never have to add power back in once I've taken it out. In the descent I reduce to 20", after gear down I keep it un changed, and I only reduce to about 16-15" in my final descent abeam, start adding flaps which slows me to about the right speed with full flaps at the right rate of descent. I guess another way would be to put the gear down for the final descent abeam. I could see an argument for that since I do notice my CHT cooling rate from 20" to 16" quite a bit higher than ideal. I don't know, I have limited experience. But the 747 captain that checked me out seemed to think it's a good idea to learn a power setting during approach that allows for the configuration change alone to arrive you at exactly your approach speed without the need for further significant power changes. To me it seems this can protect you from a gear up landing.

At this time stamp (28:54) truth of the matter is stated. No fuel is perfect, we can all agree certainly not 100LL. But he seems to admit here also not G100UL. They got it to work for the engine so they think for the rest of the problems caused by its bad side need to be fixed by finding solutions on the other side of the equation. In other words, G100UL is fine for for your engine, maybe even better, as for the interactions with other materials we don't care, just find better ones, you're on your own. And if you can't or if that costs you a lot of money, well.. that's just your bad luck. I guess it's an approach.

This talk might explain why it happens:

In the Bravo I never pull back power below 20" before gear down. I don't know why, but my gear horn starts to sound just under 20" (probably miscalibrated). And honestly I don't find any need to go below 20" flying VFR before gear down if I plan my descent well so that I arrive a few NM from the traffic pattern at TPA. Most of the time this is anyway required with mandatory VRPs around larger airports here in Europe. So for me it's gear down to slow down. That's why I'm surprised that people don't have trouble slowing down without their gear down. I guess they really just go idle power..