Shadrach

Not true. How much did you slow down. I've opened and closed the door in my F in flight with no trouble. I slowed to about 80MIAS before I even attempted to close it.

My arc changes if I change props. Some will eliminate the arc all together.

Of course he is...Can't you see the "Power Boost" control is in the full aft position. That's got to be good for at least .012" of manifold pressure at that altitude and indicated airspeed.

The worn and stained grip tape on the yoke really gives that photo a 1940s feel that is spoiled only by the moving map on the 430. @Immelman has had his naturally aspirated E to 21.5 many years ago. There was a video from the cockpit but it has since been made private.

Thanks for completing the series!

Nope...I's clearly read just like the one in my plane running two blade Hartzell on your arc is narrower.

Indeed and those installations should come with revisions to the limitations section of the operating manual/POH as well as a placard for the tach with a revised yellow/red arc.

my little F model doing its best impression of an Acclaim at 25,000 feet. Except for I’m burning under 10 gallons an hour and I don’t have a hose in my nose. I should’ve gone higher just to see how fast it would go but I was only 22 miles from my destination.

I frequently cruise 11.5 or 12.5 on long cross countries. I’ve seen ground speeds over 200kts more times than I can count and on few occasions topped 240. Throttle is set wide-open from takeoff until I have some reason to reduce manifold pressure (rough air, non-standard descent profile or slowing down to enter the pattern for landing) I only fly lean of peak EGT at DAs below 5000 feet where there’s a surplus of air to make good power. Starting at about 5000 feet I run much closer to peak EGT until I get to 10,000 or above where I run 100 Rich of Peak EGT. This works out great for flight planning purposes as the delta in fuel burn from say 2500 feet (LOP) to 11,500 (100ROP) is relatively small. The same can be said for TAS. There really is not much reason to run a normally aspirated Lycoming, lean of peak EGT when peak is sufficient to keep CHTs in check. I set RPM around 2500 because it feels like the sweet spot in terms of smoothness and noise. I’ve also been told that’s where my prop is most efficient. I have found this to be the simplest way to manage the power plant. It yields good speed, good efficiency and cool CHTs with minimal effort.

To add to what @Fly Boomer has recommended, The articles below or a good primer for anyone operating turbo charged or turbo normalized engine. breathing-turbos-part-1/ https://www.avweb.com/features/pelicans-perch-33those-fire-breathing-turbos-part-3/ https://www.avweb.com/features_old/pelicans-perch-32those-fire-breathing-turbos-part-2/ https://www.avweb.com/features_old/pelicans-perch-34those-fire-breathing-turbos-part-4/

Should be required post check ride reading for all private pilots. The fact that I remember reading them when they were originally released, makes me feel very old. I miss John’s presence in aviation. Not only was the fountain useful information, he was good at communicating that information in a thoughtful and entertaining way.

Process of elimination suggests the passenger door. It’s also the door that is more likely to be improperly closed. It’s possible the upper latch was not properly engaged but that it was not detected until after departure. Or it’s possible he tried to close the door in flight and was only able to engage the aft pin. We’ll never know for sure. The NTSB did not come right out in say the baggage door was closed, but made it clear that a when the baggage door was in the closed position, a crease in the baggage door skin aligned with a crease in the fuselage skin, suggesting energy transfer through the door while in the closed position. The baggage door latch mechanism was found closed with the pins extended and the key lock was in the locked position. Gouges in the striker plates are consistent with the pins digging into the metal as the baggage door was forced open on impact

Have you verified that TIT is a good proxy for EGT? It works fine for as long as all cylinders peak sufficiently close to the same FF. This is to say that it would be good to know which cylinder is leanest and which is richest and roughly where they peak relative to peak TIT.

When on the lean side, at a constant fuel flow, more air slows the combustion event. This makes for lower peak pressure in the cylinder. There is a point on the lean side of peak for any fuel flow at which the combustion event gets so slow that both power and efficiency start to decrease

Congratulations! 1968 was a great year for the F model. They built over 200 of them that year. If the condition is as good as has been stated, I think you will be amazed at how much this airframe gives while asking comparatively little in return.

The way I read the report, all physical evidence suggests that the baggage door was down and locked and only opened under the force of impact. Reread the second paragraph on page 3 and I think you will change your view.

I had my cracked case repaired and overhauled by this shop in 2010. Antiquated website but top notch service. http://www.crankcaseservices.com

Why not just measure the ID of the old hose or the OD of the male input on the muffler?

Optimal propeller application was explained to me thusly. The most efficient choice is the prop with the minimum number of blades required to convert available power into thrust. Blade length, profile and RPM will determine how much power each blade can convert into thrust before it begins to lose efficiency. Once the the power delivered exceeds the capacity of the current blade configuration, it is advantageous to add another blade. If a prop is well matched to the the power plant and rpm range, and all parameters are held constant, each additional blade will decrease efficiency. At the power range, RPM range and and blade length of most any Mooney, two blades seems to be optimal. I am dubious of the climb and acceleration claims as I do not see how a less efficient prop yields more performance. Perhaps there are some scenarios where there is a momentary advantage. There are certainly other factors to be considered. NV&H, weight and aesthetics are all important considerations. The 4 blade MT looks absolutely menacing on a Mooney, but I have yet to see any hard data that shows it is a step up in performance. Seems like it is mostly marketing. I am willing to be educated, but I have not found a lot of easily digestible technical information on the subject that is centered on powerplants of 300HP or less.

Why did you regret the IRAN?

Has anyone verified that the seats are the same for the pre-66 (?) birds? On the early applications, the O-ring is positioned on the Teflon valve seat (a la the OP's). On the later models, maybe 66 and later the o-rings are positioned in machined grooves on the opposing pump half.

Yes, I am sure there must be some additional testing equipment for the ADSB, but the bulk of the test appeared to be done with big, analog, 1960s boxes.

$400 flat rate whether they do it in my hangar or in the shop. I've been there while the do it. Takes about an hour. I think it was $150 when I had the first one done 20 years ago. Neither the equipment nor the tech doing the certification has changed in tat span of time.

Geez Tom, That is quite a story. You are fortunate on many levels. It reads like you picked the best option you had and then did just about everything right to ensure the best outcome. 3kts above stall to stopped in 138’ is pretty intense deceleration especially when accomplished with tree impacts and undulating terrain. You and Beth are lucky to have walked away from such an accident. You are in the unusual post accident position of not having much if anything to second guess. By my reading of the events, you did everything you could to ensure the best outcome and it worked.

Agreed. The funny thing is, I remember Dad and the mechanic that installed the seal being kind of annoyed that the “tube” was pinched closed and would not inflate. It took several years for the old man to stop being annoyed and concede that the door had never been so well sealed. To this day, our 55 year old Mooney is one of the most comfortable cold weather birds I’ve ever flown in, outside of something pressurized. No discernible drafts. $350 was a lot for a door seal in 1997. It’s a fair amount even in today’s economy. When I replace it, I will likely use a seal with multiple channels that run parallel to the door frame. I think this is why the BF seal works well.