kortopates

Cylinders are easily replaceable. unless metal contamination damaged the bottom end that does not constitute catastrophic damage and may not have needed a full engine overhaul to repair. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i’ve used both as a long time owner and IMO the Donaldson is superior, since it does a better job filtering. Non of the marketing advantages of increasing horsepower have any truth for a turbo engine. Why? regardless which one creates the most air resistance, once you have your turbo controller adjusted to provide redline MAP at full throttle the air filter performance doesn’t even play into it. What does is the filtering performance and the K&N foam filter grows thinner with age and cleaning. As a result you’ll see your silicone numbers increasing with time long before 25 cleanings. I went back to Donaldson for this reason. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is an old thread and the OP sold his Mooney and hasn’t been on Mooneyspace in a year. The answer to your question though depends on if you’re doing it IFR or VFR, as well as your equipment. I’ve done it many times IFR at 16 or 17K, but the OP did it VFR at about half that altitude. Mexico’s upper plateau density altitude is a challenging environment to fly a normally aspirated engine. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Check out https://www.ezwxbrief.com/ does this and a whole lot more

Absolutely nothing to do with drugs. Besides the owners of these private strips can still use them, just not 3rd parties meaning tourist. And nothing to do with CBP or crossing the border where they do seize drugs except not on private GA aircraft but vehicles. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stay tuned for another week or so and this stupidity will undoubtedly be retracted. Me -i am just happy i got my Whales trip last weekend! Feeling sorry for those that were headed down this weekend! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As you state above its not different and any A&P can accomplish this. But my comment was directed at not following the factory instructions, just like taking an Encore and then replacing the brakes with single puck since then it will no longer be compliant with out acceptable or approved data to do so.

A change to the landing gear is considered major. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, because we have to cite approved or acceptable data for the change. The cited drawing requires the double puck brake change so approved or acceptable data is required to omit them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great, get that in writing then if Don didn't already. Very glad to hear it wasn't just done out of convenience!

Let’s hope Frank has some good news for you. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He may also have a hard time getting it through annual anyplace other than Don’s with out such documentation if mooney savvy IA discovers this… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

you have a photo of the steps with out any mention of them being optional. But please do ask Frank, but i am very skeptical! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s why i said the comments above are very true, i was referring to yours. But my recollection of the POH tables are that at the same weight upto the original max gross that the stopping distances between the 252 and Encore are identical. But i still agree with you 100% Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course you can. Don’t you already climb at 100% anyway? Sort of the same thing in that you can cruise that way too if you want. But do recognize any power setting above max cruise requires full rich mixture as mentioned in the table. Your cruise table list the max cruise power setting permitted with leaning. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Neither, this is TCDS note that authorizes the increase to 3130

There is no approved means to do the conversion without them. All Encore conversions have them and the gross weight increase drawing 940141 to make the conversion requires them per step 11 per drawing 940067 here is a photo of the page from 940141 that covers this when converting the engine as a -505 retrofit: So unless Don has something more from the factory saying step 11 is optional this isn’t compliant, not to mention your POH braking charts are based on double puck brakes. In all actuality though i don’t believe the double puck brakes improve stopping distance but the comments above are very true. As far as i know you have the only unicorn conversion without double puck brakes. So nobody said a word about this when representing the plane? You might start with writing an email to Frank Crawford at Mooney to ask if there is any documentation that allows completing the conversion IAW with 940141 without installing the double puck brakes as stated in step 11. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bummer, it’s going to be very expensive to add the double puck brakes. I think Mooney is charging $8K for a set of the higher capacity master cylinders! then you have other parts on top of them and would replace hoses since they look original. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No turbo is going to do well at 12K, but bring it up to the upper teens and you’ll see that performance at either 13 GPH ROP or LOP at lower FF. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From my memory that is the correct drawing for double puck brakes upgrade so i wouldn’t be too worried till i looked at the brakes. As written the statement is saying they upgraded the brakes to “single puck” per the drawing for “double puck”. Probably just a poorly written log entry. I am sure he’ll be willing to correct that entry. i am more concerned that he neither mentioned to be in compliance with the second drawing for engine and airframe or to also list the fuel pump being upgraded and exhaust bracket parts - since he listed everything else on the the drawing. I know and understand how he was able to leave off the turbo controller going by the Hartzell documentation, but not the pump. But you may find mention of the fuel pump in the receipts. The exhaust bracket is only a few bucks but the pump is more like $1000-1200. He can correct the entry by just saying they upgraded the brakes IAW Mooney drawing #… and leave any mention of pucks out of it! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn’t make sense. The original K model 231 and 252 brakes are single puck. The only conversion, which is for the Encore, is to double puck brakes. It’s pretty easy to tell visually since it’s has 4 brakes pads on each caliper. Also the middle gear door has a big bulge for the double puck brakes. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are originally Bravo gear doors, that were the dual brake upgrade started from - the Bravo. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually the waste gate part # is the same but the Wastegate controller and Manifold pressure controller ate synonymous with each other. The Continental part # for the controller did change but Hartzell part # is the same for both -SB and -MB controllers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yes they are different parts. not watergate though but controller. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

you left off the fuel pump change, there are some additional mooney parts to support the larger master cylinders too. And of course an Encore POH. Also these are two different cumulative mods and brakes can be done first separately from the engine and balance weights if desired to stage them. these are not a STC so any A&P can do these anytime with the drawings. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk