Mooney 262 —— Questions about support

[Schllc]

I know that the stc for this conversion is for all intents and purposes is dead, but once a plane had the conversion it only needs parts support to continue flying. 
My understanding is that this is basically a 252. 
is there anything unique to this conversion that could cause issues in the future?

[Ragsf15e]

28 minutes ago, Schllc said:

I know that the stc for this conversion is for all intents and purposes is dead, but once a plane had the conversion it only needs parts support to continue flying. 
My understanding is that this is basically a 252. 
is there anything unique to this conversion that could cause issues in the future?

I wonder if there’s a way to get in touch with @gsxrpilot.  I want to say he had a conversion done ~5 years ago, but he hasn’t been around here for a long time.  He probably knows though.

[Falcon Man]

My 262 experience,

No problem according to my AI regarding the STC.

One glaring issue is with the starter. There have been at least 5 inflight starter problems with the lightweight starters. They have activated and destroyed gears in the accessory case, causing simultaneous vacuum pump and a # 2 alternator failure. I had this happen, but I had a backup electric vacuum and a second #1 unaffected alternator. There was metal that got into the oil and destroyed the bottom end.

I talked with TCM and they were aware and advised only using the original TSIO360MB big old heavy duty starter. This is a problem with the MB engine in a 12/14 v aircraft, as it has never been a reported problem in 252's, which art 24/28 volt.

I did not experience any other unique problems with my 1984 231 converted to a 262, which I flew for a little more than 1000 hrs. 

 

[Mooney in Oz]

40 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

I wonder if there’s a way to get in touch with @gsxrpilot.  I want to say he had a conversion done ~5 years ago, but he hasn’t been around here for a long time.  He probably knows though.

IIRC,  Paul had the Encore conversation done.  They maybe similar.

[LANCECASPER]

44 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

I wonder if there’s a way to get in touch with @gsxrpilot.  I want to say he had a conversion done ~5 years ago, but he hasn’t been around here for a long time.  He probably knows though.

Pau has N252AD which is a 252 and he had the Encore gross weight increase done.

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

I know that the stc for this conversion is for all intents and purposes is dead, but once a plane had the conversion it only needs parts support to continue flying. 
My understanding is that this is basically a 252. 
is there anything unique to this conversion that could cause issues in the future?

The limiting factor in this airplane is that the 231, which this was originally, has a 12 volt electrical system. 

[Aerodon]

Apart from the 14/28V issue, they are the same engine.  Either may or may not have the dual alternator.  But the 231 cannot get the the Encore gross weight increase.

 

Aerodon

[Red Leader]

8 minutes ago, Aerodon said:

 But the 231 cannot get the the Encore gross weight increase.

Why not?

[LANCECASPER]

Why not?

The Gross Weight increase for M20K only applies to serial numbers 25-1000 through 25-1230. Those are all 252's.

[Schllc]

1 hour ago, Falcon Man said:

My 262 experience,

No problem according to my AI regarding the STC.

One glaring issue is with the starter. There have been at least 5 inflight starter problems with the lightweight starters. They have activated and destroyed gears in the accessory case, causing simultaneous vacuum pump and a # 2 alternator failure. I had this happen, but I had a backup electric vacuum and a second #1 unaffected alternator. There was metal that got into the oil and destroyed the bottom end.

I talked with TCM and they were aware and advised only using the original TSIO360MB big old heavy duty starter. This is a problem with the MB engine in a 12/14 v aircraft, as it has never been a reported problem in 252's, which art 24/28 volt.

I did not experience any other unique problems with my 1984 231 converted to a 262, which I flew for a little more than 1000 hrs. 

 

Is this the case for the mb2 motor, or all mb series are 14v?  The one I saw had a 950# useful which is adequate with 75gal fuel capacity. With an electric panel you wouldn’t have vacuum to worry about.  Otherwise, is there a problem with the original starter, other than it just being heavier?

[Pinecone]

All MB are not 12/14 volt as the 252 has a -MB from the factory and is 24/28 volt.

[Falcon Man]

The factory said nothing particular as to why the factory starter was advised. Probably because the failure was specifically with lightweight starters, and no known failures with the factory one. Maybe because the MB engine was never designed to be in a 12/14 volt aircraft??

I asked why a service bulletin wasn't issued and the person I spoke with didn't know. Maybe it was because no one was injured physically and they did not authorize the STC.

I would be very skeptical of any stock 231/252 has a useful load of 950 #, unless it was actually weighed per the POH. Many review authors of 231/252 wrote that all left the factory over 2000#.

If you remove the vacuum system in stock 231/252 you will have to replace the speed brake system as it is vacuum operated. My old 262 current owner did this and the airplane has long range tanks and he said it was a nightmare and double the regular cost over standard tanks. And they had to get a field approval due to the wing structure modification.

 

 

[Z W]

I haven't had any conversion-related issues in about 12 years of operations that I can recall.  It can be a little tricky to figure out if you need the 231 parts or the 252 parts in the illustrated parts catalog, but it's always one or the other. And often, there are several different part number options even for just the 231's, so you'd probably be figuring it out anyways.

In general, you use the 231 parts for electrical stuff, and most of the airframe, and the 252 parts for firewall forward.  I believe that's all they did for the STC - replaced 231 parts with factory Mooney 252 parts.  I have never come across any non-factory or one-off custom-fabricated parts.

Some of the unique 252 parts associated with the TSIO-360-MB and SB engines have become harder to find, such as the intake airbox.  The factory has supposedly been working on making us one for over two years now.  Ours has been repaired and rewelded multiple times, and the last time, essentially rebuilt.  But this is a problem you'd have with any 252 or Encore, not just a 262.  There just weren't all that many ever made.

Have always kept the old original part number starter and avoided the lightweight due to reports on here of issues.  Still have the vacuum speed brakes and step, even though that's all the vacuum pump runs now.

I've heard some conversions don't have all the parts changed.  Examples include the fully variable cowl flaps, rounded side window inserts, extended range tanks, vacuum step, second alternator, maybe some others.  As far as I can tell, ours got everything, but you might investigate closely if you were shopping another one.  I don't think any of it would matter a whole lot to me.  The biggest feature is the MB engine and the ability to take off full throttle without concern of overboosting.

[LANCECASPER]

The 261 and 262 conversions made a lot of sense back in the 90's when the engine on the 231 reached TBO and labor costs were within reason, and if you were planning on keeping the airplane. The conversion back around 1997 was in the $45,000 range. The MB engine was a big improvement over the GB and LB and it wasn't hugely more expensive than an LB when you bought a new engine. I believe back then Continental would give the shop doing the conversion a good core value on the GB or LB toward the MB.

Due to the intercooler and automatic wastegate, it's an improvement over the 231. Back then people referred to it as a "poor man's 252". The conversions didn't do that well in the used market because by the time you did the conversion you had about as much into it as you would in a 252. But the conversion was probably better than selling a run-out 231 at a huge discount and then trying to replace it by paying retail for a low time 252.

There's been a lot written about them on here - these are a couple of those posts:

This article comments on it: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1997/july/pilot/modding-mooneys

When I bought a Bravo in 1996 the person that ended up with my 231 (N5655T) ended up converting it to a 262 (N262VF).

@geoffb bought the airplane from that guy and owns it now and could provide insight on the 262

[Vance Harral]

17 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

I wonder if there’s a way to get in touch with @gsxrpilot.  I want to say he had a conversion done ~5 years ago, but he hasn’t been around here for a long time.  He probably knows though.

@gsxrpilot is alive and well, I had lunch with him this weekend.  But like many folks (not yet including me for better or worse), he has decided that the less time he spends on social media, forums, etc. the better.  Even if he was here, though, I doubt he'd have much to say about the 262.  His airplane left the factory as a 252 which he updated to an Encore.  As far as I know, he doesn't have any more insight into the 231 -> 262 conversion than I do, which is just we both know someone that had one.

https://mooneyspace.com/topic/2181-comparison-of-mooney-252-and-mooney-262-conversion/ has a pretty good summary of the feature differences between the 262 and a "real" 252.  But it's been so long since either was made, that most of the differences at this point are more about the individual airplane under consideration than the designed features.  I think the increasing difficulty in obtaining "conventional" Mooney parts (landing gear parts, intake boots, etc.) is a much larger concern than anything associated with unique aspects of the various Mooney conversions like the 262, Rocket, etc.

[Falcon Man]

If anyone wants more info on the 262 conversion of a 231 by Coy Jacobs feel free to pm me and include a phone number and I can provide answers to most of your questions.

[Sixstring2k]

21 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

@gsxrpilot is alive and well, I had lunch with him this weekend.  But like many folks (not yet including me for better or worse), he has decided that the less time he spends on social media, forums, etc. the better.  Even if he was here, though, I doubt he'd have much to say about the 262.  His airplane left the factory as a 252 which he updated to an Encore.  As far as I know, he doesn't have any more insight into the 231 -> 262 conversion than I do, which is just we both know someone that had one.

https://mooneyspace.com/topic/2181-comparison-of-mooney-252-and-mooney-262-conversion/ has a pretty good summary of the feature differences between the 262 and a "real" 252.  But it's been so long since either was made, that most of the differences at this point are more about the individual airplane under consideration than the designed features.  I think the increasing difficulty in obtaining "conventional" Mooney parts (landing gear parts, intake boots, etc.) is a much larger concern than anything associated with unique aspects of the various Mooney conversions like the 262, Rocket, etc.

@gsxpilot shows up from time to time on the Mooney facebook page if you want to send him a msg. 

[Fly Boomer]

52 minutes ago, Sixstring2k said:

@gsxpilot shows up from time to time on the Mooney facebook page if you want to send him a msg. 

Is that the group with about 3,000 members, and "no new posts today"?

EDIT:  Mooney Owners Group

[geoffb]

The starter issue isn't limited to the 360s.  I think the prevailing wisdom is that you want the big energizer starter for all 360s, 520s, 550s.

-MB doesn't decide if it's 12 or 24 volts.  Voltage regulator does.  All 231s are 12V airframes.  I've got dual 70 amp alternators (TSIO-360-MB4B), so capacity isn't a problem.

The 261 and 262 conversions are all factory 252 parts firewall forward.  I think the difference between the 2 STCs was manual vs electric operation of the cowl flap.  Nothing unique beyond the creative differences and quality of work of the shops doing the conversions.  Mine is the Mod Squad Thunderbird 261, STC SA2445CE.  Was installed by Lone Star in '98.

Things like speed brakes, extended tanks, etc are separate STCs.  The mod works and mod squad -MB conversions covered the FWF change and ancillaries needed to support that.  Your Monroy tanks, inner gear doors, speed brakes, dual piston calipers and on and on are all stand-alone STCs, not part of the 261 or 262 STC.  My stack of STC paperwork has to weigh 10 lbs.

Only one I'm aware of without a full 252 cowling is the one in WA state that was recently for sale.  It still has the 231 cowling with 2 cowl flaps and a NACA duct added for the intake.

I've got all my STC drawings, instructions, etc.  So if anybody needs something from the install package, just drop me a note.  As far as I know, the only STC mine doesn't have is the one-piece belly.

[Fly Boomer]

56 minutes ago, geoffb said:

Mine is the Mod Squad Thunderbird 261, STC SA2445CE.  Was installed by Lone Star in '98.

Your profile says you have a 262, and your registration number suggests the same thing.

[geoffb]

It seems that both of the -MB conversions are generically referred to as 262s.  Mod Squad happened to call their STC the Thunderbird 261.  I suspect Mod Works had already called theirs 262.

 

 

[Danb]

On 6/10/2024 at 7:58 PM, Schllc said:

I know that the stc for this conversion is for all intents and purposes is dead, but once a plane had the conversion it only needs parts support to continue flying. 
My understanding is that this is basically a 252. 
is there anything unique to this conversion that could cause issues in the future?

I believe I noticed your plane going into Hagerstown 

D

[Schllc]

12 minutes ago, Danb said:

I believe I noticed your plane going into Hagerstown 

D

It was mine…. It now belongs to another lucky fellow….

[Danb]

For sure that’s what I told Steve in Lancaster

[Texas Mooney]

1 hour ago, Fly Boomer said:

Your profile says you have a 262, and your registration number suggests the same thing.

 

1 hour ago, geoffb said:

It seems that both of the -MB conversions are generically referred to as 262s.  Mod Squad happened to call their STC the Thunderbird 261.  I suspect Mod Works had already called theirs 262.

Mod Squad 261 Thunderbird conversion

198902-1989 Mooney M20K 231 to 252 Conversion.pdf (aeroresourcesinc.com)

Mod Works Trophy 262 conversion . (The owner of Mod Works, Bob Meier, also owned the STC. Coy Jacobs Mooney Mart did it and called it the Award 262.  Lake Aero Styling LASAR also did some conversion.  )

199707-1997 Mooney M20 Modifications.pdf (aeroresourcesinc.com)

Also see p. 90

Flying Magazine - Google Books

"From memory, there were actually two "Trophy" conversions: the Trophy 261, and the later 262.  I had the 261 conversion done to my 231 in the early 1990s when Coy Jacobs was at Punta Gorda, and the firm was called Mod Works. When Tim took over the Mod Works, Coy left and established the Mod Squad, and the Trophy 262 conversion was created. I believe they were essentially built to the same goal: to build a 252 clone, but leaving it a 12 volt system. The later 231 and 252 airframes were the same (I'm sure there might have been some minor differences such as rounded window corners) with the 252 having a one piece belly pan, and an improved Continental engine with a better wastegate system, an intercooler, some more engine tweaks. and a different propeller. The 261/262 STC conversions replaced everything firewall forward with the same engine propeller combination as the factory 252, and added a one piece belly pan, as well as a new cowl with a different variable vent system (the 252 cowl).  The 261/262 POH was a reprint of the 252 POH, and I regularly flew her at FL270 (with Prist in the fuel tanks).  The conversion, at that time, was generally less expensive than selling a perfectly good 231, and buying a new factory 252.  In my case, while the 261 conversion was supposed to use a remanufactured engine, I actually got a brand new engine since at that point there were no remanufactured engines for the 252.  It was a great airplane, and I owned her for about 16 years.  I would not think that converting a 231 would make much sense now, since there are good existing conversions for sale, and 252 prices are reasonable at this point.  If you really want to pursue the STC, you might want contact Coy Jacobs at his company: Mooney Mart.  Before a whole bunch of negative postings come in about Coy, I want to say that all of my dealings with him, including selling my 261 though him, were honest, without gile, and met my expectations. I think that he, and Paul Lowen at LASAR know more about Mooneys than anyone else I have ever met.  I am not endorsing Coy, as I know some Mooneyspace members have had "difficulties" with his work.  I can only tell you about my experiences."