Ragsf15e Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 40 minutes ago, kortopates said: 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 I believe you, but here’s the logbook entry from Don Maxwells. Brakes aren’t mentioned, but I haven’t looked for them specifically in an earlier entry.
LANCECASPER Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 9 hours ago, Ragsf15e said: I believe you, but here’s the logbook entry from Don Maxwells. Brakes aren’t mentioned, but I haven’t looked for them specifically in an earlier entry. Never heard of that before. It would be interesting to see that drawing. I had Encore serial #12 and it definitely had dual puck brakes. In time, I would make sure to do the brake upgrade. The stopping power is much better. 1
47U Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 11 hours ago, Ragsf15e said: I believe you, but here’s the logbook entry from Don Maxwells. Brakes aren’t mentioned, but I haven’t looked for them specifically in an earlier entry. I don’t know anything. Would it be possible that Mooney drawing 940141 specs a different pn single puck brake than what was originally installed at the factory? Look up the caliper pn in the IPC for your serial number, then get the caliper pn off the drawing, or look at the caliper and read the pn directly off the part installed.
kortopates Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 I believe you, but here’s the logbook entry from Don Maxwells. Brakes aren’t mentioned, but I haven’t looked for them specifically in an earlier entry. 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 1 1
Ragsf15e Posted March 2 Report Posted March 2 8 minutes ago, kortopates said: 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 Yes, logbook entries are always an interesting exercise in translation. After the conversion, the previous owner hit a traffic cone taxiing and elected to do a complete overhaul, so everything was OH as an SB engine after this. I’ll look closer at the brakes next trip to the airport.
1980Mooney Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 (edited) 11 hours ago, 47U said: I don’t know anything. Would it be possible that Mooney drawing 940141 specs a different pn single puck brake than what was originally installed at the factory? Look up the caliper pn in the IPC for your serial number, then get the caliper pn off the drawing, or look at the caliper and read the pn directly off the part installed. 10 hours ago, kortopates said: 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 @Ragsf15e "mike261" posted RETROFIT TSIO-360-SB ENGINE DWG. NO. 940141.pdf here on MS on August 26, 2022 as a download....but both he and the drawing are gone along with his posts. Such is MS. Edited March 3 by 1980Mooney 1 1
Aerodon Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 That drawing is for the dual cylinder brakes (dual puck). And other components not mentioned above: airspeed indicator, manifold pressure gauge, tachometer and new POH. EDM900 or other engine monitor takes care of the engine gauges. Glass panel takes care of the airspeed. I got a new POH from Mooney. Don
Pinecone Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 On 2/28/2025 at 6:49 PM, kortopates said: They are originally Bravo gear doors, that were the dual brake upgrade started from - the Bravo. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Thanks. I figured as much. It seems that when the made the Encores, they wanted them to be as close to the long bodies they were building. I wonder what changes are actually NEEDED to support the gross weight increase and what were just to have commonality of parts.
Pinecone Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 Hmm, would a new fuel pump and turbo controller be part of a Factory Reman -SB engine? My log entry mentions everything except those two. The governor was sent off for conversion. Gauges/instruments remarked. Even mentions having to trim the control surfaces to put on the new weights and then they rebalanced all of them. 1
1980Mooney Posted March 3 Report Posted March 3 23 minutes ago, Pinecone said: Thanks. I figured as much. It seems that when the made the Encores, they wanted them to be as close to the long bodies they were building. I wonder what changes are actually NEEDED to support the gross weight increase and what were just to have commonality of parts. Rocket Engineering certified both the Rocket 305 and Missile 300 mid-body conversions to 3,200 lbs. GW with the original single puck brakes. Braking is not great when heavy and/or too fast. You can feel them fade - pressing harder doesn't make them stop quicker. I can see why Mooney went to dual puck brakes on long bodies certified to 3,368 lbs. (The first TLS through serial number 27-0107 had single puck brakes but were also rated to only 3,200 lbs. GW)
Ragsf15e Posted March 4 Report Posted March 4 On 3/2/2025 at 9:15 AM, kortopates said: 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 Are these double puck or single? How would a layman know?
1980Mooney Posted March 4 Report Posted March 4 4 hours ago, Ragsf15e said: Are these double puck or single? How would a layman know? That is the traditional single puck brake cylinder. 1 1
Ragsf15e Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 6 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said: That is the traditional single puck brake cylinder. Thanks. Interesting that Maxwell did the conversion and signed it off. Maybe double puck isn't required by that?
kortopates Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 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
Ragsf15e Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 4 minutes ago, kortopates said: 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 I guess I'm asking, but why add them? Are you saying they are required and were missed when they did the conversion?
1980Mooney Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said: I guess I'm asking, but why add them? Are you saying they are required and were missed when they did the conversion? When you look at your POH (should be on the W&B) and other documents is your plane rated to 3,200 lbs. (like the first M20M with single puck and like the Rocket 305 and Missile 300 conversions with the existing single puck brake) or is it rated to the full 3,368 lbs like the double puck long bodies (including later M20M)? Edited March 5 by 1980Mooney
kortopates Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 I guess I'm asking, but why add them? Are you saying they are required and were missed when they did the conversion?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 940067here 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 1
kortopates Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 13 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said: When you look at your POH (should be on the W&B) and other documents is your plane rated to 3,200 lbs. (like the first M20M with single puck and like the Rocket 305 and Missile 300 conversions with the existing single puck brake) or is it rated to the full 3,368 lbs like the double puck long bodies (including later M20M)? Neither, this is TCDS note that authorizes the increase to 3130 2
1980Mooney Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 49 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said: I guess I'm asking, but why add them? Are you saying they are required and were missed when they did the conversion? Here is the Double Puck brake. You have the lower arrow - Single Puck
Ragsf15e Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 32 minutes ago, kortopates said: 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 The previous owner remembers the discussion with Maxwells about the brakes being an option but not available at the time. He said Maxwells was clear they were optional, so maybe they have an updated drawing? I have put in a note to them to get some more info on it. I have pretty good documentation of everything, but I don’t have that Mooney “drawing” being referenced.
1980Mooney Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 31 minutes ago, kortopates said: In all actuality though i don’t believe the double puck brakes improve stopping distance but the comments above are very true. As I mentioned before, I have the Missile 300 J conversion with standard single puck brakes but rated to 3,200 lbs GW. When landing heavy (and maybe a bit too much speed) standing harder on the brakes does not add additional stopping power. Their stopping force plateaus. You can stand harder and harder on the brakes and it still slows at the same constant rate - and you better have enough runway. It is rather unnerving. I have to believe that the Double Puck brake is superior.
kortopates Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 As I mentioned before, I have the Missile 300 J conversion with standard single puck brakes but rated to 3,200 lbs GW. When landing heavy (and maybe a bit too much speed) standing harder on the brakes does not add additional stopping power. Their stopping force plateaus. You can stand harder and harder on the brakes and it still slows at the same constant rate - and you better have enough runway. It is rather unnerving. I have to believe that the Double Puck brake is superior. 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 1
1980Mooney Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 45 minutes ago, kortopates said: 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. @Ragsf15e That is good advice - while there is still someone at Mooney that can address this. (and put it in writing from Mooney). Otherwise you may have trouble selling it as a true Encore conversion. 1
kortopates Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 The previous owner remembers the discussion with Maxwells about the brakes being an option but not available at the time. He said Maxwells was clear they were optional, so maybe they have an updated drawing? I have put in a note to them to get some more info on it. I have pretty good documentation of everything, but I don’t have that Mooney “drawing” being referenced.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 1
kortopates Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 [mention=11618]Ragsf15e[/mention] That is good advice - while there is still someone at Mooney that can address this. (and put it in writing from Mooney). Otherwise you may have trouble selling it as a true Encore conversion.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
Recommended Posts