252 > 262 Conversion

[Ragsf15e]

13 minutes ago, kortopates said:

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

Possibly, but Cole has been maintaining it since…

[kortopates]

Let’s hope Frank has some good news for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ragsf15e]

14 hours ago, kortopates said:

Let’s hope Frank has some good news for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to Don, they consulted Mooney engineering before the conversion and Mooney agreed that the single puck conversion was acceptable since the original Bravo had a higher GW and single puck.  It’s never simple or as clear as we want with these things…

[kortopates]

5 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

According to Don, they consulted Mooney engineering before the conversion and Mooney agreed that the single puck conversion was acceptable since the original Bravo had a higher GW and single puck.  It’s never simple or as clear as we want with these things…

Great, get that in writing then if Don didn't already.

Very glad to hear it wasn't just done out of convenience!

[MikeOH]

40 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Great, get that in writing then if Don didn't already.

Very glad to hear it wasn't just done out of convenience!

Given the wording in the logbook, wouldn’t that be sufficient ‘in writing’ evidence?

[Pinecone]

Would that be a minor mod?

The conversion to Encore is in the TDCS.  

I would want at least a letter from the manufacturer.

[kortopates]

Given the wording in the logbook, wouldn’t that be sufficient ‘in writing’ evidence?

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

[kortopates]

Would that be a minor mod?
The conversion to Encore is in the TDCS.  
I would want at least a letter from the manufacturer.

A change to the landing gear is considered major.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pinecone]

Just now, kortopates said:

A change to the landing gear is considered major.

It was more rhetorical question.  If it is not a minor mod, it needs more than a log book entry.

[Aerodon]

The double puck conversion is by far the most expensive part of the conversion,  new master cylinders, new calipers, new gear leg to flip the pucks from front to back, new gear doors.  

Without these, you do not have a legitimate Encore in my opinion.

The balance weights are relatively minor, but the stabilizer does require some trimming.  I can tell from pictures whether these have been done or not. the Vne does not change, gross weight might have some influence on flutter speeds, but I think production line convenience was part of it.

The engine changes are minor if you do it smart.

There’s a reason this is an expensive upgrade.

Don

 

 

[Aerodon]

15 hours ago, kortopates said:

A change to the landing gear is considered major.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If there were two different propellers listed on the type certificate,  the logbook entry would be simple, removed 2 bladed prop, installed 3 bladed, update W&B etc.

How is an encore conversion any different, it’s a configuration change, not a modification to the type certificate.  It’s a series of changing one part for another, including the POH, complete with factory instructions.

Don