252 > 262 Conversion

[Ragsf15e]

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]

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. 

[47U]

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]

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

[Ragsf15e]

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]

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 6 hours ago by 1980Mooney

[Aerodon]

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