LANCECASPER Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 2 hours ago, Shadrach said: The dual puck upgrade seems like it might improve feel and provide longer pad life. I dubious that it makes a lot of difference in actual brake performance. For that to be true, the stock rotors would have to have ample margin for heat dissipation beyond what the stock pads and calipers can generate. I had M20M Serial # 27-0209 from 1996 - 2000 and it had dual puck brakes. It was much better than the brakes on my 231 which had single puck brakes, but was a lighter airplane. From 2006-2010 I had M20M Serial # 27-0007 and it had single puck brakes with brand new rotors and pads, properly broken in. The brakes were adequate but certain not confidence-inspiring, no doubt the reason that Mooney chose to upgrade to the dual puck brakes shortly into the M20M. From 2015-2021 I had M20M Serial #27-150 and it had dual puck brakes and again on this airplane the brakes were excellent.
Shadrach Posted Monday at 02:09 PM Report Posted Monday at 02:09 PM 20 hours ago, LANCECASPER said: I had M20M Serial # 27-0209 from 1996 - 2000 and it had dual puck brakes. It was much better than the brakes on my 231 which had single puck brakes, but was a lighter airplane. From 2006-2010 I had M20M Serial # 27-0007 and it had single puck brakes with brand new rotors and pads, properly broken in. The brakes were adequate but certain not confidence-inspiring, no doubt the reason that Mooney chose to upgrade to the dual puck brakes shortly into the M20M. From 2015-2021 I had M20M Serial #27-150 and it had dual puck brakes and again on this airplane the brakes were excellent. I don't doubt your experience. I am sure that all other things being equal, the dual pot calipers feel much stronger. I can say that in my experience, braking action between similar and even same models can vary considerably. The mechanical state of the system is most important. There are many Mooneys flying around with trace amounts of air in their systems, hindering performance (right now mine is one of them, unfortunately). The rotor (heat sink) determines the braking system's ability to convert kinetic energy into thermal energy. Extra pad area and additional pistons can increase clamping force for a given pedal input which will give better initial response and convert more kinetic energy to heat for a given input. All of which will make the brakes feel stronger and more responsive. Nevertheless, with the same rotors, I doubt that the system's overall performance has changed drastically. However, I don't doubt that it takes noticeably less pedal effort to extract max performance. 1
Jackk Posted Tuesday at 12:36 AM Report Posted Tuesday at 12:36 AM (edited) On 1/4/2026 at 3:55 PM, ragedracer1977 said: If you live on the east coast or the plains and never use your Mooney as intended, that makes a lot of sense. I have lived all over, including the north west and south west, and also flew a bit in AK, yeah I really never got over 10k, never needed to. Including flying coast to coast Edited Tuesday at 12:37 AM by Jackk
Rick Junkin Posted Tuesday at 04:14 PM Report Posted Tuesday at 04:14 PM On 1/4/2026 at 8:50 PM, LANCECASPER said: I had M20M Serial # 27-0209 from 1996 - 2000 and it had dual puck brakes. It was much better than the brakes on my 231 which had single puck brakes, but was a lighter airplane. From 2006-2010 I had M20M Serial # 27-0007 and it had single puck brakes with brand new rotors and pads, properly broken in. The brakes were adequate but certain not confidence-inspiring, no doubt the reason that Mooney chose to upgrade to the dual puck brakes shortly into the M20M. From 2015-2021 I had M20M Serial #27-150 and it had dual puck brakes and again on this airplane the brakes were excellent. Thanks for the real-world comparison. I can lock up the wheels with the single puck brakes on my airplane, but it does take some effort and I don't have any M20M dual puck experience to compare. I don't often land anywhere that I need maximum braking, and when I do I have to get the flaps up and get on the brakes pretty hard. It's harder to meter the braking force when you're pushing hard on the pedals so I look to be below 50kts before heavy application to help avoid skidding. But now I'm getting more into braking technique rather than braking capability, so I'll attempt to stop the thread drift here. 1
kortopates Posted Tuesday at 05:16 PM Report Posted Tuesday at 05:16 PM The main difference with the double puck brakes is longevity of brake pads - not stopping performance. You can pull up performance data from the POH’s and my recollection is no difference for the same weight - which was surprising for me.But you can certainly lock them up much more easily. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
donkaye, MCFI Posted Tuesday at 05:25 PM Report Posted Tuesday at 05:25 PM 1 hour ago, Rick Junkin said: Thanks for the real-world comparison. I can lock up the wheels with the single puck brakes on my airplane, but it does take some effort and I don't have any M20M dual puck experience to compare. I don't often land anywhere that I need maximum braking, and when I do I have to get the flaps up and get on the brakes pretty hard. It's harder to meter the braking force when you're pushing hard on the pedals so I look to be below 50kts before heavy application to help avoid skidding. But now I'm getting more into braking technique rather than braking capability, so I'll attempt to stop the thread drift here. I have 27-0106. They changed to the dual puck system on 27-0107. I missed it by one. Initially, the cost to replace the pucks made the change to the dual puck system not really cost effective, but as time went on that changed dramatically. I bought the plane in 1992. Initially, the upgrade cost of materials was about $4,500. I finally had had enough of the poor braking and the cost of replacing the pucks about every 70 hours. In 2016 I did the upgrade. By that time the cost had grown to $8,500. It was not a trivial upgrade. It involved new axels, beefier disks, new gear doors, and a lot of labor. The difference in braking is significant. Care, however, needs to be exercised in braking or the brakes will lock up. Today, I'm not even sure you would be able to get an upgrade kit made. 1 1
Jackk Posted Tuesday at 07:42 PM Report Posted Tuesday at 07:42 PM Where are yall often going where you even need to use brakes aside from taxi and runup?
Raistlin Posted Thursday at 03:26 AM Report Posted Thursday at 03:26 AM (edited) On 1/3/2026 at 5:37 AM, LANCECASPER said: First of all there's no proof at this point that it's a Bravo. The ad lists a TIO-540-AF1A engine, which was an original engine without the Bravo conversion. The only way to get a Bravo engine now for this airplane is to do a factory exchange (they will take an -AF1A as core credit on a -AF1B). By the time you do that with installation, etc, etc that will be an extra $100,000. Also this is serial number 27-0088, so it's before the dual puck brakes, which means no gross weight increase. It probably has the original landing gear motor, budget $15,000-$20,000 for the updated gear motor. These items are just scratching the surface. 35 year old paint, interior, panel, no ads-b, fuel tanks?, etc, etc. If he gave it to you free and you put in $275,000 you could have an airplane worth $250,000 - $275,000 .. maybe, but no logs. If the seller gets $125,000 he will be doing very well on this airplane. I wouldn't trust the engine that's on that airplane. To add a data point, new cylinders for my Bravo in 2024 cost me in the ballpark of 5.5k per cylinder, and the lead time was August to November. I think you already changed your mind, but in case remember that besides inspection of the remaining cylinders corrosion might also affect the camshaft and to have at least a look at it they would need to pull one or two cylinders at least… Edited Thursday at 03:27 AM by Raistlin 1
Recommended Posts