DaV8or

So I looked up this suction screen in the Lycoming manual. If I understand it right, it screens out the raw oil from the sump, then sends the loosely filtered oil to the oil pump, the vacuum pump and the prop governor, then the oil goes to the oil filter and on to the other moving parts. Is this correct? If so, it seems that Lycoming doesn't think things like oil pumps, vacuum pumps, or prop governors to be very critical to flight, or they don't think the threat is all that great. I have to figure that if chunks of debris are big enough and plentiful enough that it clogs the suction screen and starves the oil pump, you have some pretty big issues with your engine. Like you said, there should be a pretty significant drop in oil pressure. Fortunately I have a digital engine monitor that gives me alerts to oil pressure changes. Since I just finished changing the oil, I'm not checking that screen this time, but maybe next time. I'll see how tough it is.

OK, but you are the only one I've ever heard make this claim. I guess if you mean effective as in increase efficiency per dollar spent, then perhaps this is so. Don't forget the brake reversal. That's a really cheap one that is supposed to make a small improvement.

Very true that it is a lot of work, but what cowl would you change to down the road that you couldn't have??

Actually the 201 windshield conversion is widely regarded as the most effective speed mod of all. However, you are correct in that many of us spend a lot of money and time to go just a little faster. It is not rational, it's a hobby. BTW, the big down side to the vintage top access panels is they can leak. If you store your plane outside much, pay close attention to that. It can leak in all the worst places.

No, because I've never seen it. None of the shops I've taken my Mooney to in the past bother with that screen. (LASAR, Top Gun and good shop in Santa Barbara) The way it was explained to me was, when our engines were first designed, the screen was all there was and there was no spin on filter. Later they modified the design to include a spin on filter and just kept the screen. The spin on filter catches more than the screen ever could. Folks that struggle and toil to remove find that low and behold, there is never anything in it. I'd like to see what it looks like too just out of curiosity.

This is true. Some of the components are salvaged from your original vintage cowl. You reuse the cowl flaps, nose gear doors and the metal support structure, the ram air door, the air box and alternate air valve, the landing light housing and if you don't do the oil cooler relocate, you use that bracket over too.

Sounds great! Have you ever had an engine out in a GA plane?

Yes, the main differences are- The SWTA cowl is a 4 piece cowl with a fixed lower cowl that is a PITA to take off, 2 cheek panels that come off in seconds and a top cowl that also comes off easily. The real 201 cowl is just two pieces, a top and lower. I've never done it, but many say the lower cowl is pretty easy to get off and the top is like the SWTA cowl. The SWTA cowl is no longer available and I'm not sure if the STC is transferable even if you find a used one. The real 201 cowl has no STC at this time, (once did) but usually can be used with a field approval. The parts are available new at a crazy cost, or used at reasonable cost. The real 201 cowl has cowl flaps that actually work, but the SWTA cowl retains the ram air that actually works. The real 201 cowl can be had with or without ram air, but the ones with ram air are said to be of little use. The real 201 cowl is much better aerodynamically than the STWA cowl. To observe this, compare the two on a ramp side by side. The real 201 is sloped more like a bullet on the lower half and the SWTA cowl retains much of the original vintage cowl, so it is more vertical into the wind. The real 201 cowl is an all fiberglass affair, where as the SWTA cowl retains more of the original aluminum so it may be less maintenance in the future. I think that's about it. Maybe other can let me know if I missed something.

Yes, I do that too. I have a screen on top of my bucket that I use to catch the oil, and I let it sit and drain there a while first.

To be clear others in this thread, your plane does not have a true Mooney 201 cowl. It has the SWTA "201 style" cowl on it. It's the same one I have.

Yeah, the cheek panels are great for a quick inspection, but other than that they aren't of that great of value. Being able to drop the lower cowl easily is well worth the trade off IMO.

My oil filter rig- I have since added a 90 degree elbow and down spout directly into the bucket. When you're done, chuck the caps on so no need to clean the rig up. On the oil side, I have a quick drain, so with a hose I can do both the oil drain and the filter removal at once and they both drain into the same bucket. It's cutting the filter and examining the element that is messy.

What? They want pictures of cracked and corroded aluminum, airframes in pieces all over the hangar, broken parts and panels with wires hanging out all over the place?? Seems odd... but OK. Wait... do other people post pictures of assembled planes just sitting on the ramp?? Strange, I never thought of doing that.

And I agree that your mod will be a great option for future vintage Mooney owners. At this point it is mostly just about cost. The value of M20Js has come down so much that spending much money trying to make a vintage Mooney into a J doesn't make any sense anymore. The vintage Mooneys are finally becoming obsolete and going to the scrap yard like their original creators had intended them to do decades ago, it's just things move slow in aviation.

They're not. Production of those stopped years ago. According to Russell Stallings before he passed away, to restart production would require re-certifying the STC. Apparently the epoxy resin he used to make them is no longer available and using currently available resins require re-certification according to the FAA. He did not feel that it was worth the hassle. I assume the new owners of SWTA got all the STCs Russell had, so maybe they will pursue resurrecting the "201 Style" cowling mod. It's what I have on my plane and it is a nice solution, but even it isn't as good as the real 201 cowl aerodynamically.

I mean the M20J cowl, not his refined aftermarket cowl. Sorry for the confusion.

Sorry, I was not specific enough. In my mind, the main reason to alter the cowling on a vintage Mooney is speed gains. In the case of speed gains, David's cowling mod is not as aerodynamically slick as Roy LoPresti's 201 cowling. The later is a complete redesign and the former is a nice patch for a flawed design. David's offering is no doubt cheaper and easier to install. It very well be more durable long term due to greater use of factory aluminum. You also get to keep your "cheek" panels which make for quick and easy inspection. However, the 201 cowl is superior in the speed department.

Easier and more affordable yes, but no where near as good.

I think if you can get a good deal on the cowling and all of the parts needed, then do the work yourself, it could be worthwhile. I have thought of doing it myself. There are a lot of different parts required and I'm not sure how you handle the air intake connection to the C's carburetor as the J's cowling was designed for fuel injection. Somebody must have come up with a solution and you'll need to find that. I also think it may require the 201 windshield to be done as well, although I'm not 100% on that one. If you're hoping to buy the parts and then pay a shop to put it on, then I agree with others, you're better off trading planes.

I think, "Who does your rug?" is more likely. Here is Donald Trump's dad- Fred Trump

You could be right. The IA might have called this one in. However in my mind it is completely possible that it just coincidentally fell apart when it did just after annual. Likely we will never know, but it sounds like the engine builders are stepping up, so I think they kinda know...

Also, this is good reminder that the owner/pilot has a responsibility to pull the cowl once in awhile and inspect the engine too. Something more frequent than oil changes and annuals. I'm not faulting the OP here, but just a comment. Don't be afraid to pop those screws and have a look around every now and again. Before going on a trip over the mountains might be a good time. I too am guilty of complacency.

To the OP- I hope this experience causes you to consider those routes over the Sierras even more. I don't know what route you were planning, but far too many pilots just choose to go direct over some pretty nasty terrain. We should always be thinking- "When my engine quits..." rather then "If my engine quits...". Same goes for ocean crossings, night time, hard IFR, urban areas, forests, etc. As you have experienced, a "well maintained" engine is not always enough. Far too many people subscribe to the concept of "The engine doesn't know the difference", but as you can tell from internet forum surfing over the years, these engines quit on us far more than the optimists will have us believe. Fortunately, most are like you and catch it before disaster, or are able to easily set it down. Just stuff for everybody to think about during the flight planning phase.

I'm not sure why you say this with such conviction. The annual was three weeks ago. How many hours was put on in those three weeks? I can conceive of how those nuts, washers and plate could have been all there and looking quite normal, but with one or both nuts just finger tight. In the following weeks one of those nuts could have come loose and once one nut is loose, the whole thing will fall apart in no time. I think it over reaching to toss the annual IA under the bus. The real fault is with whoever installed the plate. What the condition looked like at annual is unverifiable and unknown. Like you said, there is no requirement to check the torque on those nuts at annual.

I'm a cheap bastard. No, they charge extra for that here.