Light Weight Starters

[170C]

Facing possible total rebuild of Delco-Remy starter, bushing for lever on starter and bushing/seal in housing for accessory case, etc. Just wondering how this cost might compare to a Sky Tec or other starter. If my searching is correct, the only light weight starter approved for Continental O-300 A-C engines is the Sky Tec which appears to sell for around $565 + a lot of labor to cut off the shaft in the accessory case. My IA has suggested I consider the light weight starter considering the possible cost of overhaul, at some point a new clutch, etc. So far the 170 types I have talked with that have the light wt ones have nothing bad (other than cost) to say about them. Are there any other lt wt starters other than Sky Tec & is there any dealer that sells for less than others? When I get through with this thing (airplane) it ought to be one geeze whiz plane after all the maint. I am having to do Suggestions appreciated.

[GAHorn]

Frank, don't give up too early on your original starter. This is tantamount to saying someone's choice of motor oil or toothpaste is questionable, but I prefer the original equipment setup. It is more available, less expensive, more durable, and easier to service when on-the-road.
The bushings can be easily replaced. (I did mine myself, obtaining the individual parts from El Reno.) Aerotech of Louisville can rebuild your starter or supply an overhauled unit very attractively priced when compared to the new lightweights. http://www.aerotechlou.com/
Niagra Air Parts is also one of our supporters and can supply new/rebuilt clutches and also offer their own 5-roller clutch (which I have installed.) http://www.niagaraairparts.com/
While most owners of light-weight (LW) starters like them, I believe it's in the realm of "how you like your wife/girl-lfriend" type of questions. After the selection is made and the money is paid, the principal always loves the choice they are stuck with.
Most owners of light-weight starters delight in telling how fast it spins the engine during start. I do not consider that a positive at all. I believe it unnecessarily slams/stresses the engine and gearcase. In some instances it results in backfiring/back-running with potentially serious damage to the gear-train. (The impulse couplings in our magnetos are designed to operate at slower cranking speeds anyway.)
The weight savings of the LW units is impressive, but not as beneficial as one might think due to the location of the unit. The installation actually shifts the CG of the airplane AFT....which is not a good direction at all.
Many mechanics, when faced with a customer who has a problem, like to recommend the LW units. This is understandable when you consider who and how much money is made in recommending that mod. Several hours labor as well as the industry mark-up on the new unit is too good to pass up for many mechanics, when they consider that the simple replacement of an exchange starter has a low price due to common availability.
I encourage you to properly repair/exchange your original unit.

(My usual disclaimers apply since I will be soliciting LW donations this summer.)

[cessna170bdriver]

Frank,

You might also consider the B&C starter ( http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog ... i?2X358218 ) pictured below. It's quite a bit pricier (about $800), but appears to be much better built IMHO.

Admittedly, I've only had mine installed for 8 months/70 hours, but I haven't run into any of the problems George describes. (I've had my wife longer than that, and I still like her too ). After I pre-oiled my engine, I spun it with the starter without the spark plugs installed. It turned very fast compared to the old delco starter, but still didn't register on the tach, which bottoms out at 300 RPM. I could also hear the impulse couplers clanking away, so the speed was still slow enough to keep them engaged. With the plugs in, it turns a bit slower, so no chance of backfiring if the mags are timed right to start with.

I cut off the starter pinion before assembling the engine as I did mine as part of the overhaul, and I could see where it would be much more difficult to do on the engine, but B & C provides excellent instructions for doing it at http://www.bandc.biz/FK501_3RevE600dpi.pdf .

All that said, if you want to stay original and think your starter might take more work than it's worth, I have two spares. PM or give me call if interested.

Miles

[jon s blocker]

Frank,
I guess this is kind of apples to oranges comparison, but I have a B&C lightweight starter in my plane and love it. I say apples and oranges because I have a Lyc. 0360, but believe me the B&C is a great unit. Their quality is first rate, and the smaller unit has the guts to spin my engine easily, even in the cold, with the battery behind the passengers compartment. The starters are self limiting to the speed they turn the engine over, so don't worry about spinning the motor over too fast. I just wanted to put in my 2 cents worth on the quality of equipment B&C puts out. On the other hand, rebuilding the starter isn't difficult and the Cont. engines I have had were very easy starting and the original starters worked just fine. If you just have to spend money, spend extra and get a B&C. If you just need a good starter, rebuild. Jon

[jrenwick]

FWIW, Sky-tec has photos of a C85 pinion shaft being cut off with the engine in place in an Ercoupe: http://www.skytecair.com/Ercoupe.htm. They used modeling clay to seal off the engine internals to protect it from chips.

My Swift has an O-300A with a B&C starter that was installed during overhaul by Jim Montague. I think he did it primarily to save weight, because he was pretty fanatical about keeping this aircraft light and fast.

I like the starter just fine, and it does indeed turn the engine faster than the original starter on my 170. Turning over faster gives me more confidence that the engine is going to start; but then, I've never had any problem with either engine not starting, as long as the battery and charging system are in good shape.

I do notice that the two O-300s don't start quite the same. When the 170 catches, it starts quite gently, slowly increasing RPM until it's up to idle speed. The Swift, on the other hand, starts with a "bang," running at full idle speed practically as soon as it catches. This could be due to the difference in starters, because the engines are otherwise identical except for Slick mags on the 170 and Bendix on the Swift, and no mufflers on the Swift. I've got a pair of Bendix mags ready to go on the 170, and when I do that I'll see if there's any difference.

[cessna170bdriver]

I don't know the validity of the claim, but B&C warns against using a power tool to do the cutting. They say a hacksaw blade is less likely to throw cuttings through the hole that opens up through the base of the pinion into the crankcase.

Also, the difference in the starting of the two engines could be carburation. Not all all carbs are created/set up the same. It could also be engine condition. My O-300 (Bendix mags), on the first start of the day, comes up to speed gradually. It seems to start on less than all cylinders, and the speed gradually increases as more cylinders come on line. It starts smoother when warm.

Miles

[lowNslow]

I had a B&C starter installed during overhaul in '98, still works flawlessly, I am aways amazed at how much quicker it starts compared to the old Delco. Don't let George scare you, these starter do not "slam" the engine, they just come up to speed faster than a Delco and after many starts - no problems with backfire/backrunning. If the engine is doing that, it has other problems.

[170C]

I appreciate all the suggestions and if there are more I will also take them into consideration. I already learned something tonight. Last night I looked up B&C, may have been in Spruce's catalogue, and the only one they had was for an O-200 so I didn't know they did larger Cont'l's. $565- $800+ for a starter is criminal! Geeze! However I was given a rough estimate on the phone, without the tech. being able to see my starter, to go through my starter (1940/50 vintage Delco-Remy like a lot of tractors use/used) and depending on what has to be done, it could run around $250------for a d--- old 12 volt starter. My main problems with these old D-R starters (on my O-300B) has been the brass contacts under the push button craping out going to one of the conventions (and those are like finding hen's teeth), housing bushings/seals going out, dripping oil off the end of the pinion (?) shaft and having to replace those $150.00 clutches. I replaced the last clutch with one of the newer 5 bearing models and so far (cross my fingers & say hokey-pokey) it has held up OK. I certainly don't have any desire to blow a bunch of $$ on a light weight starter to get rid of weight or to spin the engine any faster. The ole D-R spins it quite fast enough and it is an easy starting engine. Going to have to make some decisions soon. Miles, your description of your engine starting on a cold/cool morning sounds like a radial starting up. First one or two cylinders catch, then another one and finally they all get together. Wish our flat 6's sounded like the radials.

BTW, someone posted the NAPA part # for that starter housing bushing/seal some time ago. Anyone remember what it was? Wonder if the NAPA is just as good in every way (other than legality) as what Continental or other PMA'd part would be?

[GAHorn]

Excerpts from previous discussion:
clutch shaft oil seal, PN 1910379 available from El Reno Aviation Ph no. 800/521-0333
mounting plate gasket PN 653673, $4.15. (It's a great time to consider whether to replace the armature shaft seal PN 1867150, $14.50 as well.)


Similar part from NAPA p/n 9859, made by Chicago Rawhide,sold thru non-NAPA ouitlets as p/n CR 9859.

For the entire discussion:
http://cessna170.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=10086#10086

[lowNslow]

I certainly don't have any desire to blow a bunch of $$ on a light weight starter to get rid of weight or to spin the engine any faster.

I am very pleased with the new style starter, but it was an easy task to remove the pinion since my engine was apart so I only had to pay for the starter and not the installation. If I were just replacing the starter, I would probably stick with the Delco just due to the added hassle and expense of the installation a new one.

[wa4jr]

This may come a bit late, but I put on a B&C starter last year prior to AirVenture. The old Delco was fine and was not going to replace it until it failed...and failed it did in a most spectacular way. The switch on the side of the starter failed...in the ON position. I noticed a bunch of crackeling in the interphone and the amp meter was jumping around, so I landed and shut down only to find the starter humming away.
I put the B&C unit on myself and although it was labor intensive to drop the rear case off and take off the cam and crank gears, I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I used a well greased hacksaw blade with cloth wrapped around one end and slowly was able to cut the old guide shaft off. The reason B&C cautions against using a cutoff wheel is that if you happen to get into the counter-drilled manufacturing hole on the back side of this shaft, you risk spraying abrasive dust into the engine forward of the shaft. After I cut off the shaft, I did use a larger cutoff wheel on the face of the cut to dress it off and I stopped the operation when I saw the counter-drilled hole just start to open up. Yes, $800 is rather criminal for this light-weight wonder but it does say "airplane" on it and is manufactured much better than the SkyTec in my opinion, no clutch to worry about, and the start is much smoother and much quicker.

[GAHorn]

About permanent magnet (lightweight) starters, from Electroair website: "...When these designs were adapted to aircraft, they failed to take into account the smaller batteries typically associated with light aircraft (25 amp-hour batteries and smaller). Permanent magnet starters typically draw between 30%-40% more energy than their larger, older style counterparts that they typically replace. ..."

They further state that B&C has a lightweight starter that is not a permanent magnet starter, but is a "series wound" starter (similar to the original Delco), which should use less electrical energy than a permanent magnet starter. I have not confirmed this yet, but will be visiting with them soon.

[cessna170bdriver]

Perhaps that extra energy is what they use to turn the engine faster. It's gotta come from somewhere.

Miles

[GAHorn]

Sacramento Sky Ranch has some experience with lightweight starters, also. http://www.sacskyranch.com/faqstarter.htm

Basically: They require more electrical power, generate more heat because of that power, and are more sensitive to "cooling periods" (they require attention that you don't just "crank away" without letting them cool or you'll burn them out quickly. The original starters can also be overheated but are more robust in that way, probably due in part to their mass. High-useage activity doesn't seem to help them. Flight school use tends to fail them more frequently...probably not an issue with us 170 owners. And they do save 10 lbs or so of wt, if you're inclinded to spend the money.

[170C]

I guess someone has to be the fall guy on this subject, so I'll get in the barrel this time I have heard & read a lot about the +'s of lt wt starters. No more pinion shaft leaks, less weight (don't know that that is much of a + on our type planes, but 10#'s is 10#'s). They may get rid of a clutch (I'm not sure) and they do get rid of the antique pull starter arrangement that someone stole from several farm tractor mfg's back in the 40's/50's. But one thing I keep hearing is "they spin the engine faster". Provided you have a good Delco-Remy starter, a decent battery and the fuel/air mixture is where it needs to be, what difference does it make how fast the starter spins the engine Inquiring minds want to know