Light Weight Starters

How to keep the Cessna 170 flying and airworthy.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

kloz
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 1:42 pm

Post by kloz »

Yeah, and if it starts like it should you only need half a spin. :lol:
Carl
User avatar
lowNslow
Posts: 1535
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 4:20 pm

Re: Light Weight Starters

Post by lowNslow »

170C wrote: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 :wink:
It doesn't. For that matter you could remove the starter and just hand-prop the engine. :wink: But it does make for a more reliable start compared to the Delco, particularly cold starts. The main reason I like the B&C were the other things you mention (no leaky seals, modern clutch, light weight, key start with nothing to adjust). Again, if I didn't have any other reason to remove the accessory case (i.e. overhaul) I would have stuck with the Delco.
Karl
'53 170B N3158B SN:25400
ASW-20BL
Robert Eilers
Posts: 652
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 12:33 am

Post by Robert Eilers »

Just for info. - I have sent my Skytech lightweight starter back to the manufacturer for warranty repair or replacement. This is the third time I have had to return the starter to Skytech - within 18 months. In the past Skytech has been very responsive and quick to replace the starter. This last time was different. Skytech is suggesting that the engine kicked back and destroyed the starter. The Skytech is advertised as "reliable and durable". I explained to Skytech that I have not experienced a kick back and my timing is correct. Skytech suggested that the kick back might have been so slight that I did not realize it. I asked if the kick back was so slight that I did not realize it and destroyed the starter - then how can the starter be described reliable and durable. The Skytech representative I had the discussion with agreed to repair and return the starter at no cost - until he can discuss it with the manager when he returns from Sun-N-Fun. I'll let you know what the outcome is and how long the replacement starter lasts.
User avatar
lowNslow
Posts: 1535
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 4:20 pm

Post by lowNslow »

Robert Eilers wrote:Just for info. - I have sent my Skytech lightweight starter back to the manufacturer for warranty repair or replacement. This is the third time I have had to return the starter to Skytech - within 18 months. In the past Skytech has been very responsive and quick to replace the starter. This last time was different. Skytech is suggesting that the engine kicked back and destroyed the starter. The Skytech is advertised as "reliable and durable". I explained to Skytech that I have not experienced a kick back and my timing is correct. Skytech suggested that the kick back might have been so slight that I did not realize it. I asked if the kick back was so slight that I did not realize it and destroyed the starter - then how can the starter be described reliable and durable. The Skytech representative I had the discussion with agreed to repair and return the starter at no cost - until he can discuss it with the manager when he returns from Sun-N-Fun. I'll let you know what the outcome is and how long the replacement starter lasts.
Robert, I picked up this quote from a Grumman Tiger discussion group while doing a search -

"SkyTech Starter.

It is very light weight, it turns the engine very fast. However, it does not disengaging very fast.

I called up SkyTech and they have admitted that there is a problem with back EMF keeping the solenoid energized for as much as 6 seconds too long. They say that 1 out of 100 had this problem.

They will fix the starter (and replace the motor if it has become burned out). I will send it to them next day air. They will send it back same day, next day air. They will not pay for the labor to switch the starter. Also, one new wire will have to be added."

There are also some comments on the Swift site about problems with the Sky Tech starter.
Karl
'53 170B N3158B SN:25400
ASW-20BL
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 21295
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Post by GAHorn »

The Sky Tec starter problem on the Swift occurs on the "D" engine (the angle-mount starter.) It relates to the "wound spring" machinery of the angle-drive on that engine not be accomodated by that starter. (The starter must allow for "unwinding" that spring, like the orginal starter.)
The engine most of us have with the 170 (the C-145/O-300-A thru C) does not have the angle-drive and should not suffer in this regard. -George (an originality-advocate for the right reason. in some cases. occasionally. wait-a-minute...lemmee go see what I've got...)
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
wa4jr
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:44 am

Post by wa4jr »

Whew! Hearing the feedback on the SkyTec starter makes me so glad I shelled out the additional $300 for the B&C starter last year. I had heard of the cast housing of the SkyTec being prone to failure and seen some really nasty photos. This is one area in which the B&C shines with its end housing being machined out of a solid block of aluminum.
John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV
User avatar
blueldr
Posts: 4442
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 3:16 am

Post by blueldr »

When I acquired my Continental IO-360, engine it did not have a starter or alternator as I planned on using my Cessna alternator off of the C-145 I was replacing. As you may know, the vast majority of IO-360 engines were on 24 volt installations and I didn't want to change my C-170 over.
Since I had to buy a starter, ifigured I might as well go with a light weight model. I ordered a Sky Tec. The early model of this starter would not release the spring on the starter drive of the IO-360 and would eat up the shaft resulting in a $1500 rebuild of the starter drive. Fortunately, I discovered this in time to save my drive and Sky Tec "Generously Replaced" this defectively designed (but FAA approved) starter for about 10% less than the cost of a brand new unit. I still tingle every time I sit down!
Needless to say, that's my last time to do business with Sky Tec. My friends have had numerous problems with their Lycoming starters too.`
Of course, they deserve it for fooling around with those Lycoming engines.
BL
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 21295
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Post by GAHorn »

Blu Elder... I wish you'd quit beatin' around the bush all the time and tell us what you really think about things..... :lol:
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
Robert Eilers
Posts: 652
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 12:33 am

Post by Robert Eilers »

I just got off the phone with Skyetch regarding the starter. Once again Skytech was responsive and responsible supporting their product. I will not be charged for the repair/replacement of the starter. I have my fingers crossed regarding the longevity of the replacement starter - I'll keep you informed.
Robert Eilers
Posts: 652
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 12:33 am

Post by Robert Eilers »

Well, today is May 7 and I haven't seen the warranty replacement Skytech starter promised me by Skytech back on April 28th. I instructed my mechanic to order the B&C starter, which can be delivered in two days. When I finally receive the replacment Skytech I am going to throw it in the trash!
Post Reply
Cessna® is a registered trademark of Textron Aviation, Inc. The International Cessna® 170 Association is an independent owners/operators association dedicated to C170 aircraft and early O-300-powered C172s. We are not affiliated with Cessna® or Textron Aviation, Inc. in any way.