The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Has anyone that is curently using the sky-tec starter on their c-145 having any problems with shearing the shear pin during start. We have one installed on an A model with about 600 hours on it , and now are regularly shearing this pin. I have spoken with sky-tec and they think it is our engine kicking back during start. We have not noticed any change with the engine during start and bleive it is a bad starter. On Sky-tec's web site they give instructions for changing the pin in the field, and the first time the pin sheared we sent the starter back to Sky-tec for repinning they actually glued two new shear pins to the back of the solonoid case when they sent it back. So I was wondering what the concenseous from the club was. thanks nick

3993v,

I had similar problems with the Sky Tec starter. I returned three starters to Sky Tec in about a six month period. Initially, Sky Tec was quick to repair the starter and return it. However, the third time I was told the same thing you were "the engine is kicking back". In my case there was no engine kick back in any of the starter failure instances. I am told Sky Tec has a problem with this weak point in their lightweight starters. The third time Sky Tec wanted to charge me for the repair. We argued and negotiated an acceptable arrangement; it then took several months a two phone calls to get the starter returned. I became so frustrated with Sky Tec that I bought and installed the B&C starter. The repaired Sky Tec is sitting on a shelf in my hangar in the box it came in. The B&C starter is great.

Thanks Robert, I am prety sure thats where we are headed. You answered my next question that you like the b&c starter. thanks nick

One of the considerations when contemplating a "modern, lightweight" starter is: It's a faster turning, more "ambitious" motor with permanent magnets. Result: it "slams" the starter/crankshaft gears. This (in my opinion) is not good.
I'll keep the original starter and overhaul it about each-and-every 30 or 40 years or so. (The 10 lb weight-penalty doesn't bother me vs. the "lightweight" starter's lightweight-durability reputation and "slam"/abuse of my engine.)

For what it's worth:

Sky Tek screwed me over too. I bought their starter fot my Cont. IO-360 and found that it was incapable of releasing the internal shaft after cranking due to the friction load of the reduction gear train for the small motor. This will wear out the starter drive which is damned expensive. Just check with Niagra Air parts.

When I complained to Sky Tec, they then had a new improved model which they "generously" exchanged for an exoribitant price including their old unit. I also fault the FUZZ for ever giving them a PMA for this defective design in the first place.

Oh well, at least I discovered the defect before I wiped out MY starter drive. After all, its's only money!

We have removed the starter again and have sent it back to Sky-Tec, I will update when I know something new. Nick

gahorn wrote:One of the considerations when contemplating a "modern, lightweight" starter is: It's a faster turning, more "ambitious" motor with permanent magnets. Result: it "slams" the starter/crankshaft gears. This (in my opinion) is not good.
I'll keep the original starter and overhaul it about each-and-every 30 or 40 years or so. (The 10 lb weight-penalty doesn't bother me vs. the "lightweight" starter's lightweight-durability reputation and "slam"/abuse of my engine.)

I couldn't agree more. This idea that a starter should spin the prop into a blur with the flick of a switch is very misplaced. An engine needs to wake up slowly, not with a kick in the pants.

Patrick Mahaffey
170A N1410d
Grand Prairie, TX