B & C Starters vs Sky-Tec Starters for PA-30

[Mark Felsen]

I need to replace the startes on my PA-30 due to bendix problems. Can anyone recommend which lightweight starter would be best, B&C or Sky-Tec?

Thanks,
Mark Felsen

[MULEFLY]

Several years back, I replaced the starter on my 260B with a Sky-Tec. 2 years ago on the twinco, I lost the left starter during a stop for fuel in TN on my way home from FL. The mechanic at Smyrna, TN all but refused to install a Sky-Tec... so I went with the B & C... it has been trouble free.

All the best!
Jim

[N3322G]

Mark,

Welcome to the ICS Forum.

I've had Sky-tec starters since 2003 and am very happy with them - crank beautifully - way, way better than the bendix starting system. Full disclosure requires me to tell you the counter-rotated one failed due to a Sky-tec problem - they replaced the whole starter at no charge to me. The left one failed due to vibration caused by a mechanic not correctly torqueing the Lord mounts - even though it wasn't caused by them - Sky-Tec entirely overhauled the starter while I waited and charged me nothing. The right starter has been 100% trouble free for 5 years and the left for 4 years - never had that relaibillity from the bendix in the previous 41 years of the Twin's life.

Hope this helps.

[David Pyle]

If your engine(s) are very tight (like mine) the Sky Tec has trouble getting past the first compression stroke. Helps to pull through especially in cold weather. The good old Bendix have torque but with age hang up. The light weight starters are a compromise.

[N3322G]

Dave, what model of Comanche are you flying that you've had to pull through before starting when using Sky-Tec starters?

I have never seen this problem on the PA-39 which runs the same IO-320 engines as the PA30 except the right one runs 'backwards'. This was true after overhaul as well.

[David Pyle]

Pat,

It is likely that the four cylinder PA 30/39 engines would be easier to start than a relativity new IO 540. Your experience would prevail with TC owners. BTW I once bought an airplane from one of the owners of Sky-Tec.

[9089P]

Hi Mark,

About 3 yrs ago the factory starter on the 260B died without warning. I went through the same process you are doing now. Conclusion was that both Skytec and B&C were reputable products worth having. I went with the Skytec as my IA had a sense that product support was better and because Lycoming had chosen to go with Skytec on their new engines.

This aircraft has never had a problem with hot starts with either starter. That said it is amazing how fast the Skytec spins that io540 . The suggestion that these light weight starters are somehow a compromise is reactionary at best and in my opinion BS. They are in every way better than the old prestolites.

Good luck, Don

[Zach Grant L1011jock]

The most common source of problems with the new lightweight starters is with too much resistance in the power feed, ie old aluminum wiring and bad grounds. The lightweight starters have plenty of torqu, but need more current to provide it. A poor electrical feed, or a weak battery will be infinitly more noticable on a lightweight starter than with an old prestolite. I have skytecs on O-360, IO-320, IO-540-KG1B5D, TIO-540. Works great on all of them, and that includes when the Lance engine was fresh from overhaul (high compression angle valve 540, 300HP). You can almost taxi with any of these with the mags off!

-Zach

[Alan Cheak]

About 7 years ago I flew my plane out to Webco and had them install a new B&C starter. Both starters are good but I've never ever read on this or any other forum of one having trouble with a B&C unit.

Alan