Starter

[SLIMDREDGER]

Copper cables and SkyTechs on my PA30 for about 15 years. Never a problem. They spin the props almost fast enough to taxi. AHP

[Charles Schefer]

[Matt Bogard]

I believe I have the NL on my 250. And the copper cables. Damn good starter.

[N3322G]

Matt - thx for the giggle - since my Twin has two NLs, guess I have d___ d___ good starters.

[Charles Schefer]

Update on this thread... I've been looking into Hartzell E-Drive and X-Drive starters. While both are listed for the PA-30 in their application chart , it turns out only the E-Drive is actually PMA approved for the the IO-320-B1A engine. The E-Drive starter is PMA approved for the -B1A engine but the X-Drive starter is not.

I called Hartzell engine tech and spoke with "Tommy" in their tech support and he confirmed this. Only the E-Drive is PMA for the IO-320-B1A. The X-Drive may fit but would not be a straight legal replacement without a field approval. He also commented that he felt of the two the E-Drive was the better starter. He said they use the same motor (E and X drive) but the E-Drive is built stronger and has a ratchet system in the drive mechanism to prevents damage from a kickback during starting. It is however heavier than the X drive and Sky-Tec options (but only 0.2lbs heavier than the Sky-Tec NL).

Here's a quick comparison chart I put together. I've greyed out the X-Drive due to non-PMA. Prices are based on current pricing thru Aircraft Spruce.

- Charles

[Timothy Poole]

Hey Charles -- I talked to Hartzell today and they think they could actually just have a documentation problem on their end (which would not be a first.) The SRZ-9031 is the same starter as the SRZ-9021 (which is PMA approved), the solenoid is just on the opposite side for applications like the PA-30/39 which, as you pointed out, are clearly listed on their aircraft applicability chart . I'm sending them the info we have and they plan to get back to me early next week with a clarification.

Tim

[Charles Schefer]

Tim, that's great news. FWIW I suggested to them that it might be a documentation issue. The guy I talked to said it wasn't but I pointed out they have the X in the application guide and should either get it on the PMA list or remove it from the guide.

- Charles

[Timothy Poole]

[Charles Schefer]

[Charles Schefer]

Well, yesterday I pulled the trigger and picked up two new Sky-Tec 149-NL starters. Today I ordered the full Bogert copper cable kit for my PA-30 including the APU cable. I already have the Bogert battery box and battery cables. While we're at it I'm going to replace all the alternator wiring too so Bogert is making up those for me as well.

While there appear to be three very good starter brand options; Sky-Tec, B&C and Hartzell (formerly Kelley Aerospace) my decision came down to the following:

1) While I had read a lot about problems with Sky-Tec starters on-line, as I dug further, in 99% of the cases the problems were with the super light "flyweight" starters and not the heavy-duty high torque NL model.

2) Everyone I talked to with NLs was happy. A local flight school here at HEF has gone to them exclusively and over a number of years has had great success.

3) A local engine shop I have a personal connection to who has an excellent reputation and has been building engines for (I think) 30 years put's NLs on ALL their new engine builds and says they have never had one come back with a problem.

4) I never called B&C but between Hartzell and Sky-Tec I found Sky-Tec to be much more informative, engaging, and helpful on the phone. This is not intended as a knock on Hartzell - they were very pleasant to deal with I just found Sky-Tec to be far more engaging and enthusiastic about their product.

5) Sky-Tec supports the ICS thru advertising in the Flyer.

Edited to add 6, and 7...

6) I compared the Sky-Tec NL to the Hartzell E-Drive. They seem pretty comparable. The E-Drive has a clever clutch system that is designed to handle a kickback should one occur. If a kickback occurs the clutch protects the starter and the flywheel and Hartzell actually offers a warranty that includes kickback protection (the only manufacturer that does I think). The E-Drive is slightly more expensive and slightly heavier (negligibly so) than the Sky-Tec NL. By contract the Sky-Tec NL simply has a shear pin in the drive - a designed weak point. If a kickback were to occur, the shear pin would break before anything else. The flight school in #2 above said they can't remember ever having to replace a shear pin. While there is a first time for everything (touch wood), I've never had a kick back and am adamant about keeping mag time perfect. On the Cirrus we have starter adapters between the starter and the engine. It's not quite the same as the Hartzell clutch but it acts in a similar way and we've had routine problems with the Continental starter adapters and found them expensive to replace. So... all the above said, I am a fan of "simple" and the simple shear pin approach appealed to me over the clutch system idea. Tho if I end up breaking a shear pin on a trip I am sure I will wish I had the E-Drive ... this brings me to one last point...

7) I spoke with a number of maintenance shops and all of them stock Sky-Tec NL starters. The ones I spoke to stocked nothing else (no other brands). So safety in numbers... if I did need a new starter in the field (shear pin or complete starter) I'd be more likely to find a spare Sky-Tec at the local FBO or repair station.

So I think that there is no wrong decision here but I decided to go with the Sky-Tec NLs.

- Charles

[N3322G]

Charles,

As always, good research and thanks for sharing your thought process. I'm also a fan of the Sky-Tec business attitude. I especially like their trouble-shooting website advice - saved me from bad advice on how to fix a problem once from a non-Clifton mechanic.

[Charles Schefer]