Kind of brought up in the starter adaptor thread, but what (non Skytec) starter motors you guys running? Anyone try the new Tempest starter?

I have had great luck with the Skytec, but I have rethought my position a bit. For the Ponk I'm building, I bought an old skool Energizer. I have a bunch more ponies now and am less concerned about weight. The Energizer is proven.

That said, I have a new Skytec on the shelf ready to go back in if needed once I re-weigh the bird. The combo of the SPW mount, heavier shower of sparks ignition, 3 blade prop, and old style starter may require ditching some weight up front. We shall see...

I switched to a Hartzell Energizer for my Pponk 520/MT prop after a kickback last fall that broke the adapter spring. It's been working fine. One thing I did was to reinstall the old starter button, so my starting procedure is to get the prop spinning and then turn the mag switch on. The theory is that if there is a kickback, the momentum may push the prop through the kickback. Starts great!

We put our old energizer on after a kickback start a few years ago. Was quite a bit heavier, but works great. The local shop ensured that it was rebuilt right with some extra winds. Don’t miss the extra lbs.

I'm currently using the Hartzell Energizer starter. I switched to it when the MT propeller initially went on the IO-520.

I think I need to chose from either the Tempest, the Hartzell Energizer or the original Continental Energizer
Actually, a fourth option would be the old Delco-Remy, p/n 1108249

Tempest is a nice starter, i have had one on the 182 for about a year now. Ball bearing design

Energizer or Delco- 50wt oil. Old style adapter. Reliable as can be and well proven. Why reinvent the wheel? The weight is on the right side of the teeter totter. Move some stuff to the back of the baggage compartment to off set the small increase in weight. This non-sense of chasing every little pound out of these airframes is an exercise in wasting alot of cash.

Tempest starter is not a geared weight saving starter. It is a boat anchor like the hartzell and the delco. It is just an improved design with ball bearings that further reduce internal friction. As you know the starter needs to turn backwards to disengage the spring on an old style adaptor - less internal friction the better.

RockHopper wrote:This non-sense of chasing every little pound out of these airframes is an exercise in wasting alot of cash.

Perhaps, but then again, ounces add up to pounds, and performance is about pounds. I have never been insane about the pursuit, but a good common sense approach and awareness about weight pays off.

With respect to being on the "right side of the teeter totter," in my experience with the birds I have been building, this is the exact opposite. We are constantly fighting forward CGs. Even though the starter is like -4" or something, it can matter. This is the main reason for a getting it as light forward of the firewall as possible. Of course this must be tempered with the common sense notions about reliability and durability... Doesn make sense to have something that is so stoopid light that gets you stuck when it breaks all the time.

With respect to the thought of just adding more "stuff" in the baggage, all you have to do is do the math problem out and see just how hard it is to move the CG really far aft.

I am not trying to eliminate a few pounds for the sake of it. I actually need a starter. The reman engine came with the Iskra, which was removed. A small-ish Delco Remy was borrowed and the engine really needs a proper starter on it. So, looks like we need to spend a few buck here and I was trying to chose one of the four options (Tempest, Hartzell, Energizer or the large Delco Remy). Complicating the decision is the fact we don't have a core, so the purchase will to be outright and we will have to eat any core charge.
Regarding weight - correct me if I am wrong, but I believe all four starters I mentioned are around 14 - 14.5 lbs.

I just removed my Skytec ST5 and replaced it with a Tempest Powerflite. I was not satisfied with the Skytec becuase it really struggled to get the engine past the first compression. I got by since my IO-520 normally fires up within 1 rotation. My Skywagon came with an ST3 starter, but I replaced that with the ST5 and lived with mediocre starter performance for the past 4 years. Recently it really started struggling. New battery helped limp it along, but the "old" battery (13 month old Concorde RG 35AXC) still tested good. Installed the Tempest today and I could barely contain the smile. Engine turned over quickly with no hesitation getting through the initial compression. It is night and day difference, and in this case, 5.5 lbs well spent.

The only catch I had: where the positive terminal was indexed on the the starter wouldn't allow me to install the starter. Unlike the Skytec, which allows you to change the orientation of the solenoid, the case on the Tempest is indexed with a 1/2" roll pin. One orientation had less than 1/8" clearance from the engine mount cross bar and the other orientation had the positive terminal hitting the engine baffling. After talking with T&W Electrical (company that actually makes the starters for Aerospace Components/Tempest), they said it would be ok to remove the roll pin and change the orientation of the positive terminal. So after carefully loosening the bolts enough to remove the pin without letting the brushes fall out, I was able to solve the clearance issue. This is with a seaplane engine mount.
Anyone want to buy a used Skytec ST5?

Just a comment on the geared starters.
I talked at length with the head tech at Niagara Airparts about starters and starter adapters on my IO-520D.
He strongly suggested removing the Irska that came with it for a nongeared starter like the Hartzell. Because on the newer starter adapters the spring will likely stay engaged on shutdown when the engine wants to turn backwards on the last compression stroke. The geared, Irska, starters tend to prevent this and the prop comes to an abrupt stop. This seems to be the cause of a new wear pattern and more broken springs they are seeing at Niagra. He also does not recommend the Exon Elite oils with the friction reducer as it causes slippage of the starter spring.
Tom

There are only two starters to even consider for the 520/550's. That is the older Prestolites or the newer Energizers. Anything else and you are asking to be stranded somewhere.

a3holerman wrote: He also does not recommend the Exon Elite oils with the friction reducer as it causes slippage of the starter spring.

Really? An oil that's... too slippery?

And I thought the too slippery for starter adapters was Shell 15/50 with its additive. I'm running 20/50 XC and I have about 460 starts on this adapter and not slipping yet.

And I thought the too slippery for starter adapters was Shell 15/50 with its additive. I'm running 20/50 XC and I have about 460 starts on this old style adapter and not slipping yet.

180Marty wrote:And I thought the too slippery for starter adapters was Shell 15/50 with its additive. I'm running 20/50 XC and I have about 460 starts on this old style adapter and not slipping yet.

I've never had problems with them slipping on my 470, or any of my customers 470s or 520s. We run Aeroshell 15W50 in all of them.
These things always make me curious what the problems really are...

Although not the same engine, I can chime in that my TCM O-300D has a similar starter adapter and we did a bit of head scratching on why the engine struggled to crank through. It would slip, it would fail to pull through the first compression stroke, it sometimes took 5 tries to get it to pump over and we came up with a procedure to get it to fire first stroke every time to make up for it. It came with a Skytek ST3 that we replaced twice (Once with a used one and once with a new one from Skytek) trying to find the problem and we replaced multiple batteries that still tested out ok at the battery shop. Our next step which we almost did was pull the starter adapter for a rebuild.

Lo and behold, turned out as soon as we switched to Phillips XC 20w50 the starting system worked perfectly.

Until that point we had been using Exxon Elite 20w50.
I had been in the slippery is better mindset and prefer synthetic, but basically just got fed up with the cost since we were changing the oil so often with 200-250hrs per year. On a totally unrelated notion I got a good deal on a 55gal barrel of Phillips and made the switch.
Been happy ever since.

Interesting Ak Tin Can. On the Shell 15/50, a friend of a friend who was an engine builder at Mattituck, Penn Yan, and later owned Zephyr is the one that said 15/50 would be a problem. I did use 15/50 anyway and it seemed to work OK but I never had as many starts as the one I'm using now. I usually pull the engine through a few times and back it up to the top of the last compression before I hit the starter. I also prime and usually it fires in one or two blades so that has to be easier on things.