hotrod180 wrote:Engine crapping out...would pulling the prop knob out to coarsen the pitch help the glide? Assuming enough oil pressure to operate the hub, or course.

Noise...what's the diameter of the 3-blade MT?

Shake.... last June I installed a fresh 88" Mac C201 prop. Took off great, cruised nicely, but just about the time I turned base to land the rpm came down below 2000 and I got a shake. Seemed to be between 1700 & 2000, not a range I see much except when landing but any shake any time can't be a good thing. I called the prop shop and he said the first thing "they" tell you to do in that situation is to pull the prop, turn it 180 degrees, and reinstall. I did so and it smoothed right out. Does MT or Cessna specify an orientation for the 3 blade? Maybe turn it one blade & see what happens, if no joy then turn it another blade & re-try?

At idle power, pulling the prop knob does nothing. Blades remain at fine pitch.

3-blade MT is 82". This is a significant reduction from my 88" Mac.

The engine shake is barely perceptible and my mechanic didn't feel it at all. I have flown in many planes that have tons of vibration and shake. This is not in that realm. It is just that my super smooth plane with the Mac is not quite as super smooth with my MT. Now it's only really smooth.

Terry wrote:I didn't read the entire thread so maybe I'm off here.
I think sky tec starters must have some kind of a clutch in them?
I had problems with mine slipping.
Held the starter in a vise and put a wrench on the drive, supplied power to it and could keep the drive from turning.
The motor was turning though.

What Skytec's are you running? The ST3's clutch is actually out of a chainsaw. Skytec knows that this starter is anemic and causes issues on the larger conties. If you call and complain, Skytec will actually take back your ST3 and replace it with an ST5 if you are running it on a big Cont. (this is what I just did)

Shame on them for selling a poorly engineered starter, but kudos for the support and great customer service.

Gonna put the ST5 on and see. FWIW... the ST5 is 3lbs heavier than the ST3 and 4lbs lighter than the energizer.

where does the starter adapter go when it breaks? are there pieces parts going where they shouldnt?

3454terryg wrote:where does the starter adapter go when it breaks? are there pieces parts going where they shouldnt?

In short... yes.

With an old style, a kickback typically first causes deformation in the spring which will cause galling and introduce metal into the motor. With the newer style the shaft sort of acts like a fuse and snaps clean, which is the biggest argument for a new style adapter.

Terry wrote:I didn't read the entire thread so maybe I'm off here.
I think sky tec starters must have some kind of a clutch in them?
I had problems with mine slipping.
Held the starter in a vise and put a wrench on the drive, supplied power to it and could keep the drive from turning.
The motor was turning though.

Terry, I had this problem with mine on an O-300A on my 170. Took it off, called them up and told them my issue. They said send it in. Overnight air to them, my cost, they rebuilt it and sent it back to me under warranty even though it was three years old. Took less than a week. I took off Monday and installed it Friday. Awesome service.

Brent

P.S. The culprit was a bad seal in the drive allowing oil into the clutch.

bigrenna wrote:......Gonna put the ST5 on and see. FWIW... the ST5 is 3lbs heavier than the ST3 and 4lbs lighter than the energizer.

In all the starter slip / kickback / broken adapter dialogue here, I've never heard anyone bitch about the Energizer starter. That's what I've got and what I'm gonna stick with. Why court problems for the relatively small weight savings of 4 pounds on an airplane weighing 1600# or more empty?

hotrod180 wrote:

bigrenna wrote:......Gonna put the ST5 on and see. FWIW... the ST5 is 3lbs heavier than the ST3 and 4lbs lighter than the energizer.

In all the starter slip / kickback / broken adapter dialogue here, I've never heard anyone bitch about the Energizer starter. That's what I've got and what I'm gonna stick with. Why court problems for the relatively small weight savings of 4 pounds on an airplane weighing 1600# or more empty?

Keep in mind that starters do NOT cause kickbacks NOR adapters to break, mag timing does. Kickbacks can happen regardless of prop choice, and simply keeping a stock starter wont mitigate kickbacks either... the issue at hand in this thread is the lack of mass in the MT to carry the prop thru in the event of a kickback.

The conversation about starters has to do with the speed achievable for cranking. If the starter cranks slowly and a kickback happens, it further compounds the issue. The ST3 has a very poorly designed clutch which can cause slipping and slow cranking. To your point, the Energizer is nice because of its bombproof construction and fast cranking, but will have no bearing on if a kickback happens or not. After my adapter broke, I pulled the ST3 and re-installed the TCM... Fact is that the TCM cranks SLOWER than the ST3. I sent in the ST3 to Skytec, and they sent me an ST5. Its on the bench now and I will be installing it later this week. Whatever spins faster is what I will probably keep, although weight is weight, so Im inclined more toward the ST5... Ron from Niagara is also working on a high-speed/light weight starter which he claims will be a great help due to its geared speed. Says it spins fast enough to taxi on floats.

For sure I am with you about 4lbs... If it would guarantee against an issue, than I would gladly keep the lbs... but this is really not the case. Best thing to do is be vigilant with your magneto service and timing.

Cont has a SB on this. MSB94-8D CAUTION: A single “kick back” while cranking can cause failure of components of the cranking system. Kick back can be caused by intermittent operation of the impulse couplings or shower of sparks.

http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/msb94-8d.pdf

Bigrenna, you mentioned when your starter adapter broke that you'd just installed rebuilt mags. Did you ever find out if the timing was off on them?

Oregon180 wrote:Bigrenna, you mentioned when your starter adapter broke that you'd just installed rebuilt mags. Did you ever find out if the timing was off on them?

I have too much pride to answer that question honestly, but if you asked my buddy who was there when I re-timed my mags, he would tell you that one had indeed slipped a degree or two...

Although the clutch on the ST3 was most likely a conspirator, my money is on the timing.

Thanks Greg! Didn't mean to put you or your buddy on the spot.

Great info for sure. I've learned a lot from this discussion.

Boy, I missed the boat on that one. Mine was a ST-3, think I paid around $500 for it. I gave it to a hangar neighbor thinking it was junk.

Another thought on starter adapters....if the starter doesn't hit hard enough to wind up the spring in your adapter it could be slipping some every time you hit the starter.....it will only do that so many time before you have problems. Maybe not a worry with the ST-5, but it's why I parted with my ST-3.

More food for thought on new vs/ old style adapters... TCM SB M92-10

Exactly.....forget about starters for a while, that sentence down the bottom about resistance to opposite rotation is the issue here with the MT and the new style adapter. In my opinion backwards rotation from failed starts or whatever is not always about a classic 'kickback' it's from the low inertia of the composite prop not going through TDC and then rotating backwards - breaking the new style springs. I've seen mine rotate backwards many times since going to the old style adapter, you won't see it happen on the new style because the spring won't let it - it will just eventually break.

Friend of mine has a Cessna 182 P he broke 2 starter adaptors (MT 2 blade prop), he went with shower of sparks system, he told me it is the best and it will never happen again.
Yesterday with a cold start and maybe over primming a bit according to him, he got another kickback and it broke again.
he has the old style starter.

So we dont know if there is a solution to this.

motoadve wrote:Friend of mine has a Cessna 182 P he broke 2 starter adaptors (MT 2 blade prop), he went with shower of sparks system, he told me it is the best and it will never happen again.
Yesterday with a cold start and maybe over primming a bit according to him, he got another kickback and it broke again.
he has the old style starter.

So we dont know if there is a solution to this.

I want to pull the trigger on a two blade mt next month for my 182.. I don't want to end up with a broken starter adapter in the middle of nowhere though...

Maybe the new starter adapters from Continental will help with kickback.

The 3-blade MT only weighs one pound less than the 2-blade Mac. It shouldn't have the kickback problems.
That's a shame to hear about these kickback problems. I really thought the 2-blade MT was the cat's meow.
RP

drp1 wrote:The 3-blade MT only weighs one pound less than the 2-blade Mac. It shouldn't have the kickback problems.
That's a shame to hear about these kickback problems. I really thought the 2-blade MT was the cat's meow.
RP

It would be interesting to see a comparison of kickback issues between the 3-blade and 2-blade MTs. Maybe the moment of inertia is still sufficiently lower in the 3-blade MT vs the 2-blade Mac due to less mass in the blades?

Speaking to a guy the other day on his 3rd adapter spring breakage, new style adapter, original aluminium prop.