AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Tue 03/04/08


Total Messages Posted: 14



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 05:25 AM - EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators (Sam Hoskins)
     2. 06:08 AM - Re: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators (jon@finleyweb.net)
     3. 06:10 AM - Re: New EMAG and PMAG Wiring question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     4. 06:20 AM - Re: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     5. 06:21 AM - Re: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators (Neal George)
     6. 06:49 AM - Re: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus system (Mike)
     7. 06:53 AM - Re: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus system (Mike)
     8. 07:04 AM - Re: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators (Ed Anderson)
     9. 08:55 AM - Z-19 Series Architecture (Mark Sletten)
    10. 09:13 AM - Re: New EMAG and PMAG Wiring question (Matt Prather)
    11. 12:43 PM - Re: New EMAG and PMAG Wiring question ()
    12. 02:25 PM - Starter Choice (Peter Pengilly)
    13. 02:52 PM - Re: Starter Choice (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
    14. 03:51 PM - Re: Starter Choice (J. Mcculley)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:25:36 AM PST US
    From: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@MCHSI.COM>
    Subject: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators
    All, I have a 1,600 hr. Q-200 that I am retrofitting to be an all electric airplane. Chucked all the steam gauges for a Dynon Flightdeck D-180 and I am going with a RWS <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html> all electronic fuel injection and ignition system. I have a Continental O-200 with B&C 30a alternator installed on the rear of the engine. With the EFI & fuel pump, my normal operation current needs will be about 8 amps. I am in in the decision process for two batteries, vs. two alternators. I may have room for the B&C standby alternator on the vacuum pad, but I'm not 100% sure. Since the G.W of this plane is only 1,100 lbs, I really need to keep the weight down (favors the alternator). On the other hand, the alternator costs three or four times that of a second battery. On the other hand, It may be difficult to find room for a second battery. What say you all? *Sam Hoskins Quickie Blog <http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com> Quickie Website <http://home.mchsi.com/%7Eshoskins/index.htm> *


    Message 2


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:08:18 AM PST US
    Subject: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators
    From: jon@finleyweb.net
    =0AHi Sam!=0A=0A =0A=0AIt is very kewl to see all the work you are doing (Q -Talk)!=0A=0A =0A=0AI think it is important to define/select the mission th at you want your airplane to accomplish. If it is to finish the planned x- c flight (as Bob has discussed) then a standby alternator is likely to be y our best option. If it is to catch the "problem" and terminate the flight uneventfully but soon, then you may arrive at a different decision. Knowin g your history (coast to coast in a single day, multi-hour races, many long x-c), I would suggest that your best bet is a small backup battery (8-ish amps) and the backup alternator.=0A=0A =0A=0AJon=0A=0A=0A-----Original Mess age-----=0AFrom: Sam Hoskins <shoskins@MCHSI.COM>=0ASent: Tuesday, March 4, 2008 8:21am=0ATo: Aerolectric List <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>=0ASub ject: AeroElectric-List: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators=0A=0AAll, =0A=0AI have a 1,600 hr. Q-200 that I am retrofitting to be an all electric airplane. Chucked all the steam gauges for a Dynon Flightdeck D-180 and I am going with a [http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html] RWS all elect ronic fuel injection and ignition system. I have a Continental O-200 with B&C 30a alternator installed on the rear of the engine. With the EFI & fue l pump, my normal operation current needs will be about 8 amps. =0A=0AI am in in the decision process for two batteries, vs. two alternators. I may have room for the B&C standby alternator on the vacuum pad, but I'm not 100 % sure. =0A=0ASince the G.W of this plane is only 1,100 lbs, I really need to keep the weight down (favors the alternator). On the other hand, the a lternator costs three or four times that of a second battery. On the other hand, It may be difficult to find room for a second battery.=0A=0AWhat say you all?=0A=0A=0ASam Hoskins=0A[http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com/] Quick ie Blog=0A[http://home.mchsi.com/~shoskins/index.htm] Quickie Website=0A=0A ===0A=0A


    Message 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:10:58 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    Subject: New EMAG and PMAG Wiring question
    At 09:00 PM 3/3/2008 -0800, you wrote: > >Thanks Bob. I forgot to mention that I have 2 PMAGS and like the idea of >running them from the always hot battery bus. It's your airplane. I'm only echoing a design philosophy that's recommended by the manufacturer supported by a elegant assemblage of simple-ideas. You'll need to do something different with respect to the switching. Bob . . .


    Message 4


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:20:32 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators
    At 07:21 AM 3/4/2008 -0600, you wrote: >All, > >I have a 1,600 hr. Q-200 that I am retrofitting to be an all electric >airplane. Chucked all the steam gauges for a Dynon Flightdeck D-180 and I >am going with a <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>RWS all >electronic fuel injection and ignition system. I have a Continental O-200 >with B&C 30a alternator installed on the rear of the engine. With the EFI >& fuel pump, my normal operation current needs will be about 8 amps. > >I am in in the decision process for two batteries, vs. two alternators. I >may have room for the B&C standby alternator on the vacuum pad, but I'm >not 100% sure. > >Since the G.W of this plane is only 1,100 lbs, I really need to keep the >weight down (favors the alternator). On the other hand, the alternator >costs three or four times that of a second battery. On the other hand, It >may be difficult to find room for a second battery. > >What say you all? What are you design goals for endurance? If 8A is your running loads and you have a well maintained 17 a.h. battery, then assuming you cannot do any judicious load shedding for and endurance mode, then according to http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif your 8A load will run you about 90 minutes. 3X the "faa blessed" battery-only ops minimums. If you carry hand-helds and a flashlight like I do, then perhaps your endurance load shedding can extend this time out further. Throwing a question like this out to the List will get you a host of responses that tend to describe the worst fears of those who choose to respond . . . NONE of which will be based on a considered analysis for the size and kind of hardware you need to meet your mission profile and performance goals. You are the very best individual to make this assessment based on the support of simple- ideas that go into the crafting of your final invention. We've got a bucket full of ideas, tell us how they might serve you? Bob . . .


    Message 5


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:21:07 AM PST US
    From: "Neal George" <n8zg@MCHSI.COM>
    Subject: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators
    Sam - The SD-8 is smaller, lighter, has zero maintenance cost, will deliver it's promised 8 amps indefinitely, and you should only need to buy one. How often will you replace the $125 second battery, and how long will it take you to spend more on batteries than the "expensive" SD-8? I'd mount the SD-8. You'll get a few extra pounds of usable payload, lower true cost of ownership, and if the main alternator ever quits making electrons, you'll never have to wonder if the battery will last long enough to get you to your intended destination comfortably. Neal RV-7 N8ZG (baffles) Z-13/8 All, I have a 1,600 hr. Q-200 that I am retrofitting to be an all electric airplane. Chucked all the steam gauges for a Dynon Flightdeck D-180 and I am going with a RWS <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html> all electronic fuel injection and ignition system. I have a Continental O-200 with B&C 30a alternator installed on the rear of the engine. With the EFI & fuel pump, my normal operation current needs will be about 8 amps. I am in in the decision process for two batteries, vs. two alternators. I may have room for the B&C standby alternator on the vacuum pad, but I'm not 100% sure. Since the G.W of this plane is only 1,100 lbs, I really need to keep the weight down (favors the alternator). On the other hand, the alternator costs three or four times that of a second battery. On the other hand, It may be difficult to find room for a second battery. What say you all? Sam Hoskins Quickie <http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com> Blog Quickie Website <http://home.mchsi.com/%7Eshoskins/index.htm>


    Message 6


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:49:24 AM PST US
    From: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
    Subject: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual
    bus system Bob, One engine builder that offers EI as an option to Mags is Performance Engines of California. I would think that Lycon and BPE may also do the same. Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 7:53 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus system <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> At 06:16 PM 3/3/2008 -0700, you wrote: > >Frank, > >For the most part I agree. The points that I was trying to make were >small. The main reason for using EI (order not important) is to improve >the starting, overall HP, fuel specifics, and general smoother running >throughout the range of operation. I didn't want to confuse rated >operation to improved operation. The general point is, if your going to >run a mix of EI and MAG why bother, your not going to see much gain >unless you run both systems at the same timing point. > >MIke Most folks running a mix of technologies are hedging their bets. After all, EI is the "new kid" on the block although work by Lightspeed and ElectoAir now goes back over 20 years. The other factor is that I'm aware of no engine suppliers that will offer you a discount equal to the cost of the magneto ignition system for leaving it off the delivered engine. The last point is that the vast majority of your gains for running EI come with addition of the first system. So, consider the cost of ownership: Take off one mag and leave the other on to back up a EI system that's going to do all the work. When and if the first mag craps, put the removed one back on and get your investment back out of it. When and if the second one craps, one would hope that the first EI system is still going strong . . . so putting the second brand-new EI system on gives you one old one, one new one. You've maintained redundancy throughout the exercise and not wasted any money on hardware while enjoying the vast majority of what an EI system can deliver. Most folks I've talked to running EI had yet to see an ROI on fuel savings . . . although when it gets to $5/gallon, that may change quickly. Most were very pleased with starting performance and the ability to use automotive plugs. Bob . . . 10/2/2007 11:10 AM 10/2/2007 11:10 AM


    Message 7


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:53:42 AM PST US
    From: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
    Subject: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual
    bus system Bob, A side not to my last post: Most of the folks on this site are 4 cylinder operators and tend to follow the money trail of low cost (a great thing). The 6 cylinder folks don't have as many options and tend to deal with the race side of the house and the people engaged in maximum performance who have spent the time looking for power advantages. Mike 10/2/2007 11:10 AM


    Message 8


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:04:16 AM PST US
    From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
    Subject: Re: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators
    Hi Sam Flying an "all electric" aircraft myself for the past 10 years, I'd like to provide you my viewpoint (and that is all it is). I first started out with 1 alternator and two 22 lb 25 AH Concord RCG batteries for a total of 44 lbs of battery power. After carrying that weigh around for a couple years, I replaced them with two 14 lb 17 AH Odyssey batteries shedding quite a bit of weight. After flying a couple more years with the two Odyssey and never in all those years having need for the standby battery (I did use it to aid starting on cold mornings), I removed one and now fly with the single 17 AH 14 lb Odyssey which I swap out every 2nd year. With battery technology improving, I may in the future add a small 7 AH battery as an emergency back up, but given the lesser load capability of your platform, you may want to give more study and thought to your basic electrical power concept. As someone else has already mentioned, it needs to fit your typical flight profile. FWIW Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Sam Hoskins To: Aerolectric List Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:21 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators All, I have a 1,600 hr. Q-200 that I am retrofitting to be an all electric airplane. Chucked all the steam gauges for a Dynon Flightdeck D-180 and I am going with a RWS all electronic fuel injection and ignition system. I have a Continental O-200 with B&C 30a alternator installed on the rear of the engine. With the EFI & fuel pump, my normal operation current needs will be about 8 amps. I am in in the decision process for two batteries, vs. two alternators. I may have room for the B&C standby alternator on the vacuum pad, but I'm not 100% sure. Since the G.W of this plane is only 1,100 lbs, I really need to keep the weight down (favors the alternator). On the other hand, the alternator costs three or four times that of a second battery. On the other hand, It may be difficult to find room for a second battery. What say you all? Sam Hoskins Quickie Blog Quickie Website


    Message 9


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:55:51 AM PST US
    From: "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa@hometel.com>
    Subject: Z-19 Series Architecture
    Bob, On the Z-19 rev M and Z-19/RB rev A drawings the E-BUS normal feed is from the Main PWR Dist block thru a 7A breaker and diode. On all other drawings it appears the E-BUS normal feed is directly off the Main PWR Dist Block binding post (not a breaker) thru a diode. Is there a reason for the different setup on the Z-19 series? Regards, Mark Sletten


    Message 10


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:13:47 AM PST US
    Subject: New EMAG and PMAG Wiring question
    From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
    This idea may have been hashed/rehashed enough, but I can't resist putting in my two cents.. Bob has said (and others have agreed) that it makes sense to design system architecture to comfortably deal with single failures gracefully. The odds of having multiple component failures on a single flight is comfortably unlikely, given good component selection and best practices installation/implementation methods. This is how to have low cost fault tolerance. In my opinion, the P-mags are best powered from the main bus. Their operation on internal power can be checked regularly (once per flying day?). If an in-flight situation develops that warrants shutting down the main bus (electrical fire, main alternator failure, etc.), I think you can be confident that both p-mags will continue to function on internal power. No sweat. This is one of the beauties of the P-mags - they allow for more easy fault tolerance. I believe this is part of the rationale of the recommended wiring configuration. You say, "you like the idea of running them (the P-mags) from the always hot battery bus." Can you explain why you like the idea of this? Regards, Matt- > <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> > > At 09:00 PM 3/3/2008 -0800, you wrote: > >> >>Thanks Bob. I forgot to mention that I have 2 PMAGS and like the idea of >>running them from the always hot battery bus. > > It's your airplane. I'm only echoing a design philosophy > that's recommended by the manufacturer supported by > a elegant assemblage of simple-ideas. You'll need to > do something different with respect to the switching. > > Bob . . . > >


    Message 11


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:43:33 PM PST US
    From: <dsvs@ca.rr.com>
    Subject: New EMAG and PMAG Wiring question
    Matt and Bob. Thanks for the replies. I guess this was just a left over idea from Bob's original design. Both of my PMAGs will be powered from the main bus. Don ---- Matt Prather <mprather@spro.net> wrote: > > This idea may have been hashed/rehashed enough, but I can't resist putting > in my two cents.. > > Bob has said (and others have agreed) that it makes sense to design system > architecture to comfortably deal with single failures gracefully. The > odds of having multiple component failures on a single flight is > comfortably unlikely, given good component selection and best practices > installation/implementation methods. This is how to have low cost fault > tolerance. > > In my opinion, the P-mags are best powered from the main bus. Their > operation on internal power can be checked regularly (once per flying > day?). If an in-flight situation develops that warrants shutting down the > main bus (electrical fire, main alternator failure, etc.), I think you > can be confident that both p-mags will continue to function on internal > power. No sweat. This is one of the beauties of the P-mags - they allow > for more easy fault tolerance. I believe this is part of the rationale of > the recommended wiring configuration. > > You say, "you like the idea of running them (the P-mags) from the always > hot battery bus." Can you explain why you like the idea of this? > > > Regards, > > Matt- > > > > <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> > > > > At 09:00 PM 3/3/2008 -0800, you wrote: > > > >> > >>Thanks Bob. I forgot to mention that I have 2 PMAGS and like the idea of > >>running them from the always hot battery bus. > > > > It's your airplane. I'm only echoing a design philosophy > > that's recommended by the manufacturer supported by > > a elegant assemblage of simple-ideas. You'll need to > > do something different with respect to the switching. > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >


    Message 12


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:25:18 PM PST US
    From: "Peter Pengilly" <peter@sportingaero.com>
    Subject: Starter Choice
    I am changing the engine on my One Design. I am removing an O-320-E3D and fitting an IO-360-B1B (180 hp regular compression). I will be fitting an Odyssey 17ah battery. The 320 has a B&C starter that has been used for around 100 hours, it also has 122 teeth on the starter ring. The 360 has a Sky-tec PM starter (and is brand new and is painted bright red) and a 149 tooth starter ring. The airplane is fitted with a B&C SD-8 generator so cannot guarantee a fully charged battery every time. I have heard stories that permanent magnet starters and Odyssey batteries do not get on, and that starting is often slow, especially the first couple of blades. All things being equal I would swap the starter and the starter ring, but that's not possible as the part numbers of the starter rings between the two engines are different - I don't know the precise differences, and I would have to paint the old starter ring. To be able to use the B&C starter on the new engine B&C recommend I change out the ring gear, or return the starter for overhaul ($310 plus shipping from Europe). And will have to change something on the old engine. So my questions is, am I right to be concerned about the long term abilities of a Skytec PM starter and the Odyssey battery to provide reliable starting? Does anyone have any experience with this combination? Regards, Peter


    Message 13


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:52:44 PM PST US
    From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
    Subject: Starter Choice
    there are many Io360's and Skytec PM starters used mainly on Vans aircraft. ..In fact the Odyssy is that standard supplied battery...Never heard of any one having an issue...Mine works just fine. Now, Skytecs will break if they suffer kickback, My emags avoid this by all owing three blades to pass through before firing...This can be over ridden if you ever had to hand prop. But generally the odyssy/Skytech combo has a long relaible track record. Frank RV7a Io360 ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr ic-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:20 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Starter Choice I am changing the engine on my One Design. I am removing an O-320-E3D and f itting an IO-360-B1B (180 hp regular compression). I will be fitting an Ody ssey 17ah battery. The 320 has a B&C starter that has been used for around 100 hours, it also has 122 teeth on the starter ring. The 360 has a Sky-tec PM starter (and is brand new and is painted bright red) and a 149 tooth st arter ring. The airplane is fitted with a B&C SD-8 generator so cannot guar antee a fully charged battery every time. I have heard stories that permanent magnet starters and Odyssey batteries d o not get on, and that starting is often slow, especially the first couple of blades. All things being equal I would swap the starter and the starter ring, but that's not possible as the part numbers of the starter rings betw een the two engines are different - I don't know the precise differences, a nd I would have to paint the old starter ring. To be able to use the B&C st arter on the new engine B&C recommend I change out the ring gear, or return the starter for overhaul ($310 plus shipping from Europe). And will have t o change something on the old engine. So my questions is, am I right to be concerned about the long term abilitie s of a Skytec PM starter and the Odyssey battery to provide reliable starti ng? Does anyone have any experience with this combination? Regards, Peter


    Message 14


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:51:59 PM PST US
    From: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja@starpower.net>
    Subject: Re: Starter Choice
    Peter, I have over 500 flight hours on my O-360 with a skytec permanent magnet starter and not one moment of problem with just an Odyssey 17 AH battery and a B&C SD-8 permanent magnet alternator. Jim ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Pengilly wrote: I am changing the engine on my One Design. I am removing an O-320-E3D and fitting an IO-360-B1B (180 hp regular compression). I will be fitting an Odyssey 17ah battery. The 320 has a B&C starter that has been used for around 100 hours, it also has 122 teeth on the starter ring. The 360 has a Sky-tec PM starter (and is brand new and is painted bright red) and a 149 tooth starter ring. The airplane is fitted with a B&C SD-8 generator so cannot guarantee a fully charged battery every time. I have heard stories that permanent magnet starters and Odyssey batteries do not get on, and that starting is often slow, especially the first couple of blades. All things being equal I would swap the starter and the starter ring, but thats not possible as the part numbers of the starter rings between the two engines are different I dont know the precise differences, and I would have to paint the old starter ring. To be able to use the B&C starter on the new engine B&C recommend I change out the ring gear, or return the starter for overhaul ($310 plus shipping from Europe ). And will have to change something on the old engine. So my questions is, am I right to be concerned about the long term abilities of a Skytec PM starter and the Odyssey battery to provide reliable starting? Does anyone have any experience with this combination? Regards, Peter ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --