Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:42 AM - IO-240 Starter (Owen Baker)
2. 07:37 AM - Re: IO-240 Starter (F. Tim Yoder)
3. 08:04 AM - Re: Re: Z12 Alternator Amps (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 08:41 PM - Re: Z12 Alternator Amps (RV7ASask)
5. 08:48 PM - Bending ring terminals on superflex-battery cables... (Michael Burbidge)
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 |
|
7/8/2012
Hello Tim, I was a bit surprised to read of your recent experience with
a TCM provided starter for the IO-240 engine. I thought that all of
those crappy TCM designed starters had long since failed and been purged
from the field.
That was a very ugly chapter in TCM=99s history when they tried to
screw Bill Bainbridge of B&C by reverse engineering one of his starters
when their original design proved to be a miserable failure. TCM was
eventually forced to buy and install B&C starters at the factory on new
engines being shipped. TCM agreed to pay for a B&C starter for my engine
for me to install when I refused to accept their designed starter that
had been shipped with my engine, IO-240 B9B Serial number 806236.
If anyone else is still operating a TCM designed starter on their IO-240
(it takes some detail part number sleuthing to determine that) I
strongly recommend switching to a B&C starter because the TCM designed
starter can fail in a manner that will foul up the interior of the
engine =93 big expense and some danger.
I have extensive postings on this subject in my files (and there are
probably also some in the Matronics archives) if anyone is interested in
reviewing that history.
OC
===========
Time: 09:31:00 PM PST US
From: "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder@yoderbuilt.com>
Subject: KIS-List: IO-240 Starter
FYI for those who have this engine or a light weight TCM starter. Circa
1997.
My IO-240 came with a TCM starter, Part # 654046 E. It failed at 475
hours. I had been told by a TCM tech. that even though it had a Cont tag
on it, it was really made by B&C. I called B&C and made arrangements to
send it to them for repair. After they received it the called to advise
me that it was not one of theirs but a knockoff that Cont. had made. B&C
didn't think that Cont. would repair theirs anymore. I did not check
with Cont. because I decided I wanted one of B&C's. They sent me a new
one and my old one at no shipping charge. In a side by side comparison,
the B&C starter is much better built. There was a dramatic improvement
in prop rotation speed by the starter.
Tim
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: IO-240 Starter |
Hi OC,
Obviously TCM new they had put one of their junk starters on my engine
and didn't bother to make good on it. As I said before, they even told
me it was a B&C after I gave them the part# and serial#.
I must have come to the lists after your postings of the starter
reports. Maybe there are a few others that haven't herd of the problem
and this might help. Thanks to you and others, I have learned allot on
these lists.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: Owen Baker
To: ftyoder@yoderbuilt.com ; aeroelectric-list@matronics.com ;
KIS-LIST MATRONICS
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 6:40 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IO-240 Starter
7/8/2012
Hello Tim, I was a bit surprised to read of your recent experience
with a TCM provided starter for the IO-240 engine. I thought that all of
those crappy TCM designed starters had long since failed and been purged
from the field.
That was a very ugly chapter in TCM=99s history when they tried
to screw Bill Bainbridge of B&C by reverse engineering one of his
starters when their original design proved to be a miserable failure.
TCM was eventually forced to buy and install B&C starters at the factory
on new engines being shipped. TCM agreed to pay for a B&C starter for my
engine for me to install when I refused to accept their designed starter
that had been shipped with my engine, IO-240 B9B Serial number 806236.
If anyone else is still operating a TCM designed starter on their
IO-240 (it takes some detail part number sleuthing to determine that) I
strongly recommend switching to a B&C starter because the TCM designed
starter can fail in a manner that will foul up the interior of the
engine =93 big expense and some danger.
I have extensive postings on this subject in my files (and there are
probably also some in the Matronics archives) if anyone is interested in
reviewing that history.
OC
===========
Time: 09:31:00 PM PST US
From: "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder@yoderbuilt.com>
Subject: KIS-List: IO-240 Starter
FYI for those who have this engine or a light weight TCM starter.
Circa
1997.
My IO-240 came with a TCM starter, Part # 654046 E. It failed at 475
hours. I had been told by a TCM tech. that even though it had a Cont
tag
on it, it was really made by B&C. I called B&C and made arrangements
to
send it to them for repair. After they received it the called to
advise
me that it was not one of theirs but a knockoff that Cont. had made.
B&C
didn't think that Cont. would repair theirs anymore. I did not check
with Cont. because I decided I wanted one of B&C's. They sent me a new
one and my old one at no shipping charge. In a side by side
comparison,
the B&C starter is much better built. There was a dramatic improvement
in prop rotation speed by the starter.
Tim
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Z12 Alternator Amps |
At 11:26 PM 7/7/2012, you wrote:
I went flying today and did an Aux alternator check as you suggested
Bob. After turning most of the electrical load off, once again I was
left with 8 amps and 14.4 volts on the Main Alternator.
Cruising at 2400 RPM I selected the Main Alternator Off. Voltage
dropped to 12.9 and the Aux Alternator came on line with a steady
12.9 volts. The amps then slowly climbed up to and settled down at 20
amps, more than double the reading of the Main? To the best of my
knowledge everything is wired correctly.
There's no reason for the currents to
be that different. I'd forgotten about the lower
setpoint for the standby regulator. 12.9 is a bit
low, it should be about 1 volt lower than your
main alternator regulator. 14.5 for main, 13.5
for aux.
You say that the aux alternator amps 'climbed slowly'
where did it start from? I'd tweak the aux alternator
regulator up to 13.5 volts and see how the behavior
changes. Sounds like the battery is taking on part of
the aux loads and reduces its share as the terminal
voltage drops.
The aux alternator should support all ships loads up
to 20A at some voltage just above that which will cause
the battery to share the load. This has to be above
13.0 volts.
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Z12 Alternator Amps |
Thanks Bob,
You asked about the amps climbing slowly. When I switch the main alternator off
and switch the amps monitor switch to Aux Alternator the Aux will show zero amps.
As the Aux comes on line the amps slowly build from zero to 20 amps and it
takes about 20 to 30 seconds. I am not sure if this is the Skyview indicating
system or is the battery slowly allowing the load to be taken up by the alternator?
I do not have the ability to monitor the amps being drawn by the battery
as the two indicator inputs come off the shunts as per Z12.
I will not be flying until the end of the week but I will adjust the aux regulator
and let you know how the next test goes.
Regards
David Lamb
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=377702#377702
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 |
|
Subject: | Bending ring terminals on superflex-battery cables... |
Is it acceptable to put a 90 degree bend in the ring terminals on the superflex-battery
cables from B&C so that the cable attaches to terminals without tension?
Michael-
Other Matronics Email List Services
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! --
|