Starter for A65 and non-electrical airplanes

Tim Juhl · Post by **Tim Juhl** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 20:24

Maybe someone else posted info on this before but I learned something today that some of you may find interesting. I flew to a dawn patrol breakfast at Midland, MI today and when I got back to my Champ I found a flyer stuck in my air vent for a self-contained starter system. Apparently the starter is built around a rechargeable electric drill motor coupled thru a linkage that engages a gear bolted between the prop and crankshaft.

The flyer states that they have an STC (SA02604CH) for Champ, Luscombe, Piper and Taylorcraft. Price of the kit is $1850 + $500 if you want them to install it.

I have no connection with the folks selling it and have not seen a live example. I do know that they are well known in mid-michigan aviation circles.

For info email them at carolhamp@dishmail.net or call 989-463-1762
and talk to Harold, Michael or Carol.

FWIW

Tim

james gevay · Post by **james gevay** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 07:07

I read an article recently about this starter in Sport Aviation or Vintage Airplane. I don't know much more than that.

Post by **joea** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 07:36

Tim,

This was posted here on the bulletin board before.

Frankly to me its a bit hokey, and how it got FAA approval is beyond me.

Look here: http://joea.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2744

Its a dewalt rechargeable drill, connected to a rod with a universal joint in it that run from the accy case/magneto area on top of the cylinders. You then drill a hole in the nosebowl for the shaft and a gear pokes out the front.

The gear meshes to a really large flywheel/starter ring that comes with the STC that is mounted behind the prop on the OUTSIDE of the nosebowl. As the drill motor is not real big, the gear outside the nosebowl has to be really large to make it able to turn over the engine.

You sit inside the airplane, pull a handle that actuates the rechargeable drill and somehow pushes the gear to mesh into the gear in front of the nosebowl.

How well it works who knows, but this gent has an STC for it from the FAA.

Personally I would rather prop the plane than use this unit on a plane I owned. Between the massive flywheel/gear hanging outside the nose bowl and the somewhat hokey rechargeable drill and shaft its not for me. The prop spinner cannot cover the gear outside and its looks alone are a turn off for me.

Captgrumps · Post by **Captgrumps** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 09:54

Joe

With that system approved by the Chicago FSDO none of the FSDO's should have a problem if someone wanted to install an already STC approved starter on a -12 engine with a drycell battery hookup. His system works but it adds weight, modifies the cowl, looks ugly and who wants to fly around with a drill motor in the cockpit that is already cramped. It is probably the answer for some folks. Last I heard it was only approved for C65/75's and at the time no mention of Aeronca's. Maybe that has changed. No mention of C85's either. Correct me if I am wrong--comments welcome.

Doug

Tim Juhl · Post by **Tim Juhl** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 20:34

I agree that the design is a bit hokey and pricey. That said, there aren't too many options for someone with an A65. Not knowing that it had been discussed before I thought it wouldn't hurt to share.

As you may know, I installed a C85-12 with a Skytec starter and total loss system. After hand propping my Champ for 20 years, I like just pushing the button

Also, Michigan has a law against hand propping without a qualified person at the controls.... since I frequently fly alone that could be a problem.

Tim

MikeB · Post by **MikeB** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 22:24

I assume this is a stupid question but how can they make and/or enforce such a law?? One: the plane was made without a starter and certified as such. Two: who rides around with a 'qualified' person to take over when it's necessary to hand prop? Makes about as much sense as saying that anyone who owns a antique car or tractor that needs to be hand cranked needs a qualified person in the driver's seat.

Mike

Tim Juhl · Post by **Tim Juhl** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 13:15

Mike,
I couldn't agree more and have to admit to being a frequent violator of the rule. That said, the MI Bureau of Aeronautics does have inspectors that are familiar with the rule which made me reluctant to visit certain airports or fly- ins while solo for fear of a chance meeting with one. Thankfully it is no longer a concern for me.

Tim

Paul Agaliotis · Post by **Paul Agaliotis** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 16:09

Put in a McDowell starter. Only 8 pounds and on the equipment list. One of the big differences is that the cannot and has not been used to drill holes, install screws or clean drains.
Paul

jc pacquin · Post by **jc pacquin** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 22:13

Like Grumps, I'm old and tired. Propping at 20-30 40 years old seemed pretty simple but now....I think of all the awful things that can happen so I wait till someone shows up that can prop me. Seems strange someone hasn't designed an inertia starter for these tiny engines, a simple wind up job, hidden under the cowling with a removable crank, like on the Stearman. That job using the hand drill is right out of rube goldbergs collection of weird and ugly failures. Not for me, thats for sure! JC

MikeB · Post by **MikeB** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 08:59

I'm simply amazed that such a cobbled up rig could get 'approved' (blessed ??) by the FAA. Especially considering how much trouble I went through to get a 337 approval for pop riveting the wing fabric on my L16 and that was covered by a service letter. I'd like to have a McDowell starter but there don't seem to be a lot of them around. My L16 (0200) will have a lightweight starter and total loss battery system.

Mike

kyleb · Post by **kyleb** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 19:02

MikeB wrote:I'm simply amazed that such a cobbled up rig could get 'approved' (blessed ??) by the FAA. Especially considering how much trouble I went through to get a 337 approval for pop riveting the wing fabric on my L16 and that was covered by a service letter. I'd like to have a McDowell starter but there don't seem to be a lot of them around. My L16 (0200) will have a lightweight starter and total loss battery system.

Mike

I would guess the difference might come down the FSDO you're dealing with, or (more likely IMO), the fact that if your pop rivets failed to hold the fabric, that would potentially be fatal. Wheras if the cobbled up starter failed, it would probably just frustrate the owner.

shorty · Post by **shorty** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 22:03

kyleb wrote:
MikeB wrote:I'm simply amazed that such a cobbled up rig could get 'approved' (blessed ??) by the FAA. Especially considering how much trouble I went through to get a 337 approval for pop riveting the wing fabric on my L16 and that was covered by a service letter. I'd like to have a McDowell starter but there don't seem to be a lot of them around. My L16 (0200) will have a lightweight starter and total loss battery system.

Mike
I would guess the difference might come down the FSDO you're dealing with, or (more likely IMO), the fact that if your pop rivets failed to hold the fabric, that would potentially be fatal. Wheras if the cobbled up starter failed, it would probably just frustrate the owner.

That would depend on how and when it failed.

National Aeronca Association Bulletin Board

Starter for A65 and non-electrical airplanes

Starter for A65 and non-electrical airplanes

drill starter

hand propping

starting the plane

Re: