Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Skytec starter 149/NL versus 149/NL/ec

I just had the /ec version fitted. It runs at about half the speed of the non-ec model! IOW, there is very little point in having this starter (400 quid) except for the weight saving.

This is the current data from Skytec

I have some notes on this at the end of here

The non-ec model was 12/24V selectable but it looks like Skytec screwed up and when jumpered for the 24V mode it had a short life. Some of them also had the motor bolts come loose, allowing the motor to spin around and break the stator winding connections. So they quietly issued that “guidance” to use the much less powerful “ec” model on 24V aircraft.

My non-ec one was installed in 2008 and lasted around 1000hrs, which doesn’t compare well with their 2700hr TBO.

This (149/NL is the one on the left)

confirms that Skytec did a quiet mod to reduce the power of that model, so if you want a faster starter (great for hot starts) you need to go for the RHS one – the HT model.

I am a bit p1ssed off that having paid 400 quid for a starter to replace one which lasted about 1/3 of how long it should have done, I end up with one which runs at half the speed.

The only plus side is that it obviously draws half the battery current, which will make the relays last longer.

And in the UK one doesn’t get a core trade-in option. It looks like the old one will have to be sent back to the USA, which costs almost as much as the core value.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I have just had an email from Skytec confirming that the “ec” model runs at the lower speed.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Well, I would like to add that in my experience the starters from Skytec are very good.
Had mine for over 10 years and problem free.
It’s a 12V version, it spins faster than the old Bendix style starter and is a lot lighter, too.

3 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top