Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: AERONCA/McDOWELL DRAWINGS

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Boatright View Post
    Man, this sounds like something that would be REALLY cool to publish in Sport Aviation <snip>.
    No way. It might steal space from the next TBM article...

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright View Post
    No way. It might steal space from the next TBM article...
    What was I thinking?!

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Michigan United States
    Posts
    40
    Glad to hear that the starter is in and working.
    Also about that TBM article, I thought I was the only one that felt disenfranchised by the "new" EAA.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NW FL
    Posts
    405
    Lets keep it on starters.


    I grew up with hand propping. (Did all of my PLC training in a J-3) But really! This is the 21st century. Ideas for all kinds of cheap, light weight methods to get a non-electric airplane going have been rolling around my head. The thought of my wife or grandkids hand propping leave me cold.


    Air starters are light and effective. But you need to taxi to the FBO's air hose to top off the required on board tank. Or mount an on board compressor too. No good.


    The old time-y "shot gun starter" looks good. Light, simple, dependable. You should first empty out the BBs If you buy your starting cartriges at the sporting goods store. Some one will eventualy forget this important step so the installation must be sufficiently robust. It should also include a clean out trap for over looked pellets. This idea appeals to me. But then came mental images of TSA hearing my plane crank and that would bring them pouring out of the terminal, crossing the runways and FBO ramp in military formation and taking me down. It would surely involve stun guns at certain NJ airports. Don't taze me bro.


    I read of a T-craft owner who got an electric starter approved. He used a rechargeble, cordless drill motor. He installed a ring gear behind the prop and installed a cockpit control. I wish that I thought of it.


    Then, there is this.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecosb5mSDwo


    Bob

  5. #15
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Dingley View Post
    I read of a T-craft owner who got an electric starter approved. He used a rechargeble, cordless drill motor. He installed a ring gear behind the prop and installed a cockpit control. I wish that I thought of it.
    The Hamp starter:

    http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fe...arter_for_A65s

    He did get an STC for it.

    Ron Wanttaja

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    107
    There are, of course, several successful or almost that good starter techniques applicable to older Aircraft. The Hamp drill motor thing is one of many. But the McDowell starter doesn't require a hand drill, a battery and has at least 75 years of use history in Aeroncas, Taylorcraft, Luscombes and maybe even in some coupes. If you are interested in seeing it in action, search for McDowell Starter on You Tube and you will find a very convincing demonstration of one in an Aeronca Chief by Colie Pitts.

    Dale

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by EDGEFLY View Post
    There are, of course, several successful or almost that good starter techniques applicable to older Aircraft. The Hamp drill motor thing is one of many. But the McDowell starter doesn't require a hand drill, a battery and has at least 75 years of use history in Aeroncas, Taylorcraft, Luscombes and maybe even in some coupes. If you are interested in seeing it in action, search for McDowell Starter on You Tube and you will find a very convincing demonstration of one in an Aeronca Chief by Colie Pitts.

    Dale
    Why do you think 99% of them were removed from service over the years? Ineffectiveness? No parts availability? My sense is that if they were a great solution, someone would have supported the product for the last 50+ years.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright View Post
    Why do you think 99% of them were removed from service over the years? Ineffectiveness? No parts availability? My sense is that if they were a great solution, someone would have supported the product for the last 50+ years.
    Kyle,

    Sorry to have offended you by suggesting a concept 75 years old is perhaps still useful. There are some answers to your questions but since you are obviously not interested, I won't bother you with them. I don't recall having said that McDowells are "a great solution", "were more or at least as effective" as alternative starter systems, "that there is immediate market parts support availabile" nor that they are specifically preferable to any other approach. They are a part of Vintage aircraft history and I am satisfied that my own experience has been "fine". I do hope your malaise is lessening and that modern medicine leads to a complete recovery.

    For others viewing this thread, let us proceed in a civil manner.

    Dale

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Michigan United States
    Posts
    40
    Another other starter for small Continental engines was the "Hummer" from mechanical Products inc. it was approved by Cont. on the -6 and -9 engines, these engines had provision for a starter. The crankcase and accessory case are very different than on a -8 engine. To add a starter to a -8 my opinion is that the Hamp starter or an old McDowell would be the options. They both work by turning the prop. hub like a Lycoming, since the -8 engines have no available starter mount on the back. The Hummer was I think used on some pre-war Chiefs, they could also be had with an electric Eclipse starter. The -9 engines are very rare if you want a museum piece look for one if the goal is a flying aircraft then the old McDowell or new Hamp starters are the way to go for a self starter. Those that I have talked to,( I have never used one),say that a big problem with the McDowell was people "cranking" the engine with it to prime. It was meant only to turn the engine one compression to start it, the prop. was to be turned by hand for priming and to set on compression just like hand propping. It is more of a "remote" hand prop device than what is thought of now as a 'starter".

  10. #20
    L16 Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    187
    I've been searching for McDowell parts for my Super Chief project for a couple of years and checked out every old time airport in the area with no luck. I did find someone who had a complete (new??) in a box but the price was $3000 which is too rich for my blood. One person said they had the hub put couldn't find it. After looking at his hangar I could see why he couldn't locate it.
    If God had intended man to fly He would have given us more money!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •