VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   RV Ongoing Maintenance Issues (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=76)
-   -   Plane-Power vs B&C (2019) also: Parts info wanted (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=176462)

TimO 10-29-2019 01:00 PM

Plane-Power vs B&C (2019) also: Parts info wanted
 
I've got questions regarding alternators that I'm itching to understand.

First, if you read VAF, you'll find alternator recommendations all over the map. Some people prefer cheap, easy to replace at any auto parts store, auto alternators. Some like the simple wiring and lower cost of Plane-Power. Some like the known reliability of B&C. And, if you look, you'll find people with stories both good and bad about all 3 types. This thread is NOT AT ALL looking for a recommendation, because it'll just turn into an alternator war. It's looking to clarify some information.

Preface:
In my RV-10, I went with Plane-Powers 70A alternator, installed since day 1 with a blast tube. It's larger, heavier, and turns slower (cooler), and other than when I had the belt tension too tight and wore out a bearing, has been reliable for me. Personally, I am starting to question if the larger alternator with the bigger pulley isn't perhaps a more reliable way to go. Not lighter, not better, but perhaps more reliable.


In my RV-14, I used the 60A Plane-Power. I didn't have such good luck with that. First one died around 70-75 hours with a fried stator. Second one died at 350 TT airframe hours, due to broke brushes caused by the rear bearing to go out. This *may* have been my fault, because failure #1 was while on a trip, and I replaced it on the ramp, with no torque wrench. I would like to think I checked torque after the trip, but my memory fails me, and maybe I didn't. So it's entirely possible that I personally caused that one.

With a failed PlanePower 60A I took it to my local alternator shop, who've been exclusively doing alternators and starters for decades, looking for diagnosis, and any information on making things more reliable. Surprisingly, despite people being critical of PlanePower on VAF, they told me this: (Paraphrased) It's an ND alternator, actually not a true ND, but an aftermarket. He said ND is real good stuff and is some of the best stuff out there, and that if this was a true ND it would be bulletproof. They replaced the rear bearing, and rear case half where the bearing sits, and also replaced the brush/regulator assembly with mine that I had been carrying as spare, that is the modified by Plane-Power, crowbar module with brushes. He feels it is a good alternator and expects a good long life out of it. One thing he did mention is that they use loctite to install the bearing, to keep it from shaking in the bore, and that perhaps my bore had never been perfect which could have caused the issue of the bearing spinning. So my takeaway from this interaction is that the alternator itself probably isn't too bad, other than with it's smaller pulley and faster spin, may be more prone to fail than the 70A in my other plane. Clearly the bearings are available locally, and a local alternator shop can rebuild them, with the exception of the fact that the regulator is modified so in order to have the crowbar module you'd either need to know how to modify a stock one, or carry your own spare. I actually feel better about the 60A after having them look at it. One down side is that there is no included blast tube adapter for the 60A model. Oh, and before I forget, one of the big failure points with the PlanePower 60A seems to be it's rear connector, which is EXPENSIVE at over $100. I guess the pins loosen up.

But, still, after seeing people's reports of B&C being so reliable, I decided I would just go that route. I bought 2 B&C BC460-H alternators. I figured ultimately I should run the same alternator on both planes. Increased my ability to service with carrying spares in each plane, and makes the planes more similar. Also, I wanted to run 14.4V rather than 14.1, so figured the external regulator may indeed be nice. So I bought them. And, at OSH, I bought 2 standby alternators that I have yet to install. This should mean no trip-stopping failures in the field.

At that point though, I decided to put the BC460-H side by side with the PlanePower 60A, and that's when I became flabbergasted. Those 2 alternators look almost identical. They have the same housing, which implies the same bearing. Both are of course, small pulley light weight models. If anything, the PlanePowers aluminum pulley and bracketing on the other end actually look better than the B&C. Despite being externally regulated, the B&C has the SAME rear connector (yes, the one that's prone to fail in the Plane Power) as the PlanePower. (Although you can buy it MUCH MUCH cheaper from B&C) And, there is no blast tube mount with the B&C, and it doesn't include the bracket arm to the starter, either, whereas the PlanePowers Boss mount does. Now, if B&C is a TRUE ND, then I'd say in my mind, I'd pay price premium, knowing PlanePower is an aftermarket. But, I don't know the lineage of the B&C. I would guess they're 95% identical. There is even a regulator module in the B&C, which leads me to believe that they must open it up and either bypass or disable it, to use external control. The regulator in the PlanePower is the same module that houses the Brushes, so it is replaced all at once as a unit. You can buy the PlanePower brush/regulator model and carry it as a spare.

So this far into the post, my questions are:

** Does anyone know if B&C is a TRUE ND alternator, or is it just another knock off as well?
** Does anyone know how B&C modifies the regulator so that a person could buy a regulator and carry it as a spare? B&C by the way, does NOT sell parts, and I will not fly with it unless I can carry spare brushes and a new rear bearing, for off-field emergencies such as if I'm in Canada/Alaska/Bahamas.



Personally, my guess is, B&C built it's glowing reputation over the past many years, with many people buying the L-60 model alternator, which is no longer current. This BC460-H is a "new" model, and my guess is that the physical, non-regulator type failures will become very similar to the PlanePower 60A over the course of the next few years. A smaller, faster spinning alternator likely will last a shorter lifetime than a larger slower spinning alternator. It's just a guess, but it will be interesting to see the statistics from present day going forward.

With a standby alternator, I'm not going to be nearly as worried, but both planes will now be heavier, as well, with one more maintenance item to fail, so it won't be cheaper.
The regulators used for both B&C alternators have the benefit of being able to live on the cold side of the firewall, which is great. But, they also are considerably large and not completely insignificant for weight. If weight and space are your biggest concern, the PP60A is going to be more attractive. I'm guessing that reliability wise, you probably couldn't beat a full size 70A alternator that's the physical size of the PP70A, but externally regulated with a B&C regulator. But that's just a guess.

If it were easy to get a boss mount for an auto alternator, I may have been interested in going that route, but, I wanted to stick with an alternator that came with the bracketing to mount to a lycoming, so that's why I don't consider other options. I do though, want to find out everything I need to know, to be able to carry a spare set of brushes for my BC460-H, and if that means taking a brand new alternator to an alternator shop and having them pull it apart, so be it. I just figured that maybe someone on here would already have a source for the BC460-H brush/regulator assembly, and know how to bypass/disable the regulator so it can be externally regulated.

I guess in the end, a person could, in an emergency, just put in an internally regulated module in the B&C and bypass their B&C regulator if you needed to get home. Knowing of course that you then lose the crowbar OV module. Or perhaps you could still run your B&C regulator, trying to regulate the internally regulated alternator to 14.4V, but the alternator would then regulate that back down to 14.1, sensing that it was running high on the field terminal. Not sure.

I do think it'll be interesting though, to see if the new B&C keeps their reputation glowing, or not. I suppose it all depends on if the similarities between them and the PP60A are more than skin deep.

Bavafa 10-29-2019 01:53 PM

I don't know the answer to your questions but I have had a great luck with B&C alternators, first a 40A in my RV7A and currently at around 1000 hours and second a 60A in my 14A but only 90+ hours. For me the real trouble with alternator failure is not the cost but the hassle, especially if you are not at your home airport and on a trip. So far, I have not had a smallest hiccup with either and that is worth a lot of $$$$ for me.
My RV7A had a starter failure at the first 100 hours away from the home airport. They replaced it for free and under warranty but the cost of back and forth to that airport was more than two starters worth of $$$

jdmrv7a 10-29-2019 02:04 PM

Tim,
I cannot speak to your RV 10, however I completed my RV14-A last year and have 183 hours logged. Recently my new gear driven (secondary) Plane-Power model FS1-14B failed. While inspecting the alternator it was very apparent that the case mount was internally separating.

I called Tim Gauntt at Hartzell and learned they have corrected manufacturing problems from the past with the belt driven units starting sometime in 2017. They are finalizing issues with the gear driven alternators now. Tim can give you the details. B&C will also answer your questions.

You have a lot of good questions that would best be answered by Hartzell and B&C. In my conversation with them, it sounded like Hartzell is committed to making their acquisition of Plane-Power a more reliable product. They are replacing my alternator in the next few weeks. With many all electric glass airplanes, we need bulletproof alternators more than ever.

I would like to see your questions answered by the respective companies. Past performance is important but we need to also understand future reliability when ownership and products change.

TimO 10-29-2019 02:12 PM

You hit my points exactly. Both of you. For me, #1 is reliability because I don't need the inconvenience of having an issue on a trip. From a safety standpoint I think I'm fine getting it on the ground without the alternator.

But, I would believe that both companies would be trying to ensure they have good reliability, and it's great to hear Hartzell has made changes to the 60A that may improve things there. My intention wasn't to slam either company at all, but basically question what the real differences are, going forward, since I now know the PP isn't a true Denso, and I am curious if the B&C actually is or not. If not, I personally think that other than things they can tweak internally for better reliability, they will probably have similar failure rates going forward. I'm betting that the L-60 was a whole different animal. It had the .250" spade connections (better reliability I would think), and it was 1.6 (or so, from what I hear) pounds heavier, which indicates it may be larger. So I figured maybe that's why B&C got the good reputation. It was superior hardware in that case.

But, once someone has info on the guts of the BC460-H, it may indeed have something internal that's different that would make it "better". Otherwise, it's just another alternator and shouldn't really be "better" by design. Only time will tell I suppose.

I do, however, want to ensure I can carry spare brushes and bearings, so one way or another I'm going to have to either tear one open or hear from someone who has.

digidocs 10-29-2019 02:23 PM

Hey Tim,

Maybe you could post some pictures of each unit to aid in identifying their respective origins?

FWIW, I have heard that the Plane Power OEM is Unipoint. However, I haven't been able to prove or disprove that.

Bavafa 10-29-2019 02:43 PM

One other factor that I forgot to mentioned, though I don't have the data available to collaborate my opinion, but it seems to me that a good portion of alternator failures are as a result of failure of their [internal] regulator and with B&C regulator mounted on the cold side of the engine, this reliability has been far higher.

BobTurner 10-29-2019 02:47 PM

Tim: was your first PP made before, and second PP made after, the change in ownership of PP? Think that caused any changes, pro or con?

vic syracuse 10-29-2019 02:51 PM

The B&C main alternator on my RV-10 has been going now for 10 years and 1700 hours. :)

I've replaced many other brands of alternators on customer's airplanes over those same years, with 1/3 or less time on them than this one.

Just my experience. :)

Vic

TimO 10-29-2019 03:10 PM

Ok, here's some pics and info.

First, comments:

Vic, I hear ya. The thing is, your data point probably isn't worth anything in the discussion. (ABSOLUTELY no insult intended) The reason? Well, your B&C being 10 years old isn't the same model as what they sell today. That's exactly my point and concern. The highly positive reviews may be based on more reliable hardware than what we have for choices in 2019. If they still sold that one, I would have gone that route, for sure, because you're right...your generation of alternator had good reliability. Don't feel bad though, that's the same reason my 70A PP isn't worth talking about much. It's been more reliable too, and isn't the same animal.

Regarding Bob's question, I think both of mine were made after the change in ownership, although I can't say I know when that was. The one that failed with a bad stator short was installed in 2015 before I flew. The one that failed now was one that I got from another builder in 2016, who was building his plane. I stole it when I was AOG and sent him a brand new in box one. So I guess to be honest, I don't know the exact age as it's not printed on the alternator, to my knowledge. Hearing they made recent improvements, I would feel better about new ones than old ones I guess.

Regarding Mehrdad's comments, that's not what I found when searching threads. I didn't hear much of anything about failed regulators in the PP's, but heard tons of connector pin failures, and many stator coil failures. The connectors being the same as the NEW B&C, make me wonder if we won't start hearing of failures in those now too, simply because it's a different connector than those like Vic would have on his plane.

Anyway, here are some pics of them side by side. The PP has a larger bump on it's back shroud, but otherwise dimensionally they are the same. That's cosmetic because there's nothing under the bump. Also, the cases themselves are nearly identical, but, the mounting area is beefed up on the PP with some machined pieces. Makes it LOOK heavier duty, but in practice I doubt it does much. The other difference is just the pulley. Otherwise, you'll find them almost clones of eachother.









PlanePower Regulator:





SeanB 10-29-2019 03:14 PM

Check out "Features" on right side of document, then last section "The Details Behind Extraordinary Value".

https://bandc.com/wp-content/uploads...460-h_2019.pdf

Maybe Plane Power has similar information....

Finally, maybe a call to each respective company with a few comparison questions could shed more light.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:13 AM.