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.
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.