Certified electronic Ignition

Interesting.

5 AMUs plus needs their plugs and another 700 if you want the pulse fired from the old accessory location of the removed mag instead of a crankshaft sensor. And they recommend their switches instead of the venerable key switch be used. So, really about 6 AMUs plus installation.

Seems not worth it.

Also I’d want to know what they’d say about an aircraft that has a MoGas STC on it but flies with a mix of fuel, mostly 100LL. I didn’t read their STC if it’s on their website to see if it cancels out the MoGas STC it specifies fuel type. Could be an interesting discussion.

Smooth operation is always nice. Smoother is usually better than not. But it’s not enough to justify it.

All the people saying they run LOP better is nearly worthless on a carbureted O-470 since most just wont do it at all.

And the mismash of different plugs and different harnesses sounds unnecessarily complex for a 10% fuel gain.

Using rough numbers that’s give or take, 1000 gallons of fuel to pay itself off. Or put another way, over 100 hours of flight time.

By the way, here’s a funny Tom. I forgot that four years ago they found our engine had been timed two degrees advanced and they retarded it back to where it should have been during annual. Goggling around for anyone who’d done this ignition on an O-470-S led me right straight to my old thread from 2013!

You and everyone else had comments, of course. We thought it was an interesting “find” by the shop.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/magneto-timing.61111/page-1

Engine has been running great and starts cold or hot happily, but it’s always done that, even before that timing change. Couple of shots of prime when cold, none when warm, and mixture pulled out about an inch and a half at our altitude. She cranks up and goes.

All the flying with the checkride and stuff, she’s probably coming due for an oil change soon. Will have to watch for a nice warm day and go enjoy a little hangar time doing that. Think we have enough oil at the hangar. I double bought last time by accident.

Thought we were out, our usual place was closing in a half hour, grabbed a case, paid, went to hangar, oops. Two cases.

Ha. Oh well, it gets used.

Anyway. 6 AMU for electronic ignition is probably not high on our list of upgrades. But it’s neat that they’re doing it.
 
Is this any worse than the prices of the new Glass instrumentation?
 
Is this any worse than the prices of the new Glass instrumentation?

Not really but my observation has been that pilots/owners often want to spend as little as possible on engines and maintenance that makes the airplane safer or better but have no qualms about spending money on a fancy paint job, interior, or avionics.

That said, I can’t really see the benefit in the electronic ignition setups unless you fly high or at low MAP settings. There might be some benefit and cost savings for flight schools to go electronic for reduced maintenance and possible fuel savings but for how infrequent most privately owned airplanes fly I think you could have 20+ years of magneto maintenance and replacements before you’d catch up to the cost of the electronic ignition. Do we think this electronic system will be functional and remain supported in that same timeframe? How are the LASAR ignitions holding up?
 
Not really but my observation has been that pilots/owners often want to spend as little as possible on engines and maintenance that makes the airplane safer or better but have no qualms about spending money on a fancy paint job, interior, or avionics.

That said, I can’t really see the benefit in the electronic ignition setups unless you fly high or at low MAP settings. There might be some benefit and cost savings for flight schools to go electronic for reduced maintenance and possible fuel savings but for how infrequent most privately owned airplanes fly I think you could have 20+ years of magneto maintenance and replacements before you’d catch up to the cost of the electronic ignition. Do we think this electronic system will be functional and remain supported in that same timeframe? How are the LASAR ignitions holding up?

There is a lot to be said about electronic ignition pro and con, But in MHO you won't see any significant saving or improved performance until there is a dual system that will do away with the mags and allow variable timing, and single key operation.
I have seen what the SDS system does to the 0-200 with multiport fuel injection and dual electronic ignition, instant starts, better horse power, no plug fouling.
but while we are stuck with 1 mag, ? ?
 
There is a lot to be said about electronic ignition pro and con, But in MHO you won't see any significant saving or improved performance until there is a dual system that will do away with the mags and allow variable timing, and single key operation.
I have seen what the SDS system does to the 0-200 with multiport fuel injection and dual electronic ignition, instant starts, better horse power, no plug fouling.
but while we are stuck with 1 mag, ? ?

One thing I have always questioned about variable timing is how effective it really is and how much we really need it. Airplane engines run in a very narrow speed range so your ignition lead shouldn’t need to change much for the same load point. Especially at high MAP. Where you will get some efficiency improvement is at low MAP settings, either due to low throttle settings or high altitude flying on N/A engines. As I alluded to before, unless you’re flying in one of these conditions your timing will remain about the same as it would with fixed timing magnetos.

But, improved starts, resistance to plug fouling, and minimized maintenance may be enough to encourage some people to adopt. Hoever, if something like SDS were able to be approved and STCd for installation on TCd airframes I think the appeal of one step starting and improved efficiency would catch on pretty quick.
 
Variable timing would mean 0 degree starting with out an impulse coupling. That alone is a big plus. Then electronic ignition will mean no points, no distributor, and virtually no moving parts.
 
Is this any worse than the prices of the new Glass instrumentation?

Nope but our avionics upgrade was literally driven by the ADS-B mandate as a baseline. It was going to be done whether we wanted to or not.

Choosing the rest was “while you’re in there you should probably do X”. Prices are stupid on all of it.

If EPA started charging a lot more for every gallon of 100LL burnt, these things would sell like hot cakes. I shouldn’t give them ideas, but that would change the economics and the perceived need.

We had a mandate to buy a poorly designed outdated RF data system masquerading as a safety system, so we did. And threw in an IFR GPS because transition routes on charts for /U and /A airplanes are slowly disappearing.

If someone was doing an engine rebuild, that’d be the time to hit them up with this as they’re already in for a penny, in for a pound.
 
Nope, but it doesn't have the bling factor going for it.

...a motivation I'll never understand. Only thing that gives me a chubs in this hobby is power loading. Def willing to pay for that. Takes all kinds I suppose.
 
The benefits of ei have been proven over and over in the EAB world. I've been running dual electronics for years. Better starting, smoother, better idle, better economy and 3 dollar spark plugs. The only draw back is you need a backup battery system.

In a single ei system the mag is just back up, the ei fires so hot and the timing is well before the mag there is nothing left for the mag to burn when it fires.
 
The benefits of ei have been proven over and over in the EAB world. I've been running dual electronics for years. Better starting, smoother, better idle, better economy and 3 dollar spark plugs. The only draw back is you need a backup battery system.

In a single ei system the mag is just back up, the ei fires so hot and the timing is well before the mag there is nothing left for the mag to burn when it fires.
Your E/I fires higher than 28 BTDC, ?
 
Given the choice of all the systems on my exp? I elected to use 2 Pmags. Better performance, better fuel economy, no need for battery backup. I did look at the Lightspeed system but settled on Pmags. All a guy can do is his own due dilligence and then make a decision. I appreciate that the E-AB category allows me the freedom.
 
In a single ei system the mag is just back up, the ei fires so hot and the timing is well before the mag there is nothing left for the mag to burn when it fires.

Do you have documentation of that? I’d like to read it.
 
Lots of guys use a single emag or pmag and keep one mechanical mag. They get most of the benefits of the EI and the safety of the mechanical backup. EI benefits are improved with EI running both harnesses.
 
Last edited:
I run dual Lightspeed. But they're not likely to be certified anytime soon.

Like them, and good service.
 
Your E/I fires higher than 28 BTDC, ?

EI's have timing advance curves. Yes, they do run more advanced than 28' in certain circumstances - typically low MP, medium- high RPM.
 
EI's have timing advance curves. Yes, they do run more advanced than 28' in certain circumstances - typically low MP, medium- high RPM.
With one mag operating, the ability for the E/I to drop the ignition event below 28 degrees is eliminated. this is why you can't have 400 RPM idle.
 
Sad thing in all of this hype, is that Precision Airmotive of Everett Wa. did this complete fuel and electronic ignition in their Eagle system, 15 years ago and the FAA stone walled them would not even consider certification.
 
Don't the C-195's have one electrically dependent ignition?
 
I installed one of these a couple of weeks ago.

712b87_d2928046b3364802b7f63c9f9fea32c7~mv2_d_2355_2355_s_2.jpg

Surefly.aero SIM6C

Only thing different than the Bendix mag it replaced is a power connection and a tap for the MAP line. I had been waiting for the E-Mag because it doesn't require external power. But after two years of hearing "next month", I went with the SureFly. Supposed to be trying to get certification. Not sure where they are on that process.
 
Don't the C-195's have one electrically dependent ignition?
I think it's all the Jakes do that. One distributor, and one magneto. Our T-50 was the same way.
 
From the web site:
“ FAA Certification is underway and expected by the end of 2017 if not sooner”.

My calendar tells me we’re almost 3 months past that so I would not hold my breath.

I called them around Christmas and they said March. I am guessing that they are working hard to make SunN Fun.
Whenever it becomes available, I will be writing a check.
 
Does anyone know how they determine the preferred spark timing? RPM only, or do they use sensor of some type?
 
Maybe this would help.

Nope, it did not, but cool music, plane

Sorry, I was of no help with this question.:(
 
Last edited:
Back
Top