What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Dual electronic ignition vs. Single + Magneto

It is worth keeping in mind when we compare the reliability of Slick vs. EI that the sheer number of hours that is on Slick vs EI.

It may be more accurate to compare the percentage of failure based on hours, which would be very hard to do since there are very few planes with EI compared to Mags.
 
jchang10 said:
Does anyone know why PMags for 6 cyls is not available? It just seems like with all the success with 4 cyl engines, a 6 cyl version would be a given???
Click to expand...

Contact Emag for an answer. They should be very close, based on my last conversation with them on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Bavafa said:
It is worth keeping in mind when we compare the reliability of Slick vs. EI that the sheer number of hours that is on Slick vs EI.

It may be more accurate to compare the percentage of failure based on hours, which would be very hard to do since there are very few planes with EI compared to Mags.
Click to expand...

Actually I think it would be very hard to get accurate failure rates of either Slick or EI. Certainly the Slicks have flown many more hours, but this doesn't really matter since is no systematic reporting of failures. We're just as much in the dark with either system.
 
Bavafa said:
It is worth keeping in mind when we compare the reliability of Slick vs. EI that the sheer number of hours that is on Slick vs EI.

It may be more accurate to compare the percentage of failure based on hours, which would be very hard to do since there are very few planes with EI compared to Mags.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but we would also have to include all the times Mags don't necessarily fail completely but preclude flying due to worn cams, burnt points, worn rotor cap, disintegrating brushes, E-gap off, engine timing off, and fouled plugs.

Everyone has their comfort level but I'm firmly in the camp that two EI's are best. The risks are so trivial and the gains are so large that it is hard for me to justify sticking with a one magneto. Now, who wants to debate tail wheel/training wheel or tip up/slider? :D
 
Perfectly fine if some people want one mag and one EI if that makes them comfortable. It works and you don't need the battery backup. A number of our customers have gone this way.

To say that there are not many EIs flying though, I disagree. LSE has sold thousands I'm sure since the mid '80s, Jeff Rose hundreds more as have we for over 20 years. These must have accumulated millions of flight hours collectively in that time and the latter is based on automotive designs which have tens of millions of hours of operation from that much larger market. Nothing new or unknown really in these legacy systems. I think there are enough out there to know that overall, well designed, installed and properly wired EIs have a much longer MTBF than mags, at least that's my experience.

It seems just from the signatures here on VAF that a very large percentage of RVs are equipped with single or dual EIs so people must be comfortable using them.

Maybe the newcomer EI vendors still have something to prove with regards to reliability because they have only been around a few years and in limited numbers.

In the end, the choice of which brand and how many to use is up to the builder after weighing the many options now available to builders.
 
Last edited:
Good thread

Thanks to all for your insight and continue providing inputs concerning EI.

I'm planning and building towards an electronic fuel injection and dual EI.
Dual as in two crank sensors, two harnesses, two ECU, two batteries, a dual fuel pump and most probably a back-up alternator.
And an electrical schematic (still draft mode) to obtain the highest redundancy possible.

Thanks for raising the alternator belt possible rupture issue. I will provide protection to the wiring harnesses and sensors.

Trying to build maximum redundancy, my belief is that my EI will perform as it should and its safety level will be a non-issue, understanding that 0 risk doesn't exist... even with "proven" good old systems.

My VW 1.8T engine has a single EI and injection.
It's 14 years old and has 210.000 kms. (at an average of 60 km/h this means 3500 hours)
To this date, the engine ran without a miss, burp, knock, or other issue.
Smooth as silk...
(touching wood now... ;) )

Not saying that EI are failure proof, but thinking hard about all possible things that can go wrong...
 
Truth is no one ignition system is fool proof, that's why we have 2 of them.
Reading all the posts it seems any combination of 2 systems makes for a very safe ignition installation.
 
N427EF said:
Truth is no one ignition system is fool proof, that's why we have 2 of them.
Reading all the posts it seems any combination of 2 systems makes for a very safe ignition installation.
Click to expand...

IMHO this is the best post of the entire thread.

:cool:
 
Walt said:
I freely offer my "opinion" or "my 2c" on the forums on equipment I install on customers aircraft, which I make a modest living from. In many ways I think this gives me/us an insight that others may find helpful and that opinion shouldn't necessarily be disqualified because we are in the business.
Click to expand...

Dear Walt, After 3384 posts over a decade I'm sure all regular members on VansAirforce fully understand your commercial position and appreciate your thoughtful opinions and constructive advice given over the years (I certainly do). You have history Walt. :)

But I think it would be appropriate if newcomers to VansAirforce who suddenly pop up with an opinion on a particular product disclose any possible pecuniary interest in that product. I think that's preferable. It's just a matter of transparency.
 
Like Bob Barrow, I too know the fellow concerned in that accident and some others who have been lucky to not have the same result.

Having seen hours of dyno work with I am 100% sure that my comments about EI's and too much advance are correct. Brian Chesteen went out and proved it and here are his thoughts based on captured data.

Brantel said:
I decided today was the day to put the P-Mag monitor that I built a couple years ago to the test and use it to map out the advance curve on the P-Mag. (Dan Horton suggested this in another thread)

This is a P-Mag set to the factory settings using the "B" curve and the manifold pressure line is connected.

Hope this helps settle some dust around the mysterious P-Mag advance curve.

One thing that I noticed is how the P-Mag is advancing the timing even at high power settings by about 7?. Based on the info David (RV10inOz) has been providing I am definitely going back to the "A" curve and may make more drastic changes with the software..... I have always had to limit climbs due to hitting my personal limit of 410?, this may help.
Click to expand...

You can read the rest of the thread here http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=108079&highlight=pmag

If you really want to use an EI, use one and one magneto.

My opinion for what it is worth is that until there is a magneto that ticks all the boxes and has an alternator or backup power generator that also matches that?..I am sticking with dual mags.

I have seen too many dual EI failures and plenty of single EI failures, and never anywhere near the same from all the thousands of magnetos out there. Sure Many EI's go long lives without trouble, but the numbers in my experience do not add up.

YMMV :)
 
David,

While Brian did a good job with his device, he made some erroneous assumptions about the data he observed, primarily that the data he published is used to calculate the timing curve but is not the actual curve.

If Brian's numbers were correct, there would be melted engines all over the place.

During the development of the EICommander we created a rig to spin two P-mags simultaneously and pull a vacuum on them, similar to how they operat when installed in your aircraft. Thus we were able to observe the actual firing event and compare that to what the P-mags were sending out. Between that and numerous discussions with the fellows at Emag, we were able to determine the correct firing angles.

My biggest complaint with the P-mag timing configurations is that the default "B" curve (no jumper) starts at around 30* BTDC and advances from there up to about 36* BTDC. The "A" configuration (jumper installed) starts at around 26*BTDC and goes up the same amount, to ~32*BTDC.

I wish the default, no jumper, configuration started at 26 and the "B" configuration started at 20*BTDC. That would take care of most parallel and angle valve engines. The good thing is that the P-mags can be tuned to match your engine with either our EICommander or Emag's EICAD program.

This is why, when consulting with people about their first engine starts, I recommend they set the timing appropriate for their engine and cap the advance at that same level for the first 10 hours +/- of operation. This way, the P-mag acts like a standard magneto during initial engine break in.

Here are a couple of other tidbits:
While at idle (low MAP and low RPM), the P-mags fire at around 19*BTDC. This helps smooth and lower the idle speed.

The P-mags also set the timing at 4* PAST TDC when below 200 RPM (version 40 and higher) to help with starting. Prior to version 40, the timing was set to TDC for starting. That's why some people with lightweight prop's "clock" their ignitions to help with timing. (With version 40 and higher, this is no longer necessary.)

I digress, this is not supposed to be a thread about any specific ignition but rather the mixing of an EI with a traditional mag.
 
Last edited:
RV10inOz said:
I have seen too many dual EI failures and plenty of single EI failures, and never anywhere near the same from all the thousands of magnetos out there. Sure Many EI's go long lives without trouble, but the numbers in my experience do not add up.

YMMV :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just am not getting this. If EI's were failing at the unknown "too many" we are not hearing about them here. Where's the data? Installations not per the manufacturer instructions excluded. I'll bet most pilots who have racked up some hours have all had a mag failure or reduced performance at some point. So, for all of you saying EI's keep failing, provide the data when you say that. Convince me and my like minded dual EI'ers we are wrong, I'm open minded enough to accept the facts.
 
This thread is excellent.
#1 change I want to make with the 8 is a single EI. It is on the bucket list for when the move we are doing right now is completed and winter ends.
Had EI and Slick 20 years ago, it was great then, bound to be better today.
 
N941WR said:
My biggest complaint with the P-mag timing configurations is that the default "B" curve (no jumper) starts at around 30* BTDC and advances from there up to about 36* BTDC. The "A" configuration (jumper installed) starts at around 26*BTDC and goes up the same amount, to ~32*BTDC.

I wish the default, no jumper, configuration started at 26 and the "B" configuration started at 20*BTDC. That would take care of most parallel and angle valve engines. The good thing is that the P-mags can be tuned to match your engine with either our EICommander or Emag's EICAD program.
Click to expand...

To reinforce what Bill is saying, I'd add that the excess advance at WOT is pointless, or at best, offers a diminishing return. On the down side, it reduces detonation margin and increases CHT.

Sky Dynamics published some interesting dyno charts on their website; max power runs, same engine with timing set at 20, 25, 30, and 32 BTDC. Per the usual my-stick-is-bigger-than-your-stick advertising practice, the max figures listed were taken with RPM in excess of 3000 However, the whole curve is there and the reader can easily read off values at the conventional 2700 RPM used by everyone but the racers. Here's 25 and 30:



Note the reduced output below 2400 RPM with 30 degree timing and WOT. It's probably due to minor detonation, just as we've seen on Lycoming detonation survey charts. It would be to the right of the the "Max MP For Continuous Operation" line on the power charts. This should be of significant interest to the fixed pitch clan, in particular the fixed pitch, carbureted clan with lousy cylinder-to-cylinder mixture distribution.

2700 RPM HP at all four timing settings:

timing HP
20 200
25 210
30 210
32 205

Timing aside, my biggest complaint with P-mag is the idea of a critical engine control product, bolted to an engine, with a 200F temperature limitation. Here's a good paper on the subject, dated 10 years ago. Take a good look at the electronics temperature standards for ordinary passenger cars, and the dates:

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/apl/files/johnson.pdf

Which brings us to another important point; debating "mag vs EI" is brain dead. You can only debate the reliability of individual systems from individual manufacturers, as there are significant differences between the various available EI's, and (as many would argue) a significant difference between Slick and Bendix.
 
Last edited:
RV10inOz said:
I have seen too many dual EI failures and plenty of single EI failures, and never anywhere near the same from all the thousands of magnetos out there. Sure Many EI's go long lives without trouble, but the numbers in my experience do not add up.

YMMV :)
Click to expand...

David,

Can you comment a bit more on specifically how the EI failures occurred, and how the failures differed between different systems? For example I've heard of several failures of the mechanical Hall Effect sensor sometimes used with the Lightspeed, but relatively few failures related to the box itself.

thanks
 
RV10inOz said:
I have seen too many dual EI failures and plenty of single EI failures, and never anywhere near the same from all the thousands of magnetos out there. Sure Many EI's go long lives without trouble, but the numbers in my experience do not add up.

YMMV :)
Click to expand...

I think it's important to qualify "EI failures". What failed? Was it caused by an installation error or did something genuinely let the smoke out so to speak? Software glitches? What brands were involved?

You can't blame the box if someone made an error in the installation contrary to manufacturers recommendations. This is like blaming a Lycoming for throwing a rod when there is only one quart of oil in the sump.

When I spoke to Klaus from LSE a few years ago at Reno, he spoke at some length about about most problems being caused by poor wiring practices or improper installation- his main source of tech calls. That mirrors our 21 years of experience as an EI manufacturer as well. The electronics almost never fail unless they get wet or someone screws up the wiring or sensor installation. This is out of over 11,000 units in the field. I personally have something over 10,000 hours behind our EIs in cars and aircraft, never had to walk home yet from an EI failure. Zero maintenance in that time. I can't say the same for my experience with mags.

Like many other things in our aircraft, installation and operation must be done right to have safety and reliability.

Like I said before, fine to use a mag or mags if that's what you want but to say a mag is more reliable than a proven EI design which is installed properly- I don't think so. A crank triggered EI has no moving or wearing parts and with modern solid state components and design, heat is no issue any more if you follow mounting guidelines.
 
Last edited:
Alan,

Keep in mind that these EI's continue to evolve. So, knowing what hardware and software version has/had trouble is very important.

For example, if you search for P-mag failures, you will find a lot of posts on the subject; however, they will be fairly old as the devices have gone through both hardware and software upgrades.

All the EI products on the market have gone through similar teething problems, some before the dawn of the internet. I can only imagine how the threads might read, if mag's where introduced today with all their failure modes and frequency of failure.
 
Last edited:
DanH said:
To reinforce what Bill is saying, I'd add that the excess advance at WOT is pointless, or at best, offers a diminishing return. On the down side, it reduces detonation margin and increases CHT.

...
Click to expand...

Which is why the P-mags and other EI's use a combination of MAP and RPM to set the timing. Full power and the timing should go to the more conservative or lower setting. Reduce power by throttling back or cruising up high where the engine can't produce power and the EI should allow the timing to advance.

I say "should" because I simply don't know how all the different EI's will react to different power settings.
 
Installation errors are amazingly common, even with something as important as your ignitions.

I have seen people wire the power feed to their "dual, independent" ignitions to the same power source/breaker/test switch/whatever or do the same with the ground because, "Hey, P-mags have an internal generator!"

Or ground them to the forest of tabs rather than the engine they are supposed to be firing.

Or...

"You do not have a proven product until you have 500 installed by 500 amateurs in 500 amateur built airplanes." - Brad D. At Emag Ignitions.
 
rv6ejguy said:
A crank triggered EI has no moving or wearing parts and with modern solid state components and design, heat is no issue any more if you follow mounting guidelines.
Click to expand...

Which for both SDS and Lightspeed, is to mount the brain on the cool side of the firewall. Neither has anything but triggers and coils on the hot side. And that's fine.
 
N941WR said:
Which is why the P-mags and other EI's use a combination of MAP and RPM to set the timing. Full power and the timing should go to the more conservative or lower setting.
Click to expand...

Yet, as you say, the default (no jumper) sets base timing at 30, at high MAP and RPM.

I say "should" because I simply don't know how all the different EI's will react to different power settings.
Click to expand...

We're still waiting for published P-mag timing values. For example, with a 30 base, what is timing at 28"Hg and 2400 RPM?
 
is EI more important on fuel injected vs carbureted engines ?

I've attempted to read this entire thread and related materials and I am unclear on a question.

What is the performance & efficiency effects as they relate to the following engines:

  • fuel injected engine (and the further refinement with tuned injectors)
  • carbureted engine

Does the discussion change with engine displacement ?
 
DanH said:
Yet, as you say, the default (no jumper) sets base timing at 30, at high MAP and RPM.
Click to expand...
Correct, which is too high for a parallel valve engine and WAY too high for an angle valve engine.

DanH said:
We're still waiting for published P-mag timing values. For example, with a 30 base, what is timing at 28"Hg and 2400 RPM?
Click to expand...
Sorry Dan, due to our relationship with Emag, we have agreed not to post the timing map. However, someone with an EICommander installed could easily reproduce the table.
 
Last edited:
DanH said:
Which for both SDS and Lightspeed, is to mount the brain on the cool side of the firewall. Neither has anything but triggers and coils on the hot side. And that's fine.
Click to expand...

That's why we do it this way. Running a component spec'd for 85C at 100-130C is asking for eventual failure.
 
N941WR said:
Alan,

Keep in mind that these EI's continue to evolve. So, knowing what hardware and software version has/had trouble is very important.

For example, if you search for P-mag failures, you will find a lot of posts on the subject; however, they will be fairly old as the devices have gone through both hardware and software upgrades.

All the EI products on the market have gone through similar teething problems, some before the dawn of the internet. I can only imagine how the threads might read, if mag's where introduced today with all their failure modes and frequency of failure.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with all of that. In fact I think this continuous evolution is a major part of the appeal of flying an experimental airplane. Nothing at all wrong with mags, but their evolution mostly ceased many decades ago. Maybe that was because they reached perfection, but I don' think so :eek:
 
Capflyer said:
If EI's were failing at the unknown "too many" we are not hearing about them here. Where's the data?
Click to expand...

I don't think we are ever likely to get the full picture on EIs because the manufacturers are unlikely to provide any data and many builders will be reluctant to report failures on a public forum.

This is because when an EI fails it invariably means having to return it to a small-time backyard manufacturer for service/repairs. There is just no other option. In other words when you purchase any of the current EIs you actually enter into a long term relationship of necessity with some guy you know on a first name basis.

So a builder has to consider very carefully whether it is a good idea to bag Klaus or Brad and their ignition systems in a public forum before sending a malfunctioning product back to them for repair. The builder has to seriously weigh up whether that would be a diplomatic thing to do.

But it is not the same for a Slick mag. You can get them serviced anywhere. No-one has to go back to the manufacturer for service or spares. As a result builders are more likely to whinge about magnetos in public. If they had to replace a bushing worth $10 a decade ago they're still complaining. :rolleyes:

But beyond all of this it is worth considering the following. There are approximately 170,000 piston engined aircraft in the US alone and the vast majority of them have dual magneto ignitions. And many of them are decades old. And yet I have personally never heard of an aircraft coming down because of a dual magneto failure (we are of course excluding dual mags driven by one drive). I'm sure it must have happened at some time over the decades but it is obviously an extremely rare event.

By comparison the number of flying aircraft with dual EI's will be absolutely miniscule...and yet there are reports of dual EI failures that we all know about. That says something statistical to me.

It is interesting that most of the posters on this thread with EI have a magneto as a back-up. For one reason or another they see merit in that combination. And they presumably draw comfort from the fact that the combination of one EI and one mag also seems to have an unblemished safety record to date.
 
Last edited:
Captain Avgas said:
I don't think we are ever likely to get the full picture on EIs because the manufacturers are unlikely to provide any data and many builders will be reluctant to report failures on a public forum.

This is because when an EI fails it invariably means having to return it to a small-time backyard manufacturer for service/repairs. There is just no other option. In other words when you purchase any of the current EIs you actually enter into a long term relationship of necessity with some guy you know on a first name basis.

So a builder has to consider very carefully whether it is a good idea to bag Klaus or Brad and their ignition systems in a public forum before sending a malfunctioning product back to them for repair. The builder has to seriously weigh up whether that would be a diplomatic thing to do.

By comparison there will only be a handful of aircraft registered with dual EI's and yet there are reports of dual EI failures that we all know about. That says something statistical to me.
Click to expand...

Bob, You make some excellent points. I ran dual LSI "Klaus" systems for years but finally removed one recently when I had a another problem with one of the boxes and was unable to get it repaired (I would have to buy a new brain box if I wanted to get the system repaired), so instead I elected to remove it and install something else from a company that has better customer support (P-mag in this case).

As soon as I have time I plan on removing the 2nd LSI and installing an Electroair and the divorce from Klaus will be final.

The dual LSI system with the crank board always worried me a bit anyway, that is definately the weak link in the system and sounds like that was the case in the dual failure reported earlier in this tread.

I'm quite sure Klaus doesn't care about his name being posted in a forum and his customer service reflects that attitude.
 
Last edited:
Captain Avgas said:
I don't think we are ever likely to get the full picture on EIs because the manufacturers are unlikely to provide any data ...

It is interesting that most of the posters on this thread with EI have a magneto as a back-up. For one reason or another they see merit in that combination. And they presumably draw comfort from the fact that the combination of one EI and one mag also seems to have an unblemished safety record to date.
Click to expand...

I would disagree to some degree. While some EI providers may hide their failures, Emag has been very open about their's and they have worked with their customers to solve any issues that have come up. Even better, they don't charge for the upgrades/fixes.

As for the single vs. dual EI question, many builders are stepping into the EI pool in the shallow end rather than cannonballing into the deep end with dual systems.

The exception might be those who choose P-mags because of their ability to operate independent of each other and the aircraft's electrical system. That said, if people are upgrading an already flying plane after a mag failure, they typically buy one EI to replace the dead mag and wait to address the other mag after they have some experience with the single EI and/or their second mag dies.

For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would install dual ignitions that require an external power source to fire. IMNSHO, that is a future glider looking for a place to land. I have a friend who was returning home with dual non-pmag EI's when his alternator belt snapped. While he had enough power to make it home, he was stunned at how fast his voltage dropped when he used his radio. Adding a second battery and automated bus controller is a must for these setups and that adds complexity, weight, and another maintenance item that should be replaced on a scheduled interval.
 
With dual, electrically dependent EIs, users need to design a battery system to supply them power long enough to finish a typical mission if the alternator quits at the halfway point of that mission or have a backup alternator. Do this before you leave the ground so you don't have to worry about it in flight. The manufacturers can give you typical current draws for the systems. Check specs to know what minimum operating voltages are as well. Use the amp hour rating of the batteries to 9V as a more conservative guide and add another 20% fudge factor for aged batteries. Current draw is actually pretty low at 2500ish rpm- typically around 2-3 amps. You don't need to add a lot of weight to provide 2nd battery backup. Do know what your minimum total flight current draw is though, not just the EI current draw.

As far as reporting EI box failures, we as a manufacturer want to hear about them and find out what happened and it's ok to post it on a forum too. Why hide in the shadows or deny? How will that improve reliability of the product? We are fortunate to have long experience supplying essentially the same hardware/ software to the much larger and demanding automotive market for a couple of decades so there are not too many surprises any more but we still apply any new lessons learned from either market to improve the product.

We see a growing trend for dual systems in our aviation market. Despite other opinions here, in the experimental market, mags are slowly going the way that steam gauge panels went about 5 years ago...

As Dan Horton said earlier in this thread, you can't lump all EIs together as there are vast differences between brands. I am not aware of any dual EI failures of our product either with 20 years and 250,000 flight hours to date. A proper installation is the key to reliability.
 
Last edited:
A few of us have strong opinions, and I emphasise opinions, but they are based on some well demonstrated data and facts, plus some assumptions. But here is what the guy with the certified gear has to say.

I bet he does not run huge advance curves. But they replace ONLY ONE! And they have great commercial advantage in doing both if they thought it was a good idea. Anyone else like the idea of doubling sales?

Think this through?..

I have looked through a couple of the threads on the Electroair electronic ignition system and I thought I would offer up a description of the system, a discussion on how the ignition works, some of our engineering thought processes and then field questions as best I can. This may help clarify some of the things that have been discussed so far. I will try my best to reply as quickly as practical, so if I?m not right back to you, please be patient. Here we go?

The Electroair electronic ignition system (EIS) is a single magneto replacement. In other words, one mag gets replaced with the EIS, one mag stays on the engine. In general terms, it doesn?t matter which magneto gets replaced (we can talk about which mag to replace later).

There are a number of reasons why we didn?t pursue replacing both magnetos: 1. Our data shows that the benefit from a second electronic ignition system is marginal. Given the flight envelopes that GA aircraft typically operate in, the substantial benefit of having electronic ignition comes with the first electronic ignition system; 2. By having two dissimilar ignitions installed (one EIS and one mag), there will never be the same failure mode for both systems ? safety is improved; 3. Approving two EIS systems meant that a second alternator was also going to have to be approved (if it was not on the aircraft already) ? most legacy aircraft do not have an easy way to have a second alternator installed (certification of a single system was easier with the FAA too); and 4. When looking at the cost-benefit analysis, it is much easier to demonstrate a pay-back to the investment of one EIS versus two.

The Electroair electronic ignition system differs from a magneto in two principle ways:

First: The quality and duration of the spark. A magneto will put out about 6-8,000 volts during start (~12,000 volts during normal operation) and has a spark-duration of five degrees of crank rotation. The EIS will produce about 70,000 volts (during start and normal operation) with a spark-duration of twenty degrees of crank rotation. The hotter, longer duration spark lets us operate with wider-gapped spark plugs, ensure a much better ignition of a given fuel/air mixture, and improve starting with ?corrupt? fuel/air mixtures (hot starts). Also, since the EIS is a ?distributor-less? ignition, the quality and duration of the spark remains very good throughout most flight regimes (high altitude, etc.). Distributors, points, and other parts in magnetos all reduce the amount of energy that can be made available at the spark plug.

Second: Variable timing vs. Fixed Timing. Remember, the goal of any ignition system is to start the combustion event so that peak pressure occurs between 10-17 degrees after Top Dead Center (TDC). (Note: Lots of papers discuss particular angles, etc.; it is generally accepted that the optimal range for peak pressure is 10-17 degrees ATDC). The magneto has fixed timing and cannot adjust for altitude adjustments (changes in MAP). The EIS has a MAP sensor and can adjust the ignition timing for the changes in the fuel/air mixture that occur with altitude changes. By adjusting the ignition timing for the reduction in MAP that occurs with altitude (and typical cruise settings), the combustion event can be started so peak pressure from combustion in the cylinder is maintained between 10-17 degrees ATDC.

The Electroair EIS is made up of several components. The Controller and MAP Sensor are installed on the cool side of the firewall. The coil pack is installed on the engine side of the firewall (for tightly packed installations, other installation locations are being investigated). High energy spark plug wires are supplied that are fabricated during the installation. There is a pre-fabricated wiring harness for the components. And finally, there is a trigger mechanism that comes with the kit (depends on the engine). The installer will have to supply a switch, circuit protection and basic hardware needed to complete the installation.

The benefits of an electronic ignition system have been well documented in the experimental world for a number of years. Improved fuel economy, smoother running engine, better performing engine, and better starting are all things we expect operators will experience with the Electroair system. The installations that are being completed in the certified world are showing results consistent with what has been experienced by their experimental counter-parts. The Electroair website is updated regularly with customer reports.

We are asked on a regular basis what a typical installation time should be expected for this system. I do not have a good answer. Installation times are really dependent on the aircraft and how ready it is receive new components, the installers? ability (first time installers are going to take longer than installers who have installed a few), a good installation plan, and common sense. We have had installation times reported back to us that are as short as six hours (Super Cub) to upwards of twenty hours and longer (some of those reports, it was found out later, included updates to the aircraft that were not required for installing the system). I have given estimates before about installation times. My estimates, however, are just that, an estimate. Every airplane is different! My STRONG recommendation is to have good communication with your technician and work out an installation plan that both of you are comfortable executing. I would allow for two-three days of down time to be on the safe side. The EIS is NOT a complicated system, but requires the installer to think of it more like avionics. We are happy to answer questions (and encourage questions) before and during installation.

I hope this helps answer several questions and clarify some points that have been discussed in other threads. I?ll be happy to answer follow-up questions as best I can. I look forward to the discussion.

Thanks?
Mike
Electroair

_________________
Michael Kobylik
Click to expand...
 
Very educational thread but I must admit that when this started, I never dreamed we could have the beginning of the "ignition wars," somewhat akin the "primer wars."

Keep the thoughts, opinions and experiences coming. I do plan on buying an engine someday and the magneto/EI decision will be one of my major decisions.
 
N941WR said:
I would disagree to some degree. While some EI providers may hide their failures, Emag has been very open about their's and they have worked with their customers to solve any issues that have come up. Even better, they don't charge for the upgrades/fixes.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Bill, but this is simply not true in my case. Yes, Brad did attempt to work with me on an issue that my Pmag had since it was first purchased. However when his bench check showed "no issues", and I had EMS data that stated otherwise, we ended up stuck at agreeing to disagree.

Then I was charged for a new board that I didn't ask for (the most expensive part at multiple hundreds of dollars), because Brad said that would definitely fix the problem. I didn't give the thing a second chance and I never will. I installed a second dinosaur mag and have been very happy.
 
I was referring to their major issues, not one off problems. I would be pretty chafed if I had been in your shoes but from their side I can also see why they would charge you for a new board since the original one tested fine.

I wish I had known you were struggling with this when it happened. We could have put it on our dual spinner and let you know what we found.

What happened to your P-mag?
 
krw5927 said:
I'm sorry, Bill, but this is simply not true in my case. Yes, Brad did attempt to work with me on an issue that my Pmag had since it was first purchased. However when his bench check showed "no issues", and I had EMS data that stated otherwise, we ended up stuck at agreeing to disagree.

Then I was charged for a new board that I didn't ask for (the most expensive part at multiple hundreds of dollars), because Brad said that would definitely fix the problem. I didn't give the thing a second chance and I never will. I installed a second dinosaur mag and have been very happy.
Click to expand...

Without going thru the detail, one could say, I had a similar experience when I was charged without asking or giving the option. Mine was brand new with zero time on it. I didn?t make much fuss about it and the PMAG is in use, so far so good and happy with it. I can?t say that about the service though.
 
N941WR said:
I was referring to their major issues, not one off problems. I would be pretty chafed if I had been in your shoes but from their side I can also see why they would charge you for a new board since the original one tested fine.

I wish I had known you were struggling with this when it happened. We could have put it on our dual spinner and let you know what we found.

What happened to your P-mag?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what was wrong with it, but I don't wish to get into details on the forum. I'll be glad to speak with you offline.

I appreciate that you have worked hard to build a relationship with Emagair and develop a complimentary product. However not having purchased your product I certainly would not presume to call you for troubleshooting. I feel the person manufacturing and selling the ignition should do that. And he did, as I mentioned before. The product, unfortunately, was simply unable to run my engine (a stock O-320 E2D) as advertised. No matter the reason, the ultimate result was that I was out a substantial amount of money and trouble and ended up with a standard mag.
 
Walt said:
Bob,
Although I understand your point I'm not sure I agree. I freely offer my "opinion" or "my 2c" on the forums on equipment I install on customers aircraft, which I make a modest living from. In many ways I think this gives me/us an insight that others may find helpful and that opinion shouldn't necessarily be disqualified because we are in the business. My goal, and I assume Jakes, is to simply offer some additional feedback based on our experience that readers may find helpful when making a purchasing decision.

I might add that the miniscule margins that "we dealers" make from the accessories we sell is almost meaningless, the only place I make any money at all is installation, not sales! (we're not in the used car business). My goal is reliable products, that is what makes customers happy and keeps them safe and coming back. How long do you think I would keep selling a product that failed regularly which I had to keep repairing under warranty? (most vendors don't cover labor in their warranties)
Click to expand...

Thank you Walt, you put it better that I did. Just for the record I have spoken personally to Bob & we have 'patched up' our differences.

I had let this settle for a few days before this reply as I was deeply offended at the suggestion that I promote a product because of a 'margin'. In this case I've only bought 3 x P-Mags & 2 of those were for my aircraft.- Customers, not manufacturers & margins are my point of focus, my income is from the installation. My customers can supply the products or I can, I don't care either way. I do not advertise & I don't have to, I prefer it that way.
I buy only from those I feel have a reliable product & give good after sales service & customer support.
Some of us are not driven by profit alone, we do it because we want to make a difference & help others through our experience.

Back to topic :)

Jake J
 
No big deal Kurt, I help a lot of P-mag owners, even if they don't have our EICommander. The way we look at is that if we help someone with their P-mag, they may become a customer in the future and making sure the P-mag is working for everyone is good for our business, even if you don't have our unit installed.

That is a bummer that you went through all that and never got any satisfaction. I'm really curious as to what went wrong.
 
RV10inOz said:
A few of us have strong opinions, and I emphasise opinions, but they are based on some well demonstrated data and facts, plus some assumptions. But here is what the guy with the certified gear has to say.

I bet he does not run huge advance curves. But they replace ONLY ONE! And they have great commercial advantage in doing both if they thought it was a good idea. Anyone else like the idea of doubling sales?

Think this through…..
Click to expand...

I use Electroair plus a mag on my HR-II. I am a big fan of the Electroair system, but would never fly without a mag backup. One thing Mike said is that the MAP sensor is mounted aft of the firewall, but the experimental instructions say to mount it forward of the firewall.
 
RV10inOz said:
A few of us have strong opinions, and I emphasise opinions, but they are based on some well demonstrated data and facts, plus some assumptions. But here is what the guy with the certified gear has to say.

I bet he does not run huge advance curves. But they replace ONLY ONE! And they have great commercial advantage in doing both if they thought it was a good idea. Anyone else like the idea of doubling sales?

Think this through…..
Click to expand...

A really interesting post. Keep the good stuff coming Dave.

An honest and in-depth discussion on the dual EI question was long overdue and this is shaping up to become a definitive thread.

In 2006 I spoke personally with Klaus (face to face) about installing a Lightspeed EI on my RV. I told him that I wanted to fly internationally and that lean of peak operations would save me crucial fuel but that reliability over long stretches of water was obviously paramount.

Klaus's recommendations for obtaining the benefits of EI while maintaining absolutely optimum reliability were as follows:

1. Opt for a crank sensor in preference to the Hall Effect sensor.

2. Opt for the Plasma 11+ system in preference to the newer Plasma 111 system.

3. Opt for one EI and one magneto.

And that is what I did.

As many people who have dealt personally with Klaus know, he is a teutonic sort of personality and he does not suffer fools well. If you go to him with a problem arising simply because you have not read the installation manual properly he can be quite abrasive. However in my case I found him to be brutally honest about his own product and I really appreciated that.

Instead of trying to sell me a second EI he advised me that if extreme reliability was the goal then I would be better with one magneto for back-up.

That also coincides with the recommendations from ElectroAir.

In 2006 early adopters of the PMAG EIs were having serious problems so I did not consider them to be an option. I do believe that they are considerably more reliable today than they were then. However the archilles heal of the PMAG will always be that it places complex solid state hardware directly on to the engine. The two things that impact most adversely on the reliability of integrated circuits are heat and vibration. And there is always going to be plenty of both of those at the accessory case on the rear of a Lycoming engine.

The advantage of the LightSpeed and ElectroAir units is that you can place the brain box back behind the firewall where the solid state componentry is relatively protected. In fact the manufacturers insist that is where it HAS to be installed. The downside to these units is that they are more difficult to instal, they are not self powering, and they have wiring running everywhere with multiple points of failure.
 
Last edited:
Captain Avgas said:
But I think it would be appropriate if newcomers to VansAirforce who suddenly pop up with an opinion on a particular product disclose any possible pecuniary interest in that product. I think that's preferable. It's just a matter of transparency.
Click to expand...

Wow, pecuniary interest--------got me with that one.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/alra1983201/s182.html

As to your assertion that Jake is a newcomer, he has been a member for as long as you have............couple months longer in fact.
 
Captain Avgas said:
In fact the manufacturers insist that is where it HAS to be installed.
Click to expand...
Bob, this is not totally true. I spoke with the designer of the Lightspeed EI (had his EI box mounted on the firewall forward for years) and have an email from Klaus with both giving their blessing on installing FWF. :)
 
Last edited:
Captain Avgas said:
... However the archilles heal of the PMAG will always be that it places complex solid state hardware directly on to the engine. The two things that impact most adversely on the reliability of integrated circuits are heat and vibration. And there is always going to be plenty of both of those at the accessory case on the rear of a Lycoming engine...
Click to expand...
I keep hearing this, yet no one has opened up their P-mag to check the heat range spec's on the components within the units.

I don't know of one documented heat related failure.

As for the vibration thing, that is no different than any of the other EI sensors. At some point they have to attach to the engine and these solid state components simply don't fail.

Captain Avgas said:
The advantage of the LightSpeed and ElectroAir units is that you can place the brain box back behind the firewall where the solid state componentry is relatively protected. In fact the manufacturers insist that is where it HAS to be installed. The downside to these units is that they are more difficult to instal, they are not self powering, and they have wiring running everywhere with multiple points of failure.
Click to expand...
The MAJOR disadvantage to LightSpeed and ElectroAir units are all the connectors that are required and their multiple failure points and that they rely on the aircraft's electrical system to operate.

Pick your poison.
 
LifeofReiley said:
Bob, this is not totally true. I spoke with the designer of the Lightspeed EI (had his EI box mounted on the firewall forward for years) and have an email from Klaus with both giving their blessing on installing FWF. :)
Click to expand...



This is from the Installation and Operations Manual for the LightSpeed Plasma 11, 11+, and 11 CDI Systems.

Section 2 SYSTEM INSTALLATION

2.1 PLASMA CD IGNITION MODULE PLACEMENT

The PLASMA CDI module should be mounted in a clean and dry place on the cold side of the firewall. If space limitations require mounting on the engine side of the firewall, a protective metal cover should be used to protect the module from water/engine cleaning materials and heat. Air must be allowed to flow between the bottom of the module and the mounting surface.

I think it is quite clear from these instructions from the manufacturer that the required location for the module is aft of the firewall. If space requirements do not permit this then a special heat protection cover has to be manufactured. My understanding is that if you simply screw the CDI module to the engine side of the firewall Klaus will not honour the warranty. If you have an email from Klaus stating something different then I recommend you post the contents here.
 
Last edited:
Bob, I fully understand that... but "In fact the manufacturers insist that is where it HAS to be installed" is not a correct statement. Would you agree? :)
 
LifeofReiley said:
Bob, I fully understand that... but "In fact the manufacturers insist that is where it HAS to be installed" is not a correct statement. Would you agree? :)
Click to expand...

Reilly, you're playing with words. Lightspeed want the CDI module in an area that has proper protection from engine heat. That's the bottom line here. The easiest way to achieve this is to place it aft of the firewall. Placing it "forward" of the firewall requires the fabrication of special heat protection.

The important point here is that both LightSpeed and ElectroAir want the crucial solid state componentry protected from engine heat for a good reason. And the reason is that these units have a statistically higher failure rate over the longer term if they are mounted unprotected FWF. Klaus told me that himself.

What puzzles me is why the LightSpeed and ElectroAir solid state circuitry has been proven to be susceptible to direct engine heat and yet people claim that the Pmag solid state circuitry is immune. Very puzzling indeed. ;)
 
No Bob... you use the word Insist, which is not the case. FWF Lightspeed EI install here approved by the designer and Klaus, with an impulse mag and flying like a dream for years. BTW, the temp sensor on the EI box never exceeds 106F degrees behind the engine plenum flying. And we do spring load the oil door open when stopped and parked just for the sake of keeping everything cool. :D
 
LifeofReiley said:
No Bob... you use the word Insist, which is not the case. FWF Lightspeed EI install here approved by the designer and Klaus, with an impulse mag and flying like a dream for years. BTW, the temp sensor on the EI box never exceeds 106 degrees behind the engine plenum flying. And we do spring load the oil door open when stopped and parked just for the sake of keeping everything cool. :D
Click to expand...

A CAREFUL read of the instructions indicate that the 'box' preferred location IS aft of firewall however in the engine compartment it WILL need covering in a box ( & I would use supplemental cooling to it). that's how I read it , could be wrong here ;)

LSE 6 cylinder units HAVE TO HAVE supplemental cooling regardless of location - hopefully those people are doing that. We had a EAB Tec 'expert' here who had his units forward of the firewall without an extra box with supplemental cooling - why, because he didn't read the manual.
A lot of issues across the building process is due to no RTFM, it must be very frustrating for manufacturers.

my .02 cents :)

Jake J
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply Jake... running a Plasma II Plus on a four cylinder here. The unit is even spaced off so cooling the entire unit. We're good. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top