So now that I seem to have electrical power (B&C Alternator) and starter (also B & C) defined how about generating a spark to get this all going. What the general feeling on replacing mags with something a bit more modern !!!!

I haven't kept up. Do they make a newer spark source that will make a spark with the pull of an arm or with a windmilling prop? The beauty of the mag is that if it's turning it works. One of my forced landings was a homebuild with a car engine and gear reduction. No problem with drag of a windmilling prop. It just comes to an abrupt stop. With slow turning engines and two mags, they always tried to run so long as I had fuel.

Properly maintained magnetos are pretty bombproof.

I've had automobiles with modern, German electronic ignition go to hell because one cell in the battery was defective. I've had the same thing happen because one spark plug failed. In an airplane it would have been a REALLY big deal...like not enough engine power to stay in the air.

Personally I'll take proven, reliable ignition over any of the touted benefits that electric ignition offers. YMMV...

Some convincing arguments made, thanks

You can have the best of both. One mag and one electronic. The electronic will do all the work and net you the efficiency gains you’re after. If it fails, the mag will get you on the ground safely. Putting a second electronic mag on your engine won’t net you much. I learned this from one of the electronic developers. Can5 keep it straight who’s who, sorry.

Hoping a 6 cylinder Pmag comes out soon. I think that's the way to go...

Pinecone wrote:You can have the best of both. One mag and one electronic. The electronic will do all the work and net you the efficiency gains you’re after. If it fails, the mag will get you on the ground safely. Putting a second electronic mag on your engine won’t net you much. I learned this from one of the electronic developers. Can5 keep it straight who’s who, sorry.

I fly a turbo 206 for work with this setup. I like it a lot! Never had either ignition source misbehave before. It is a very well maintained and carefully operated craft.

Having operated and maintained cars from the 60- 70's and operate the newer ones today, I'd have to say I do not miss the maintenance required to keep the points ignition alive. The only thing that has changed in auto piston engine operation between the 60's and now is the absence of TEL, fuel injection, and electronic ignition. Prior to the advent of the newer engine management systems, they were junk at 100,000 miles. Now they'll easily go 300,000 or better.

As pilots, why wouldn't we want that kind of extended operation capability, reliability, AND better performance and economy, as well as eliminating some pilot workload?

GM came out with HEI ignition in 1974. It had an electronic module inside it that replaced the points and all the old timers told me to keep a spare handy because it would leave you stranded. I did keep a spare handy but in 25 years of operating those ignition systems on the vehicles I owned I never used it. When I replaced the last HEI equipped vehicle I threw that spare module away. On the distributorless ignitions I've operated in the last 20 years (no I'm not that old, there is some overlap in there), I've had spark plugs last well beyond the manufacturer TBR of 100,000 miles (175,000 miles on one of them).

I don't have a product to sell in this issue; I only have the experience and the observation of what modern engine management systems are capable of doing as a benefit to the aviation world. What I don't understand is pilots are resistant to accepting these benefits as they are "happy" with the status quo. That same dynamic existed among the early mechanics as auto technology was evolving. I'm old enough to see the pattern now.

Mags and carbs and TEL work if you like working on it all the time. For me, I'm glad those days are gone in the automotive world and would like to see the benefits brought into aviation.

You're absolutely right, DeltaRomeo. All we have to give up to have the better ignition system is stand alone reliability. We have better batteries now and alternators. I'm not a mechanic. Could an alternator turned by a windmilling prop produce the necessary electronic ignition? Could a mag achieve electronic specification/quality? I'm sure somebody will come up with something light and stand alone with better performance. Aviation has always been more Army than Air Force thinking. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

...

E-mags makes a stand alone system not yet certified

Electro air makes certified systems that can only replace one mag but they need battery power. And they are quite spendy.

If the price wasn’t so steep I’d probably replace one mag for better burn but keep the other for reliability.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the E-mags systems is presently only four bangers I believe

http://www.emagair.com/pricing/

Series 200

Text copied from the link, sorry couldn't get the picture,

NEW SIX CYLINDER 200 SERIES

(not yet in production)

“P-200-6LX” Lycoming™
“P-200-6CX” Continental™

$1,650 (with harness and auto plug adapters – $1,886/side)

They don't mention when this model will be available

The Emag Pmag 6-cylinder version has been vaporware for as long as I've been aware of them, which is about 6 years. Not sure what their deal is. If you need an STC, I don't think it's a viable solution.

Electroair was the first to certification, I believe, but it requires that one traditional magneto remain on the aircraft.

Surefly is pending certification, looks promising.

Magnetos are cheaper and you won't have to endure the endless arguments with people who distrust anything electronic.

Zzz wrote:Magnetos are cheaper and you won't have to endure the endless arguments with people who distrust anything electronic.

The second part is 100% accurate, the first is mostly accurate. Usually mags are cheaper but in my case the SDS CPI was less expensive than buying a new mags/harnesses/etc.

In a former life I worked for an auto manufacturer as a district service manager. The engine ECU's that were replaced under warranty were determined to be virtually 100% faultless when returned to the manufacturer for testing. Many took no initiative to understand the "magic" going on inside the mysterious "black box" so it always got the blame.

There is an incredibly deep world of wisdom available to system designers when it comes to applying MTBF data to the components they are choosing to make an electronic control unit perform a duty. This wisdom is applied diligently because failure affects the bottom line quickly and regulation does not tolerate it, especially in the aviation world.

As far as cost, SureFly and PMag are $1250 and $1395 respectively for 4 cyl engines and a new Slick 4300 is $1100 for those in the EAB market. I'd say that is close enough to say the cost is the same. The maintenance interval between the two technologies has a huge difference. However, once certified I don't expect that the price will be the same for the rest of us.