So as I'm going down the road of replacing my O470 with a Texas Skyways O520 - I'm looking at other potential changes "while am at it". So the last few days I've been going down the rabbit hole of Electric Ignition, replacing one of the Magnetos with Electric Ignition, specifically the Electroair product.

Any one out there have any experience with these?

I have a customer with one installed on his IO-520. Hes been happy with it and I haven't had to do any maintenance to it. That said, I'm probably going to put a Suefly unit on my 520. Easier install, works with my stock slick harness, and offers the same advantages. Might be worth looking into if you haven't already.

A1Skinner wrote:I have a customer with one installed on his IO-520. Hes been happy with it and I haven't had to do any maintenance to it. That said, I'm probably going to put a Suefly unit on my 520. Easier install, works with my stock slick harness, and offers the same advantages. Might be worth looking into if you haven't already.

These guys https://www.surefly.aero/?

Ok more info to go further down the rabbit hole Will check them out.

Just installed a SureFly on a Maule M-7-235 with an IO-540-W1A5, starts better, more power, 1 gal fuel less per hr. in cruse. I have installed the Electroair system also, much more work with no difference in the final outcome Just installed a SureFly in a Maule M-7-235 with an IO-540-W1A5, starts better, more power, 1 gal fuel less per hr. in cruse, engine temps stayed the same as with the Electroair system engine temps went up. I have installed the Electroair system also in Maule’s, much more work with no difference in the final outcome, both have variable timing. No spark plug change required with the SureFly system as there is with the Electroair system.

corefile wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:I have a customer with one installed on his IO-520. Hes been happy with it and I haven't had to do any maintenance to it. That said, I'm probably going to put a Suefly unit on my 520. Easier install, works with my stock slick harness, and offers the same advantages. Might be worth looking into if you haven't already.

These guys https://www.surefly.aero/?

Ok more info to go further down the rabbit hole Will check them out.

Those are the guys.

corefile wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:I have a customer with one installed on his IO-520. Hes been happy with it and I haven't had to do any maintenance to it. That said, I'm probably going to put a Suefly unit on my 520. Easier install, works with my stock slick harness, and offers the same advantages. Might be worth looking into if you haven't already.

These guys https://www.surefly.aero/?

Ok more info to go further down the rabbit hole Will check them out.

I have two on my plane, certainly no concerns here.

They do need a battery to keep them running i.e. they don't generate their own power from the engine's rotation.
They also have a timeout on the charge. This is a safety feature to protect the engine when they are running. When starting the engine, it is not disabled, which does mean you have to turn the prop enthusiastically or you get a very tame kickback now and then. This should not happen unless you have a flat ship's battery or are a lazy hand-propper (6 cyl engine owners need not apply!)

So why would you only change one

qmdv wrote:So why would you only change one

The feds won't allow us to change both. But by changing one and running all the bottom plugs with it, it really helps with efficiency.

qmdv wrote:So why would you only change one

Because the FAA is stuck in 1899 (the year the Magneto was invented).

FYI, in case you have, or are considering, the popular firewall-mounted, lightweight battery on your C180:

"2.4. Power Requirements:
The airframe must be equipped with a 12-Volt battery having a minimum capacity of 20AH or a 24-Volt
battery having a minimum capacity of 8.5AH."

(from Surefly's installation instructions dated 10/19/2018)

iPat wrote:FYI, in case you have, or are considering, the popular firewall-mounted, lightweight battery on your C180:

"2.4. Power Requirements:
The airframe must be equipped with a 12-Volt battery having a minimum capacity of 20AH or a 24-Volt
battery having a minimum capacity of 8.5AH."

(from Surefly's installation instructions dated 10/19/2018)

Oh interesting.. thanks for that info - I do have a POWERSAFE SBS J-16 in a Atlee Dodge firewall mounted battery box, says it has:
Nominal Capacity @ C1: 12.3 Ah
Nominal Capacity @ C/10: 16.0 Ah

iPat wrote:FYI, in case you have, or are considering, the popular firewall-mounted, lightweight battery on your C180:

"2.4. Power Requirements:
The airframe must be equipped with a 12-Volt battery having a minimum capacity of 20AH or a 24-Volt
battery having a minimum capacity of 8.5AH."

(from Surefly's installation instructions dated 10/19/2018)

Very interesting. I think that's worth a call to them and see what they say about the odyssey. I'll let you guys know what they say.

A1Skinner wrote:

iPat wrote:FYI, in case you have, or are considering, the popular firewall-mounted, lightweight battery on your C180:

"2.4. Power Requirements:
The airframe must be equipped with a 12-Volt battery having a minimum capacity of 20AH or a 24-Volt
battery having a minimum capacity of 8.5AH."

(from Surefly's installation instructions dated 10/19/2018)

Very interesting. I think that's worth a call to them and see what they say about the odyssey. I'll let you guys know what they say.

I run the Oddessy, it works fine provided the engine isn't freezing cold. Otherwise, see my earlier comments about the spark timeout.

I emailed them a while back about this very issue. It’s an irrational FAA requirement that they had to abide by. Here’s the reply:

“Unfortunately, the minimum 20Ah battery is a rather arbitrary airframe STC requirement imposed by the FAA. It's very unlikely this will change in the near future. The battery requirement should be based on electrical system load and time remaining after a charging system failure, but that's not how the FAA sees it right now. Our 6-cylider SIM's draw about 1.1 amps at 12 volts. The 4-cylinder draw about 0.6 amps. We hope to work out something better w/ the FAA when we obtain approval for replacing both mags with our SIMs, but that's at least 18 months out.”

Surefly and others need an engine manufacturer to jump onboard, I bet the "traditional" magneto manufacturers are nervous

Lycoming is already on board:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/july/22/lycoming-announces-new-electronic-ignition-system

-0-

qmdv wrote:So why would you only change one

The Surefly guys came on a different forum to answer that question. Simply put there is no benefit to having two. There is no detriment to only having one. The regular mag is there and serves no useful purpose until the Surefly fails.

There actually is a real benefit to firing both plugs at the same time.

It’s not as drastic as going from two mags to one EI, but the change to two EIs is a real thing.

It’s pretty well documented in the experimental world, and what prompted me to install two Pmags over just one.

From my observation, there is a performance benefit for having two electronic ignitions vs one, at least with my IO-520. I currently have one electronic ignition and on mag. Despite the electronic ignition firing before the mag, the cylinders are big enough that I still have a slight power reduction if i turn the mag off in flight, so despite firing the plugs 8 degrees later, there's still fuel to ignite when the mag sparks. For that reason, I believe I am currently leaving a little performance on the table by only running one variable timing ignition (soon to change). I don't expect the efficiency improvement going from one to two will be as great as going from zero to one, but based on my inflight ignition checks it's clear to me the mag not just along for the ride.