SureFly ignition systems, developed by the same staff that developed Plane Power Alternators and Sky-Tec starters, has introduced to the EAB market (and soon to the rest of us, pending FAA approval) a plug and play electronic ignition product to replace our outdated mags. No points, no condenser, no cap and rotor, higher voltage and dwell angle spark, and load variable timing curve will provide a more powerful spark and provide better efficiency and lower maintenance point failures than mags. And at $1250 for 4 cylinder engines, it is a VERY affordable alternative! Really looking forward to having one of these on the M5!

Check out the website:

http://www.surefly.aero/home.html

Good things are coming!

I dunno, is it a good thing that it was developed by the same team as PP and Sky-Tec[emoji848] [emoji3]

I know some of you were thinking that. I have no opinion because have no experience with those companies. I do know I will be watching this closely because in the next several months I need to decide what to do about an ignition system.

I would love to have a better system, so I went to their web-site. I discovered that it won't work for me since it requires continuous power for all operations, and I do not have an electric system. I think that also means that if your battery fails, your engine quits. I would not look forward to that possibility.
Charles

MontanaT-craft wrote:I discovered that it won't work for me since it requires continuous power for all operations, and I do not have an electric system. I think that also means that if your battery fails, your engine quits. I would not look forward to that possibility.

The website indicates that their system is installed in place of only one magneto, so you still have the backup of the second magneto should you have a total electrical failure.

Chris

Exactly how is an electronic ignition system better than a magneto?
I know mags are ancient technology, but so is a hammer and they still work pretty well.

hotrod180 wrote:Exactly how is an electronic ignition system better than a magneto?
I know mags are ancient technology, but so is a hammer and they still work pretty well.

Their entire website homepage seems dedicated to listing reasons why.

Zzz wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:Exactly how is an electronic ignition system better than a magneto?
I know mags are ancient technology, but so is a hammer and they still work pretty well.

Their entire website homepage seems dedicated to listing reasons why.

Maybe Hotrod didn't make it past the Bieber lookalike- I know I almost didn't.

I've had three complete electrical failures...all a long ways from home, and all requiring sustained flight above 12,000 feet to get home. It's interesting enough to watch your electronics fail as you fly along...loosing engine power on top of that? NO THANKS!

I'll stick with magnetos. In this case I think simple is superior.

DeltaRomeo wrote:SureFly ignition systems, developed by the same staff that developed Plane Power Alternators and Sky-Tec starters, has introduced to the EAB market (and soon to the rest of us, pending FAA approval) a plug and play electronic ignition product to replace our outdated mags. No points, no condenser, no cap and rotor, higher voltage and dwell angle spark, and load variable timing curve will provide a more powerful spark and provide better efficiency and lower maintenance point failures than mags. And at $1250 for 4 cylinder engines, it is a VERY affordable alternative! Really looking forward to having one of these on the M5!

Check out the website:

http://www.surefly.aero/home.html

Good things are coming!

Looks great, and at that price it's a great deal! Unfortunately, I cant see the price staying that low for the certified version. Hopefully it does, but prices almost always double when going from experimental to certified.

My Pain Power alternator lasted 300 hours.

Electro Air has a similar system, which is STC'd for both 4 and 6 cylinder L and C engines. Their pitch is similar, and when I spoke with their rep at OSH about 2 or 3 years ago, the biggest advantage was more fuel efficiency at cruise. How much? Oh, about 1 gph for my engine. For that I would pay roughly $4000 as I recall (product plus installation). At current gas prices, I'd pay for the system in roughly 950 hours. At my average annual usage, that's about 15 years--I only fly 60-65 hours/year. At the time, gas was running over $5/gallon, so my calculations were 775 hours, or 12-13 years, which at the time meant I'd be 82-83 years old. Really?

All the other claims were similar to SureFly's claims--easier starting, fewer fouling plugs, better high altitude performance, etc. But none were quantifiable, other than the alleged fuel savings.

I spend a lot on my airplane that others wouldn't spend, I'm sure. But I just couldn't justify that expenditure for such a small return.

Cary

I know a couple guys who installed electronic ignitions which ran off a timing sensor mounted up by the flywheel. It seemed like they were always having to tinker with them. The units which bolt on in place of a magneto seem like a better set-up to me, but (like Cary pointed out) if all they're gonna do is reduce fuel burn a smidge IMHO they're not worth the buy-in price. Think I'll stick to the old Bendix mags.

For my EAB Bearhawk Patrol, I'm leaning towards the P-Mag (from E-Mag.com - yeah, I know it's confusing). This one is self-powered, so no worries about electrical failure leaving you stranded. I went to one of their forums at OSH, and was impressed by the system.

JP256 wrote:For my EAB Bearhawk Patrol, I'm leaning towards the P-Mag (from E-Mag.com - yeah, I know it's confusing). This one is self-powered, so no worries about electrical failure leaving you stranded. I went to one of their forums at OSH, and was impressed by the system.

I've got one in a box, waiting on a break in work to install it.

JP256 wrote:For my EAB Bearhawk Patrol, I'm leaning towards the P-Mag (from E-Mag.com - yeah, I know it's confusing). This one is self-powered, so no worries about electrical failure leaving you stranded. I went to one of their forums at OSH, and was impressed by the system.

And if you're battery dies and you have to handprop it, there's a plug for a 9v batttery which will supply enough juice to start the engine. I'm really liking these for my Bearhawk.

Not to be a wet blanket, but again-- what's the advantage over a standard magneto?

hotrod180 wrote:Not to be a wet blanket, but again-- what's the advantage over a standard magneto?

Solid-state components, no points, electronic timing advance for part-throttle and starting operations (based on RPM and manifold pressure on the PMags) - just to name a few.

Example and opinion...

An O320 Lycoming was designed for a tight operating parameter of 2400 - 2500 RPM @ 6000' DA, Standard atmosphere, temperature, and humidity. With the engine running at 325F CHT and Oil at 180F.

Any deviation from the designed operation will cost fuel, wear, vibration, and even complete failure.

In theory a computer using sensors will negotiate timing, mixture, cooling/heating etc. to create a much more efficient use of power. Maybe someday, cowl flaps will be controlled via a CPU.

For instance motocross racing ...Within the software a user could load instructions which may further the efficiency or performance as the motorcyle is ridden in different conditions. Ultimately the computer will learn over time how you fly and what you want from the engine. My Slicks can't do that.

The small aircraft engine market is a "Goat Rope". There really is very little room for profit and R&D and I fly pretty much the way my engine was designed to. So I am not changing.

From the beginning until sometime in the 80's, car owners started trading off when they had 50,000 miles on them. If they had 100,000 miles, it went to the salvage yard as nobody wanted it. Now, it is fairly standard to see cars routinely humming along with excess of 250,000 and 300,000 miles. The automotive lending industry had to modify its lending criteria as cars held their value longer and would operate without requiring overhaul at a much greater mileage. What changed? Fuel injection and electronic ignition systems. With more precise control of the fuel air mixture and how the engine uses it, it increased the lifespan on the engine by two or three times. The reciprocating piston design has not changed enough to be credited with that longevity. Even the engine oil lasts longer; most manufacturers recommend a 7500 mile interval, although most cars have an algorithm that calculates oil lifespan based driving habits (your mileage may vary ).

Just electronic ignition alone will control the spark to give the greatest performance from the engine based on load conditions, as opposed to a compromise fixed timing setting of 25º over all operating ranges. The spark will be stronger and of a greater dwell. This translates to more power. Probably one of the least expensive power upgrades your money could buy. Couple that with smoother operation because the spark is more uniform (in mags, springs on the points bounce, arcs across the points, arcs at the rotor all contributed to weaker performance; all of these conditions are eliminated with electronic ignition), many flyers are claiming they have more confidence in the engine. Ignition component technology has evolved to a point where the reliability factor is excellent. In any of my vehicles I've operated in the last 30 years, I have not had any ignition related failures in many hundreds of thousands of miles.

Why wouldn't GA want that kind of contribution to performance, reliability and cost savings? Yes, mags are safe, but their performance is marginal compared to electronic, and they require frequent maintenance to keep them functioning properly. As SureFly points out, simply replacing one mag with their ignition system will still give you a redundant ignition system that operates with or without aircraft power should something fail. You will still be flying.

I've installed one of the electro-air stc'd systems on a customers (and friend) aircraft. Initially we had an issue with the pick up having issues when it was warm causing it to not want to start or cause backfiring after about 20 hours of operation. After talking to electro-air, they sent a new pick up free of charge and that resolved the issue. We haven't had an issue since, I guess they had some problems with the first units that went out.
Pretty much any stc'd system will alway have to run one mag as a back up, I can't imagine the faa ever getting away from that. I know experiment guys will run two electronic ignitions but they have two stand alone systems.
Mags are time proven and reliable but its old technology, they do require attention and they are often neglected. The amount of voltage they put out isn't anything close to even the cheapest car on the markets ignition system these days.

Its good to see companies trying to get this technology adapted over, I think it's about time.