Hammer wrote: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.

Man, if you've had THREE complete electrical failures, you need to spend less time dinking around with knives and more time working on your electrical system.....

MTV

In 1999 we installed an SDS system in the Landrover powered Bearhawk we built. We did install a complete dual stand alone system and we used coil splitters . In 2000 hrs we never needed to use the backup system but we always checked it during our run up. Every annual the plugs are checked and re-installed and work perfectly. The battery we used will run the computer and fuel system for 7hrs. in case of an alternator system failure and the entire system can be isolated from the battery except for the fuel and ignition control. After 13 years load testing reveled that the battery would only run the system for 2hrs. so the battery was replaced.
The old system was replaced with a new SDS system last year only because of some of the new enhanced features on the new system. Are there advantages over the magnetos, I think there are from a safety , service , reliability, and performance point of view. However when you leave the power on and kill the battery while fishing for silvers what do you do? With the magneto system you set things up and hand prop the plane and with the electronic system you reach in the back and get your anti-gravity battery pack, hook it up and push the start button. Magnetos to me are like the old distributors in cars, they take a lot of work to keep them in TOP condition.
KenW

mtv wrote:

Hammer wrote: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.

Man, if you've had THREE complete electrical failures, you need to spend less time dinking around with knives and more time working on your electrical system.....

MTV

Hey...if you've got a way to know when a generator is going to fail without the day and a half it takes to pull it off and disassemble it, I'm all ears! I just spent seven hours getting the damn thing back on. Three bolts, three electrical wires, two cotter pins and one safety wire and you can't get your fingers on a single mother-loving bit of it. I could do it again tomorrow in only four hours, but by the time it needs rebuilding again I'll have forgotten all the tricks...magnets; super glueing screws to the screwdriver; silly putty to hold the washers in place; pre-marking the orientation of the cotter pin holes; attach the ground wire before hanging the generator or spend two hours trying to start a single 1/4" screw...

I recon I've had a bit of bad luck when it comes to electricity, but those failures cover two airplanes and 1,800+ hours on equipment that's god-knows how old, so I'm not that surprised.

I wouldn't tell anyone that they are wrong to fly behind electronic ignition, but I I have reasons that I wont...at least not anything I'm currently aware of.

Innovation is good. If you can have both reliability and performance that is great, but if you have to pick between the two, I'll go with reliability every time. My opinions are colored by my experiences, and my experiences with aircraft electrical systems are that they are not very reliable, and when they fail they fail all at once without warning signs.

Since all my failures have been far from home, the redundant magneto is not much comfort. I'll fly 700 miles with no electricity, but not on one mag. The cost difference between being able to hand prop and get home for repairs vs have them done in the field is tremendous...thousands of dollars when you figure in the alternate transportation to get back home and get to work while you hire someone else to fix your plane, then come back to get it. If electronic ignition came with free instillation, halved my fuel consumption, and doubled my power, I'd have still lost money on the deal. Most folks wouldn't have...but I would.

Also, it's routine for me to fly out of strips where losing half my spark is going to be a very significant safety-of-life issue. Granted, that's a real small percentage of the total flight hours, but given the consequences, any increase in performance or economy is not worth even a small reduction in reliability. To me.

I'm aware that magnetos can fail...lots of moving parts...lots to go wrong. But they've been around forever, and if you do your mag-checks with your brain engaged and adhere to the recommended service intervals, they're pretty bombproof. Anyone who neglects their magnetos deserves what they get. At annual inspection, if the mags aren't due for service, but they will be by the next annual, I pull them and service them ahead of time. That's a no-brainer to me. A few hundred more dollars in the yearly airplane budget is of no consequence when dealing with the things that keep the engine running.

As for the reliability of electronic ignition...well it depends. Just a couple months ago our Mini Cooper went tits-up on the freeway. Massive power loss, belching black smoke... bad enough on the freeway, but the sort of thing that would have you squawking 7700 and wishing for a diaper if it happened in the air. Turns out it was due to a single bad cell in the battery, nothing else. The entire output of the engine went to hell because of one bad cell inside a lead-acid battery. Now it's flat out amazing how much umph they can get out of that little engine, and that performance-to-complexity matrix might make sense in a car, but I wouldn't fly behind it.

If you include oxygen sensors as part of the ignition system then I've had another half-dozen engine malfunctions that would have been life-altering events in an airplane. How many of them would have been eliminated by mandatory replacement intervals I can't say, but that's another thing I'm not interested in getting into with my aircraft.

It reminds me of running handgun combat simulations...people show up with all sorts of fancy equipment...$5,000 race guns, wildcat loads, every sighting device, grip, lanyard and trigger modification you can imagine. As the course progresses and people realize that a single misfire or jam or malfunction is infinitely more catastrophic than a slower lock time or less precise sight picture or less destructive load, the weapons of choice get simpler and simpler. In the end everyone is running a completely unmodified factory gun in a boring caliber eating factory ammo. Simplicity and reliability beat out performance and speed when your life is on the line.

Would I take a 10% increase in economy and a 10% increase in HP in exchange for being able to hand prop the engine and know that the ignition system works as long as the prop turns? No... I wouldn't. A lot of people would and that's fine, but not me.

If someone makes a electronic ignition system that's as reliable and simple and system-isolated as magnetos I'd gladly consider it, but only then.

That's just my take on it...other pilots have had different experiences and will come to different conclusions. But I'm a very big fan of the primitive, simple, reliable, magneto.

I suspect that if I had to replace a magneto altogether, and if an electronic ignition system could be had for about the same price as a new magneto, I might be tempted. But since I don't need a new one and it can't, and the benefits of spending gobs more than what a new mag would cost if I did need one are so slim, I'll pass. If the benefits were a lot greater, like massively reduce fuel consumption or massively increase power, that might be different.

Cary

Cary wrote:I suspect that if I had to replace a magneto altogether, and if an electronic ignition system could be had for about the same price as a new magneto, I might be tempted. But since I don't need a new one and it can't, and the benefits of spending gobs more than what a new mag would cost if I did need one are so slim, I'll pass. If the benefits were a lot greater, like massively reduce fuel consumption or massively increase power, that might be different.

Cary

Cary, rebuilding a used mag costs $400 to $800 depending on what needs replacement in a 500 hr IRAN. That will occur 3 times in 2000 hrs. A new mag costs $1100, and still requires 500 hr IRANs 3 times in 2000 hrs. SureFly is posting a price of $1250 and a 2000 hr TBR. That is an almost irresistible temptation as I see it.

As with any new product on a given market, there are early adopters and those who would rather "wait and see". Whether you are the former or the latter is immaterial. But consider the experimental market as the early adopters and the statistics there should be of some piece of mind. Also, rigorous testing to get FAA approval should also provide the same result. Anywhere I can save money in maintenance costs and get a performance improvement should be a win/win in anybody's book.

Flight involves an acceptable level of risk or you wouldn't be in it, even though mags have been known to fail as well as some of the newer electronic ignitions. Minimizing risk is a healthy mindset. Having two mags, I don't see a trade in substituting one 1880's mag for a 21st century solution as an increase in risk. The redundancy is still there, and it's an affordable upgrade.

I'm old school and lean toward the tried-and-true magnetos, but will admit that they are not cheap.
I had mine gone through last year when they had 1200 hours on them. One was $625 & the other was $525. IMHO 500 hour inspections are jumping the gun a bit, 1000 hours seems more like it, but replacing the points & resetting the e-gap at 500 wouldn't be a bad idea.

I'm lucky enough to be a friend of the main guy who pioneered the electronic ignition systems in experimental airplanes. He's broken about every speed and efficiency record there is to break. Flew from California to Florida using 25 or 26 gallons of fuel in a hotrod modified Vari-Eze.

When I asked him about the old "tried and true" magneto reliability, he pointed out that magnetos really have a lot of moving parts that electronic systems do not, points and rotors and contacts and stuff. And that mags fail occasionally too. Problems or excessive wear on mag bearings and gear teeth can put metal into the engine and cause problems too.

Of course, all the performance gains in the world will not be of any value out in the boonies with a dead battery, as Hammer and others have pointed out. But the truth is a magneto failure out in the boonies will leave you just as stranded as an electronic ignition failure would.

One thing that also IMHO needs to be remembered is that carrying a small, separate, plug-in battery pack (modern R/C electric model pack) would offer a possible backup for an electronic ignition system. There are possible ideas that can be borrowed from larger aircraft, such as the Ram Air Turbine, like that little strap-on wind generator sold for antique airplanes to run a handheld radio. The little R/C pack could power the ignition system for startup and takeoff, with the ram air device providing a constant source of electric current for the flight out of the boonies.

Hammer wrote:

mtv wrote:

Hammer wrote: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.

Man, if you've had THREE complete electrical failures, you need to spend less time dinking around with knives and more time working on your electrical system.....

MTV

Hey...if you've got a way to know when a generator is going to fail without the day and a half it takes to pull it off and disassemble it, I'm all ears! I just spent seven hours getting the damn thing back on. Three bolts, three electrical wires, two cotter pins and one safety wire and you can't get your fingers on a single mother-loving bit of it. I could do it again tomorrow in only four hours, but by the time it needs rebuilding again I'll have forgotten all the tricks...magnets; super glueing screws to the screwdriver; silly putty to hold the washers in place; pre-marking the orientation of the cotter pin holes; attach the ground wire before hanging the generator or spend two hours trying to start a single 1/4" screw...

I recon I've had a bit of bad luck when it comes to electricity, but those failures cover two airplanes and 1,800+ hours on equipment that's god-knows how old, so I'm not that surprised.

I wouldn't tell anyone that they are wrong to fly behind electronic ignition, but I I have reasons that I wont...at least not anything I'm currently aware of.

Innovation is good. If you can have both reliability and performance that is great, but if you have to pick between the two, I'll go with reliability every time. My opinions are colored by my experiences, and my experiences with aircraft electrical systems are that they are not very reliable, and when they fail they fail all at once without warning signs.

Since all my failures have been far from home, the redundant magneto is not much comfort. I'll fly 700 miles with no electricity, but not on one mag. The cost difference between being able to hand prop and get home for repairs vs have them done in the field is tremendous...thousands of dollars when you figure in the alternate transportation to get back home and get to work while you hire someone else to fix your plane, then come back to get it. If electronic ignition came with free instillation, halved my fuel consumption, and doubled my power, I'd have still lost money on the deal. Most folks wouldn't have...but I would.

Also, it's routine for me to fly out of strips where losing half my spark is going to be a very significant safety-of-life issue. Granted, that's a real small percentage of the total flight hours, but given the consequences, any increase in performance or economy is not worth even a small reduction in reliability. To me.

I'm aware that magnetos can fail...lots of moving parts...lots to go wrong. But they've been around forever, and if you do your mag-checks with your brain engaged and adhere to the recommended service intervals, they're pretty bombproof. Anyone who neglects their magnetos deserves what they get. At annual inspection, if the mags aren't due for service, but they will be by the next annual, I pull them and service them ahead of time. That's a no-brainer to me. A few hundred more dollars in the yearly airplane budget is of no consequence when dealing with the things that keep the engine running.

As for the reliability of electronic ignition...well it depends. Just a couple months ago our Mini Cooper went tits-up on the freeway. Massive power loss, belching black smoke... bad enough on the freeway, but the sort of thing that would have you squawking 7700 and wishing for a diaper if it happened in the air. Turns out it was due to a single bad cell in the battery, nothing else. The entire output of the engine went to hell because of one bad cell inside a lead-acid battery. Now it's flat out amazing how much umph they can get out of that little engine, and that performance-to-complexity matrix might make sense in a car, but I wouldn't fly behind it.

If you include oxygen sensors as part of the ignition system then I've had another half-dozen engine malfunctions that would have been life-altering events in an airplane. How many of them would have been eliminated by mandatory replacement intervals I can't say, but that's another thing I'm not interested in getting into with my aircraft.

It reminds me of running handgun combat simulations...people show up with all sorts of fancy equipment...$5,000 race guns, wildcat loads, every sighting device, grip, lanyard and trigger modification you can imagine. As the course progresses and people realize that a single misfire or jam or malfunction is infinitely more catastrophic than a slower lock time or less precise sight picture or less destructive load, the weapons of choice get simpler and simpler. In the end everyone is running a completely unmodified factory gun in a boring caliber eating factory ammo. Simplicity and reliability beat out performance and speed when your life is on the line.

Would I take a 10% increase in economy and a 10% increase in HP in exchange for being able to hand prop the engine and know that the ignition system works as long as the prop turns? No... I wouldn't. A lot of people would and that's fine, but not me.

If someone makes a electronic ignition system that's as reliable and simple and system-isolated as magnetos I'd gladly consider it, but only then.

That's just my take on it...other pilots have had different experiences and will come to different conclusions. But I'm a very big fan of the primitive, simple, reliable, magneto.

Interesting....I've been flying pretty actively since 1969 and never a single complete electrical failure. Must be living a blessed existence.

There are, however, electronic ignitions (granted, only for the experimental and LS market at present) out there, many of which have a back up electrical source, and those airplanes don't seem to be falling out of the sky. Take the Carbon Cub, as an example. Far as I know, all the Carbon Cubs are equipped with electronic ignition.....but I may be wrong. In any case, in the next couple years, there are going to be literally thousands of airplanes out there with some form of electronic ignition.

But, if I were you, I'd get someone to really go through the electrical system on that airplane. If it's got a generator, trash that damn thing and replace it with an alternator.....that alone will increase your reliability factor.....

MTV

mtv wrote:.... If it's got a generator, trash that damn thing and replace it with an alternator.....that alone will increase your reliability factor..... MTV

I'm curious as to the reasoning behind this. It seems like an old-school generator has about the same number of moving and wear-outable parts as an almost-as-old-school alternator.
I've ran both and never had a failure in either type, although I've had to perform maintenance on both.
My current mount (1953 C180) has a 35A generator, and I don't see any need to replace it with an alternator-- it works just fine.

If I'm not mistaken, replacing the old Delco generator with a newer STC lightweight B&C alternator will save you enough weight for a couple of gallons of gas. As far as the increase in reliability, consider this...

B&C has some kind of a special good old boy deal with one of the alternator manufacturers, Denso I believe it is, which allows him to purchase FIRST quality, top shelf, higher precision OEM alternator cores as opposed to the second or even third level quality stuff that they sell to the discount car parts stores, small shops, and re-branders. B&C then takes these alternators completely apart, does a 100% "zero balance", then I understand they make certain changes or additions, they do a bunch of quality and reliability testing, then they reassemble and certify the resulting component as a PMA B&C alternator. HUGE difference in reliability, quality, etc. versus using aftermarket quality components. That is why the B&C product carries such a reputation for quality.... it is a better quality item. That and Mr. Bainbridge's personal character, class, customer service and standing behind his product.

EZFlap wrote:....As far as the increase in reliability, consider this...B&C has some kind of a special good old boy deal with one of the alternator manufacturers, Denso I believe it is, which allows him to purchase FIRST quality, top shelf, higher precision OEM alternator cores....

Nothing against B&C, far from it as it seems like they put out some good products, but the other way to look at this is that when you buy one of the B&C alternators you describe you're actually buying a used overhauled part at a new price....and those B&C products don't come cheap.

B&C doesn't seem to produce an alternator kit that's approved for my C180 anyway, but Plane Power does: the SAL12-70C, $827 in my newest Spruce catalog. Per the PP website, that alternator weighs 10 pounds. That's 6 pounds less than my 16 pounds 35A generator weighs (per the factory equipment list). That's about $138 for every pound lost, kinda spendy. And since the 35A generator has performed flawlessly so far, how can you improve on it's reliability?

If and when the generator shits the bed, I might consider an alternator. But actually I'd probably just OH the gen, it has some good features which the alt doesn't-- one of which is being able to charge from the git-go after having to hand-prop the engine due to a totally dead battery. An alternator must be "excited" first.

The single biggest benefit to an alternator over a generator, besides the weight savings, is that an alternator will charge the battery at idle, whereas it's necessary to carry some pretty good engine rpm for a generator to "gen".

A couple of stories, involving my first airplane, a 1970 Skylane in partnership, which we bought in 1975. It had 2 tube-type Narco radios, an ADF, and we added a new Narco DME. On really cold days, it would take 8-10 minutes for the radios to warm up, so the protocol was to warm the engine a little, then taxi out, do a leisurely run-up, and by then, the radios were good to go. That worked well in the daytime.

But winter night flights were different. First story: early 1976, got the airplane started, but it was balky, because it was about 15 F. So the battery was still OK by the time the airplane started, but somewhat run down, as indicated by the ammeter showing a big charge rate whenever I'd increase the rpm above about 1200. Radios on, then taxied out with all the lights on. The taxi distance was relatively short, there was 2-3" of snow on the taxiways, so it took extra power to taxi. At the run-up area, I did the usual run-up, ending with the usual check of low idle to make sure the engine would keep running--and all of the avionics shut off. The battery was still too low to carry the load, and going to idle effectively took the generator out of the process. I increased rpm enough that I could turn on one of the radios, and waited to turn on the others until I was in the air.

Second story: returning from an IFR night cross country in light snow in 1977, I waited to turn on the landing lights until on final, which is my typical practice, but especially important with the snow falling. With the engine idling on short final, I'm sure there was no charging. As I taxied in, the landing lights started to dim, and then all the avionics shut off. The landing lights continued to dim to the point where by the time I got to the ramp, they were useless. Without adequate landing/taxi lights, seeing the way in was difficult.

Fast forward some 26 years to 2003. When my current airplane was down soon after I bought her for the new engine, I had the conversion made to a 60 amp alternator from the 35 amp stock generator. That was about 12 1/2 years ago, and I've never been sorry. I can run all of my avionics, both the pitot heat and AOA heat, and all of the lights, and still there's reserve charging capability, even at idle.

Cary

hotrod180 wrote:
when you buy one of the B&C alternators you describe you're actually buying a used overhauled part at a new price....and those B&C products don't come cheap.

I believe B&C sells a new alternator that has been tuned and brought up to a higher spec. Kind of like an AMG Mercedes or Shelby Mustang built off a factory new car. The story I got is that they buy brand new Denso alternators and then do the "hop up" stuff.

There is no real debate any more IF there is an advantage to EI, experimental aircraft have put that one to rest. The only debate left is if the advantage is worth the money. I do not like the all in one solutions. Putting low voltage sense components right next to the high voltage discharge components assures one thing, you cannot run as much power through the high tension side to really create a nice long duration hot spark. For that reason, I'd pick Electroair's system over any all in one solution.

If you have that big an issue with electrical system failure, ditch the vacuum system, and roll with a backup alternator on the vac pump pad. All the airplanes I'm doing that are getting a full panel are ditching the Vac system now. Especially with King HSI systems being so dang cheap, and Garmin/Dynon having $2500 EFIS systems to replace the attitude. It's time to save the weight.

WorkingWarbirds wrote:There is no real debate any more IF there is an advantage to EI, experimental aircraft have put that one to rest. The only debate left is if the advantage is worth the money. I do not like the all in one solutions. Putting low voltage sense components right next to the high voltage discharge components assures one thing, you cannot run as much power through the high tension side to really create a nice long duration hot spark. For that reason, I'd pick Electroair's system over any all in one solution.

If you have that big an issue with electrical system failure, ditch the vacuum system, and roll with a backup alternator on the vac pump pad. All the airplanes I'm doing that are getting a full panel are ditching the Vac system now. Especially with King HSI systems being so dang cheap, and Garmin/Dynon having $2500 EFIS systems to replace the attitude. It's time to save the weight.

I like the idea of ditching my vac system, but in Canada for night flight a DG is required. None of the electronic replacements qualify for replacements. So to be legal I don't have much choice.

A1Skinner wrote:.....I like the idea of ditching my vac system, but in Canada for night flight a DG is required. None of the electronic replacements qualify for replacements. So to be legal I don't have much choice.

Good news: the Spruce catalog lists electric DG's from RC Allen, Mid-Continent, and Falcon.
Bad news: Falcon's is $1500, RC Allen is $2200, MidCont's is over $3K. And they're stilll mechanical units, with bearings to fail etc.

hotrod180 wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:.....I like the idea of ditching my vac system, but in Canada for night flight a DG is required. None of the electronic replacements qualify for replacements. So to be legal I don't have much choice.

Good news: the Spruce catalog lists electric DG's from RC Allen, Mid-Continent, and Falcon.
Bad news: Falcon's is $1500, RC Allen is $2200, MidCont's is over $3K. And they're stilll mechanical units, with bearings to fail etc.

Yup. A little steep. I wish one of these new G5 or dynon until would cover it. Or rhe law would change. Either would be good with me. Ha.