What's new
Van's Air Force

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

P-mags and EI... good idea?

K

KayS

Well Known Member
Hey Guys,

ok this questions comes a little bit late because i got my engine already. it's an io-375 with one lightspeed plasma II and P-mag istalled on it. to be honest... when i ordered this configuration i didn't spend al lot of thinking about this. anyway... at that time i thought that it doesn't make much sense to install one EI and old style magnetos, because on lower rpm the magnetos, with their fixed timing, would fire before the EI sparks. two EI's are no option for me.

so does somebody has some real world experience with this? if there is no performance/efficiency difference between the EI-Pmag and EI-mag combinations, i would rather sell the p-mags and replace them by slick magnetos just to make it less complex.

thank you...
Kay
 
Last edited:
Actually...

at lower RPMS the EI will fire way before the magnetos. I have a Lightspeed with the cockpit display, and on the ground at idle power the timing is usually around 38 degrees BTDC, vs. 25 for the magneto. Hence the better idling properties.

Vic
 
This may be a terminology issue as well because P-mag is a type of EI. So, if you have LSE and an P-Mag, you have two EI's.

Having said that, I don't see a reason why this would work any worse than LSE+mag (or P-mag+mag) as long as both are functioning properly.
 
ok... my understanding was that the lightspeed will fire much less in advance at lower rpm's. somewhere below 25 degrees, but it seems that i was wrong here. i do believe that the combination of lightspeed and p-mags would work. but now i don't see a real benefit here, the p-mags add just cost and complexity in combination with a lightspeed EI. i don't want to say that p-mags are less reliable than slick mags but there should be a higher chance of mishandlng or mistakes during installation for the p-mags.

so, what do you guys think...? is the Lightspeed EI so let's say powerful that it "over-rules" any kind p-mag or slick mag? and if so, from my understanding, the p-mags/slick mags act just as a back up?

Kay, still learning....
 
@ Radomir:

you're right the p-mag is a EI, although i used the wording EI just for the Lightspeed to bring more confusion into the topic. :)

you said that the combination of lightspeed and p-mag would work fine as long as they are functioning properly... and this is exactly my concern right now. i just don't know if the p-mags are a higher source of error compared to slick mags.
 
P-Mag is Lycoming's ignition of choice for the new IO-233, if that tells you anything.

To your original combination, why would you run two different types of electronic ignition. I can understand the single magneto and a EI for those who don't want to jump into the pool all at once, but why two different EI's? I'd dump the Lightspeed and buy another P-mag - much less complicated.
 
Yes... but there must be...

Originally Posted by Toobuilder
To your original combination, why would you run two different types of electronic ignition.

Ron Lee said:
Different failure modes.
Click to expand...

...some efficiency loss.

Unless both EI systems are working to exactly the same rpm/manifold press/advance chart your two spark plugs in each cylinder will not be firing at the same time.

This must be a slight power loss, even if it not as much as a magneto/EI combination.

I would think you would want matched EI system curves (aka, timing) for peak efficiency.
 
KayS said:
ok... my understanding was that the lightspeed will fire much less in advance at lower rpm's. somewhere below 25 degrees, but it seems that i was wrong here. i do believe that the combination of lightspeed and p-mags would work. but now i don't see a real benefit here, the p-mags add just cost and complexity in combination with a lightspeed EI. i don't want to say that p-mags are less reliable than slick mags but there should be a higher chance of mishandlng or mistakes during installation for the p-mags.

so, what do you guys think...? is the Lightspeed EI so let's say powerful that it "over-rules" any kind p-mag or slick mag? and if so, from my understanding, the p-mags/slick mags act just as a back up?

Kay, still learning....
Click to expand...
Kay,

The P-mag is programmable and can be tuned to your installation. Run the "A" curve and the timing starts around 25 BTC, and 30 BTC for the "B" curve. You can also cap the max advance so for a new engine, you can set the timing to 25 and cap the advance at 25, thus making it act like a mag.

As for reliability of the P-mag vs. LSI, that is a toss-up. If you do a search on the EI section of this board (where this thread belongs, BTW) you will find very few issues with P-mags for the last two or three years. On that search, you will find a number of issues with the LSI over the same time period. I have found that the reliability of the P-mags has improved greatly over the last few years to the point where there have been few, if any issues.

I disagree with your statement about the P-mag adding more complexity. The LSI system is very complex and has a number of connectors (Brain box, trigger, coil pack, and plugs), wiring, wire routing and mounting requirements, including putting the brain box aft of the firewall and passing the wiring bundle through the firewall. With the P-mags you can take them out of the box, plug them in the mag hole, run the power, mag, and ground wires (and jumper if you want to run the "A" curve) and fly them with minimum fuss.

With the addition of an EICommander, you can monitor a dual P-mag installation in flight, change the timing (if desired), and add some functionality that is not available with any other aviation ignition system on the market.
 
Last edited:
N941WR said:
....including putting the brain box aft of the firewall and passing the wiring bundle through the firewall. .....

With the addition of an EICommander, you can monitor a dual P-mag installation in flight, change the timing (if desired), and add some functionality that is not available with any other aviation ignition system on the market.
Click to expand...

with the EICommander you then have a firewall penetration and wiring running to the panel, with a "brain" of some sort on the panel, correct?
 
Danny7 said:
with the EICommander you then have a firewall penetration and wiring running to the panel, with a "brain" of some sort on the panel, correct?
Click to expand...
Yes, the EICommander requires you to run the serial wires through the firewall BUT the EICommander is optional and you don't have the issue of trying to run a large connector through the firewall, which you have with LSI.

The P-mags can and will operate without the EICommander. Should either the EICommander or one of its connnections fail, it will not impact the operation of the ignition in any way.

The EICommander comes in two flavors, one with a remote brain box, as seen in these pictures or in the self contained unit which fits in a standard instrument hole. As you can see from the picasaweb pictures, the wire bundle is rather small.

BTW, here are just a few of the features of the EICommander:
• Timing Divergence alarms
• Ignition wiring harness health reporting (open or broken lead as well as shorted or fouled plugs)
• Ability to monitor and display the current E/P-mag timing, internal temps, advance, etc.
• Ability to configure the E/P-mags from your instrument panel, in flight, or on the ground.
• Ability to store multiple E/P-mag timing configurations and send them to the ignition as needed/desired.
• Manifold Pressure and Tachometer which includes alarms for MAP / RPM restricted ranges, not just RPM
• Hobbs and multiple trip set timers
• Optional OAT and carb temp probes.
 
Last edited:
Hey Ron, i didn't don't agree with you. i strongly believe that you are correct with the different failure modes... just a misunderstanding. :D

@ the other and especially Bill: thank you so much for your info's. it really helps me to get a more clear picture about the stuff i was buying. :)
 
Last edited:
The Carbon Cub comes equipped with dual LSE EIs. There is also a certified helicopter manufactured in France that uses a Plasma EI-magneto combo. The Plasma-series LSE EIs are capacitor discharge units and the Plasma III also has 6-8 sparks at all rpm in very rapid succession, about 80 micro-seconds apart. Compare this to some units which have multiple sparks up to about 2400 rpm that are 2 milli-seconds apart. At 2400 rpm, 80 micro-seconds is 1.15? and 2 milli-seconds is 28.8?.
A capacitor discharge EI, because of its high rate-of-rise voltage will fire plugs fouled with oil or a carbon coating on the insulator, whereas with an inductive system, such a coating may drain off its slow rate-of-rise voltage before it reaches sufficient voltage to fire the plug.
This effect was well known if you had a car that was burning oil. With oil-fouled plugs you couldn't get the plugs to fire, so there was a device you could plug into the spark plug lead which had an internal gap. The gap allowed the voltage to build up until it would jump the gap and put this instantaneous voltage to the plug electrodes which would then fire the plug. Often times too, in trouble-shooting an engine that was running rough you would pull each wire from a plug one at a time and allow the spark to arc to the plug terminal and if the engine started running well, you knew you had found the culprit!
You need to examine all of these features along with cost and arrive at a decision that satisfies your needs.
 
Hello all,
I have an other question about P mags and traditional magneto installed on one engine: how do you install harnesses? do you cross lower an upper cylinder spark plug harnesses or usually or do you use one mag for the lowers and the other one for the uppers? if yes, what is the best: Pmag on lower?
Thanks
 
A magneto is an inductive spark system. which is activated by a rotating magnet moving through the coil. The magnet, having two poles, N&S, alternates the polarity of its output on each cylinder, giving positive high voltage to one cylinder then negative high voltage to the next, and so on. The center electrode on a spark plug, when heated, acts as a thermionic emitter, generating a potential of 500V to 1000V depending on how hot it is. When the high voltage is negative, this potential adds to it, and when the high voltage is positive, this potential subtracts from it.
In automobiles you were cautioned to make sure that the proper polarity was connected to the coil terminals to insure that it was a negative spark acting in series with the potential from the plug, otherwise the engine may not start or run as well. Because of this polarity reversal, you may want to take this into account when planning how to attach the magneto outputs to the spark plugs.
Remember, too, that a magneto is a generator and that its output voltage varies up and down with rpm. That is why the pure magneto is equipped with an impulse coupler which swings the magnet faster for starting to increase the voltage. Magnetos equipped with auxilliary voltage inputs for starting, such as a shower of sparks, have higher starting volyage.
 
Mags 101

Don, I try not to push any particular type of ignition, but, instead, I try to put out whatever limited amount of information I have accrued through my experiences. I find that educated decisions are, in the long run, the best! Thanks for your response! Paul
 
Distributor-less inductive systems

One thing I left out when considering ignition systems is associated with an inductive system that uses a waste-spark distributor-less ignition. As I previously pointed out, the inductive systems have lower rate-of-rise of their high voltage which puts them at a disadvantage in firing fouled plugs. HOWEVER, in the waste-spark system, the two cylinders that are 180? out in the firing order have their plugs fired in series. One cylinder is nearing TDC on its exhaust stroke while the other is nearing TDC on its compression stroke. That means that until the spark voltage has reached enough potential to jump the gap on the plug on the exhaust, there is a possibility that if the plug on the compression stroke is the one that is fouled, the voltage arriving at that plug could possibly be higher due to having to jump the gap on the other plug, somewhat like the old gapped device used to fire oil-fouled plugs!
 
Interfacing Magneto with EI

I have seen the benefits of a synchronized firing event, which lacks with the ? EI systems. On my home page under ?NEW? is the SC Interface to remove this un-balance firing of the ignition system. Soon I will have available SC Interface for the LSE Plasma 2 & 3 systems also.
Thomas S.
G3i
 
KayS said:
Hey Guys,

...at that time i thought that it doesn't make much sense to install one EI and old style magnetos,,,,

so does somebody has some real world experience with this?

thank you...
Kay
Click to expand...

I've installed, or been involved with a number of electronic ign's. While I'm not the worlds leading expert, I do have a good bit of practical, real world experience.

Remember, the Pmag won't produce self sustaining power at idle. It needs 800 +- RPM. A conventional magneto, of course, does not need ships power at all, ever.

It's easy to envision a situation where at the point where power is pulled back to idle, on short final, for example, "no ships power" would/could mean engine shutdown, with no hope of a re-start or recovery. We all know we had plenty of altitude and there would never be a need for a go-around, right?

By now, probably old news to everyone here, but CAFE foundation has one of the best electronic ign writeups. For various reasons, I feel the best setup is one conventional, healthy magneto and one electronic ignition. According to CAFE, this results in very little loss in peak efficiency, when compared to dual electronics. I prefer the Pmag due to simplicity, ease of installation and the back up, engine driven power supply. I've seen too many failures of other types/brands.

FADEC systems on modern aircraft always have back up power, and/or mechanical backup. Just like the Pmag, there is a good reason for this.
 
I had two Slicks when I started flying my 9A. I went to one E-mag and one Slick. I saved one gph in fuel at cruise, got better starting and a little better idle, but gained no significant performance. When I added a P-Mag and removed the remaining Slick, I saved a little more fuel (maybe .2 pgh,) much better idle, and gained about 4 mph top end and cruise. Climb never changed much. As to safety, I make a note to not pull to full idle if the master is off; keep 900 rpm all the way down final, until the landing is in the bag.

Walt: Timing E- and P-Mags is easier than anything! I don't think safer comes into the equation.

Bob
 
cujet said:
I've installed, or been involved with a number of electronic ign's. While I'm not the worlds leading expert, I do have a good bit of practical, real world experience.

Remember, the Pmag won't produce self sustaining power at idle. It needs 800 +- RPM. A conventional magneto, of course, does not need ships power at all, ever.

It's easy to envision a situation where at the point where power is pulled back to idle, on short final, for example, "no ships power" would/could mean engine shutdown, with no hope of a re-start or recovery. We all know we had plenty of altitude and there would never be a need for a go around, right?...
Click to expand...
The P-mags are self powering above 800 RPM + OR -. Each should be tested as tachs are not all the same.

However this is not an issue because on short final with the engine at idle you are typically over that number due to air loads on the prop. You will probably only have a problem taxiing off the runway after the plane slows down and your RPMs drop.
 
Last edited:
N941WR said:
However this is not an issue because on short final with the engine at idle you are around over that number due to air loads on the prop. You will probably only have a problem taxiing off the runway after the plane slows down and your RPMs drop.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I can easily get the IO-360 in the Velocity to go below 800 on final. It's also possible to stop a windmilling prop during a stall.

I still believe that one electronic such as a Pmag and one conventional mag is the safer choice. I've had my share of in flight failures. I do what ever I can to avoid them. Even if it means 0.2 GPH more fuel flow (that's within the noise, AFAIAC).
 
Last edited:
Bill makes an interesting point. I doubt most plane's rpm would drop below 800 on final. I believe mine does, at least with short field approach speed. My idle rpm is set at 450, something that can't be done except with dual ei. I get much better descent and slow-down with my fixed pitch than one idling at 650-700.

As to in-flight failures, never had one with a P-Mag. Three with mags. The last mag I took off failed ten hours later on a Tomahawk. It is whatever makes you comfortable.

Bob
 
videobobk said:
...

As to in-flight failures, never had one with a P-Mag. Three with mags. The last mag I took off failed ten hours later on a Tomahawk. It is whatever makes you comfortable.

Bob
Click to expand...
I spoke to Brad at E-mag Ignitions last week and he said one of their customers hit the 2000 hour mark with his P-mags. Needless to they were all excited.

Check out E-mag's site for a list of "saves". I'm sure if low RPM power was an issue with P-mags, one of these people would have noted it.

On the positive side of things, during the Thanksgiving holiday, our EICommander had its first save by notifying the pilot that the timing between his two P-mags was shifting.

When he landed he pulled both P-mags and found the gear on one of them was galled, which allowed the timing of that ignition to diverge. He used a mag gear of dubious origin and replaced it with a PMA'ed gear and the timing returned to normal.

Question, do any of you actually remove your ignition (E/P-mag or other) during the Condition inspection to look at the gear?
 
N941WR said:
Check out E-mag's site for a list of "saves".
Click to expand...

I guess a standard mag would also have "saved" the day in these cases.

On the positive side of things, during the Thanksgiving holiday, our EICommander had its first save by notifying the pilot that the timing between his two P-mags was shifting.When he landed he pulled both P-mags and found the gear on one of them was galled, which allowed the timing of that ignition to diverge.
Click to expand...

That must have been one seriously galled gear to allow a timing shift!

Question, do any of you actually remove your ignition (E/P-mag or other) during the Condition inspection to look at the gear?
Click to expand...

Well if you must have gears (no gears or moving parts with crank sensors)... then both slick and LSE require periodic inspections (500 hrs) of gears/bearings/seals/couplers etc..

As you may have gathered I think calling these P-Mag stories "Saves" is a misnomer, any of these electrical failures would not have caused a problem on any mag equipped airplane. The P-mag merely worked as designed, but it didn't "save" anything.
 
Last edited:
um? all the debate on LSE vs. p mags vs mags...makes my head spin. All I know is my 200hp IO 360 A1A currently has 2 bendix mags soon to be replaced with some kind of EI...each day I change my mind as what with? decisions :confused:
 
A Few years ago I purchased a Plasma III from Klaus. First ground run-up the engine ran really rough. Troubleshot to a broken coil. Discussed with Klaus to which he said, "You must have dropped it", to which I said, "no I installed it direct from the box to the engine". His response was, "well I know you must of dropped it so you'll have to buy another one". Reluctantly I bought another coil from him and installed per directions. About 10 hours of operation and the Control Box failed (indicated by rough running engine since it was running only on the Slick mag). Sent it in for repair and upon return it failed after about 4 hours. Klaus's response to me was, "you have installed in incorrectly". Ok..right, it ran for 10 hours while installed incorrectly.. ah huh. After several amazingly rude emails he finally refunded the purchase price. I documented the heck out of the returned items with photos and witnesses to ensure he knew the equipment was returned in the same state as it was received because I didn't trust him one little bit. His customer service stinks, his attitude is horrible and the equipment he sent me was junk. Others may have a better experience.

I have a single P-mag installed now. Super easy to install and to time - much easier than the Plasma III and has worked flawlessly now for the first 50 hours. I'm not going to install two however, at least not until I have several hundred hours on the single set-up. I will remove annually to inspect the gear - although I believe they are now using certified gears when previously they were not.
 
OK, I?ll bite?

Walt said:
I guess a standard mag would also have "saved" the day in these cases.
Click to expand...
Yes, a standard mag would save the day.

Walt said:
That must have been one seriously galled gear to allow a timing shift!
Click to expand...
Yes, it was bad but not as bad as you would think. The bigger issue was the metal it was dropping in the engine.

Walt said:
Well if you must have gears (no gears or moving parts with crank sensors)... then both slick and LSE require periodic inspections (500 hrs) of gears/bearings/seals/couplers etc..
Click to expand...
The problem, as I see it, with the LSE is that you have to mount a circuit board right behind the flywheel and run a wire to the brain box. Circuit boards are not designed to be out in the weather like that, it takes additional wires and connectors to get from that trigger board to the brain box, AND I have seen that wire cut by the flywheel.

The P-mag is a simple, light, and easy installation and they simply work out of the box. No need to send in your flywheel to have it milled for a trigger magnet.

Walt said:
As you may have gathered I think calling these P-Mag stories "Saves" is a misnomer, any of these electrical failures would not have caused a problem on any mag equipped airplane. The P-mag merely worked as designed, but it didn't "save" anything.
Click to expand...
Yes, these are ?saves?, just the same as having a standard mag but in this case, the pilots wanted electronic ignitions.

I know a number of people who are flying with dual LSI using a backup battery to power them should they experience an electrical issue. The problem here is that unless you replace the battery on a regular interval (one year, two years, I don't know how often), you really don't know how long that battery will last because their duration degrades over time.

Thus, if you want to go with an electronic igniton, you either need to put in one mag and an EI OR you can put in two P-mags and call it a day.

Just my $.02.
 
Circuit boards

Bill R., you say that the LSE crank-trigger "Circuit boards are not designed to be out in the weather like that,...". The LSE circuit boards are passivated to protect then from the weather. If you know of any failures that have occured with them then is the place to report it, or is this just conjecture on your part?
As you may be aware, the P/E-mags have gone through at least 27 software updates, which doesn't say a lot for the original product testing, nor do the number of failures of the gear supplied by them that came apart after about 50 hours and scattered metal through-out the accessory case. As you may also be aware, any trigger system which relies on a gear train, and especially cam-operated points, will not have as accurate a cylinder-to-cylinder timing as will a crank-triggered system, and this also goes for the LSE magneto plug-in as well as any other mag or EI that operates from a gear train. Hopefully all of these ignitions have reached a point of maturity where they are past the early type of failures which the design engineers could not foresee.
 
Thus, if you want to go with an electronic igniton, you either need to put in one mag and an EI OR you can put in two P-mags and call it a day.
Click to expand...

Or another option is you can install a BUG (back up generator) like I did.

The benefit of this system is it not only supplies a back up source of power for the LSE, but it can basically run everything I need indefinately. If my primary alt quits, I can keep going and stop where and when I want, or not stop at all :D
 
Last edited:
elippse said:
Bill R., you say that the LSE crank-trigger "Circuit boards are not designed to be out in the weather like that,...". The LSE circuit boards are passivated to protect then from the weather. If you know of any failures that have occured with them then is the place to report it, or is this just conjecture on your part?
Click to expand...
Conjecture regarding the board but fact regarding the wires and connectors.

elippse said:
As you may be aware, the P/E-mags have gone through at least 27 software updates, which doesn't say a lot for the original product testing
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue the point other than to ask, did the LSE setup had the same problems when it first came out? Also, E-mag Ignitions have not made a software or hardware change in close to two years now. It looks like the ignition is stable.

elippse said:
...nor do the number of failures of the gear supplied by them that came apart after about 50 hours and scattered metal through-out the accessory case.
Click to expand...
The gears they sold were optional, and yes, they are not very good.

I don't know about 50 hours. I ran both of mine for 250 hours and there was some evidence of wear. Nothing like our EICommander customer's though. The difference may be the engine 135 vs. 200 hp, I really don't know.

I do hope anyone running the E-mag gear has inspected them and/or pulled them off and/or replaced them with a PMA'ed gear.

elippse said:
As you may also be aware, any trigger system which relies on a gear train, and especially cam-operated points, will not have as accurate a cylinder-to-cylinder timing as will a crank-triggered system, and this also goes for the LSE magneto plug-in as well as any other mag or EI that operates from a gear train. Hopefully all of these ignitions have reached a point of maturity where they are past the early type of failures which the design engineers could not foresee.
Click to expand...
You are correct, the gear lash is an issue but it is there for traditional mags as well. We have found that the gear lash will account for as much as 2 degree in timing difference. Truth is, mags are very sloppy so even 2 degrees is good. (With the EICommander, the lowest timing difference we report is 2.0 degrees. Some/most engines are below that but we found 2.0 is a good number. Above that we display a yellow caution, and a red warning at 6.0 or greater divergence. Our customer saw 4.8 degrees of divergence.

Walt said:
Or another option is you can install a BUG (back up generator) like I did.

The benefit of this system is it not only supplies a back up source of power for the LSE, but it can basically run everything I need indefinately. If my primary alt quits, I can keep going and stop where and when I want, or not stop at all :D
Click to expand...
Walt, while I'm sure you did an outstanding job installing the backup generator (Or was it an alternator, there is a big difference in how they operate.) the problem is that you added a good bit more complexity to an already complex ignition system.

While I like the LSE setup, the complexity is what knocks it out of contention for me. Since E-mag resolved their problems with the software and magnet retention, you rarely hear about problems any more. However, we continue to hear about problems with the LSE setup. Before you jump on that, I would be curious if that is a result of the age and quantity of the units in service...

For simplicity of installation and operation, the P-mag is the way to go. IMHO.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by elippse
As you may be aware, the P/E-mags have gone through at least 27 software updates, which doesn't say a lot for the original product testing

I'm not going to argue the point other than to ask, did the LSE setup had the same problems when it first came out?

The LSE never had a software problem since it is totally a digital- analog system implemented in hardware. There is no micro-processor and memory system. The reason for this is that when a micro-processor / software-based system was first proposed the only way that would have been acceptable is if it was triply-redundant with majority voting on the outputs to make sure that a bit change in the memory, from a high energy particle, wouldn't disable the system. Plus the enormous task of validating software using Monte-Carlo runs and the documentation involved, along with not allowing any outside routines to be used with all software being only that written on site.
I'm not saying that any of the ignitions systems extant are perfect and failure proof, only that all of them have gone through some sort of early failure modes and will continue to have failures due to the extreme environment of heat, pressure, and vibration in which they operate, along with the less-knowledgeable people who actually do the installation who make a lot of mistakes that show up early or later on.
I hope you are not saying that there will never again be a failure in the E/PMag system.
 
mmhh... i think i sell my p-mag and replace it with slicks. but i'm still not sure...

Kay
 
elippse said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by elippse
As you may be aware, the P/E-mags have gone through at least 27 software updates, which doesn't say a lot for the original product testing

I'm not going to argue the point other than to ask, did the LSE setup had the same problems when it first came out?

The LSE never had a software problem since it is totally a digital- analog system implemented in hardware...
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of that but my question is still valid. Did the LSI have teething problems when they first came out? Software, micro-processor, etc. is irrelevant.

elippse said:
...I'm not saying that any of the ignitions systems extant are perfect and failure proof, only that all of them have gone through some sort of early failure modes and will continue to have failures due to the extreme environment of heat, pressure, and vibration in which they operate, along with the less-knowledgeable people who actually do the installation who make a lot of mistakes that show up early or later on.
Click to expand...
Brad at E-mag once said, "You don't have a proven product until you have 50 units installed by 50 amatures on 50 different aircraft." I couldn't agree more.

elippse said:
I hope you are not saying that there will never again be a failure in the E/PMag system.
Click to expand...
Oh H#$$ no! I have been in the software business long enough to know there is no such thing as error free code.

What I am saying is that they have passed the two year mark with no software or hardware changes. The product is proving itself in service. If anyone wants the full run down on the problems they have had, call E-mag at (817) 444-5310. Brad will be happy to walk you through the history of the product, the problems they have had, and what they did to correct them.

This is very different than another EI manufacture who recently sent a note to his customer (I have a copy) asking the customer to talk up his product even though his unit died and he received lousy customer service.

What I am saying is that people have a choice and each choice is a compromise.

Why am I so passionate about P-mags? To be honest, I think it is a good product. Yes, I was an early adopter and experienced a timing issue (software related) and almost toasted my engine. Yes, I sent them back for updates and upgrades but each time I felt like they were improving the product and listening to me, the customer. With over 250 trouble free hours on them prior to my prop strike I was very happy with them. After the prop strike I sent them back for an inspection. They disassembled, inspected, reassembled, bench tested, and sent them back. The total charge for all of that was the cost of shipping both ways. The freshly inspected P-mags are sitting on my new engine waiting to go flying again.

Oh, what did they find when they inspected them? Nothing, nadda, nothing. There was so little mass in them they didn?t expect to find any damage. As I write this, I wonder if the LSE would have survived that prop strike. I doubt it and that is simply because my crank shaft was so badly bent that the flywheel probably would have made contact with the circuit board. Not really and LSE issue but something I MIGHT have had to deal with. (and I hope no LSE or E-mag customer has to deal with the prop strike from **** that I had.)

Let's get to the bottom of this argument. You need to fly behind the ignition that you are comfortable with, no matter what that is.

Each of us has valid arguments as to why one EI is better than the other. It is kind of like arguing about which car has the best quality. Even the worst car built today has much better quality than the best car built 20 years ago.
 
KayS said:
mmhh... i think i sell my p-mag and replace it with slicks. but i'm still not sure...Kay
Click to expand...

I went with Slicks if it makes you feel any better.

Parts availablility was the primary decision maker.

For the most part, everything breaks, I just want to find someone who has parts and can fix the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top