What's new
Van's Air Force

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

P-Mag, Electro-Air, or EFII

RV8Squaz

Well Known Member
I know Dan H is a big fan of the EFII. Anyone have any opinions about the system listed above? Pros and cons of each aside from price?

Thank you so much!
 
I built my own, but have researched all of them. The only one i would buy would be the SDS unit.
 
Depends if you want a plug and play, hope for the best system, or one you can tweak to your exact mission profile.
 
I installed the full dual EFII, love it, so smooth and easy starts hot or cold. Not flying yet.......just in the driveway :D
 
Depends if you want a plug and play, hope for the best system, or one you can tweak to your exact mission profile.

lr172: Which one is the SDS unit and why is that the only one you would use?

Toolbuilder: My mission profile is to get my airplane back and running ASAP.

I'm supposed to leave for Oshkosh on Wednesday and I just discovered a failure with my LSE Plasma III exactly as Scott Card described in another thread. I've had high CHT's recently and finally got around to putting a timing light on it and it is locked in at 43 deg BTC with the manifold pressure line connected or not, no change. Fortunately, I have Aircraft Spruce in my backyard and have access to a lot of resources. I thought about just putting a mag on, but I have a 200hp IO-360A1A. The magneto that is called for is the Slick 4345 which is a retard breaker mag and requires the Slick Start box. I could put in a 4372, but it would require a spacer and removing and replacing studs with longer ones. I have a non-impulse 4370 mounted on the right side.

This is not my first incident with the Plasma and like Carl, I'm ready to pull it out and replace it with something else.

Thanks for your help guys!
 
Last edited:
I have the EFII ignition system. Sold my mags and haven't looked back. Love it! It's a bit cheaper than the SDS I believe even though it's uses a lot of their components.
 
Like you I have had issues with my Lightspeed Plasma III.

I weighed the options.

Take it out and use an entirely different system would require some re-work of the wiring and bracketry.

In my case it was easier to pay around $0.30 on the dollar for 3 lightspeed Plasma III boxes from a guy here on VAF so that I will likely never have to deal with Claus again.

The purchase included 1 unused unit and 2 that were slightly used along with pick-up sensors, coils, wires, plugs etc.

If I were building another airplane today. It would probably have a SDS system.
 
I know Dan H is a big fan of the EFII. Anyone have any opinions about the system listed above? Pros and cons of each aside from price?

Technically speaking, I am. Remember, there are two SDS ignitions currently available, an older design via EFII (or direct from SDS, like 20 years now) and the newer CPI ignition only unit direct from SDS. I think both brain boxes are good units. I personally would choose the CPI, as it allows full user choice of the ignition map, and can be mapped to eliminate the failure mode you've suffered with your Lightspeed.

I've never knocked the quality of the hardware from the EFII channel, only some of the sales claims. Lots of folks are still looking for their "10% more power".

Some recent evidence suggests the Electroair may be roughly 5 degrees too advanced at low manifold pressure, and it's not user adjustable. The Lightspeed map seems to be spot on, but, well, you know the rest.
 
I'd invite anyone contemplating an EI to compare prices and features with the CPI. The fully optioned 4 cylinder kit is $1170US, the 6 cylinder is $1325US. Add $68 for 4 cylinder, long reach angle valve engines and $102 for 6 cylinder long reach AV engines due to the different spark plugs and adapters required.
 
I have the EFII ignition system. Sold my mags and haven't looked back. Love it! It's a bit cheaper than the SDS I believe even though it's uses a lot of their components.

I havent looked lately, but less than a year ago, Robert's EFII ignition was significantly more expensive than Ross' CPI.
 
I know Dan H is a big fan of the EFII. Anyone have any opinions about the system listed above? Pros and cons of each aside from price?

Thank you so much!

Dual pMags as first choice, the other two second choice, mags last, Lightspeed never.

I have a lot of years flying behind dual pMags. They have performed flawlessness. I don't have issue on Electro Air or EFII performance, just overall approach:
- pMag's internal power source makes install easy and reliable.
- With some experience on the Lightspeed crank sensor, I consider the sensor and associated wiring a weak design element. I suspect there are better examples but I'd still stumble on this.
- The multiple competent aspect of options other than pMag requires wiring and coils that, again with my Lightspeed experience, had a high failure rate. I assume other brands may perform better, I don't know.

On the EFII aspect, looking at the data I see no engine efficiency gain of adding engine computer control as compared to a traditional balanced fuel injected engine with pMags. While the single lever control is a selling point for many, for me it is not. Combine this with the all the install stuff and the hefty price tag and my choice is pMag.

So - Brad at pMag is teasing me that I'll soon have my dual six cylinder pMags for the RV-10. I look forward to the day I don't have to fly behind these crappy mags.

Carl
 
EFII is the Best

As far as electronic ignition systems are concerned, I think the best one is, by far, EFII. After studying all the current options, EFII is what I and many others have purchased. EFII has the most aviation installs of a modern, inductive ignition and has the best reputation for quality, performance, and customer service. If you want to upgrade to EFII?s FADEC system later (including electronic fuel injection with single-lever operation), EFII gives you full credit for the EFII electronic ignition you already have.

http://www.flyefii.com/products/efii-systems/ignition-comparison/

Please check your PMs.
 
Thanks to all that have responded! You guys are terrific.

I've decided for now to go to Oshkosh via alternate means and take a hard look at the various ignition systems. I've received a lot of good information and it seems that all systems have had trouble at one time or another and there are are an equal number that sing the various systems' praises. So I've got my work cut out for me!

Thank you!
 
Jerry
As i sit here in HBC under the shade of the airplane, through the magic of the RV community, I'm just now seeing this. I'm sorry for your issues, but best to find it rather than ignore. I'm happy that maybe my discussion encouraged you to go look.
 
2 cents

Jerry,
I am with Carl on the PMag except I only recommend one. My RV-6 had one PMag which gave better performance over the standard mags but when I added the second PMag, I couldn't tell as much difference. On my RV-9 build now. I am running one PMag and one slick. I really like the design and functionality that Ross had put in on the new SDS system and the price point is good. I still may pull the slick mag and go with the SDS for my second ignition system but I will keep one PMag. If you have to install a standard mag to get going and you need a spacer, PM me. I'm not too far away from Senoia.
Good luck!
 
Check out the new electronic ignition at sure fly. I just put one on my r 10 and it works great. These are from the same people who gave us skytec and planepower.
 
As far as electronic ignition systems are concerned, I think the best one is, by far, EFII. After studying all the current options, EFII is what I and many others have purchased. EFII has the most aviation installs of a modern, inductive ignition and has the best reputation for quality, performance, and customer service. If you want to upgrade to EFII?s FADEC system later (including electronic fuel injection with single-lever operation), EFII gives you full credit for the EFII electronic ignition you already have.

http://www.flyefii.com/products/efii-systems/ignition-comparison/

Please check your PMs.

Not true. Jeff Rose / ElectroAir has far more EI's sold than any of the others. They have been around far longer. Notice how EFII did not compare against ElectroAir. I have found ElectroAir to be the most reliable and best performance with all the EI's I've worked with. I have not tried the CPI units yet. With any EI it's easiest to use the mag timing unit and not the flywheel magnet setup. With the mag unit you can adjust the base timing a few degrees either way if you prefer.

Spend some time searching the threads on EI's, tons of opinions and info on this site.
 
Jerry,
I am with Carl on the PMag except I only recommend one. My RV-6 had one PMag which gave better performance over the standard mags but when I added the second PMag, I couldn't tell as much difference.

This is as expected on one pMag and one mag. For me, having all the pain in the butt stuff that goes with a mag and grossly overpriced aircraft spark plugs makes dual pMags a no brainer.

Carl
 
Not true. Jeff Rose / ElectroAir has far more EI's sold than any of the others. They have been around far longer. Notice how EFII did not compare against ElectroAir. I have found ElectroAir to be the most reliable and best performance with all the EI's I've worked with. I have not tried the CPI units yet. With any EI it's easiest to use the mag timing unit and not the flywheel magnet setup. With the mag unit you can adjust the base timing a few degrees either way if you prefer.

Spend some time searching the threads on EI's, tons of opinions and info on this site.

I'd actually guess that Klaus has sold more aircraft EIs than anyone else since he's been doing it since the mid '80s I believe.

Electroair says they've sold 2500 since 1992. Earlier units were repackaged Electromotive automotive units.

We've sold over triple that number for aviation and automotive use combined since 1996 (same basic hardware and software and millions of hours), so we're not a newcomer to the EI field.

It's hard to compare reliability as there is no way to compile reliable stats from so many places. How many units sold does not tell us how many are still in circulation nor how many total hours may be on a product.

I will say that we in the industry often get to hear beefs and bouquets about competitor's products as well as our own as fed up clients search elsewhere. Certain brands are renown for board or wiring or sensor issues, others you hear few bad things about. People tend to post bad experiences more than good ones.

I can only say, use logic here. If some brand has been around 20+ years and you can find hardly any negative posts or posts about failures, chances are, it's pretty good. Brands that have been in the game only a short time but have collected a lot of beefs might not have the best design, QC or service. A brand which has only been sold for a few years and in small quantities may not have much feedback you can find on the 'net- good or bad.

Some brands may have started off with lots of problems but may have most of those addressed now.

My advice is to do your own research. Look at the track record, complaints and kudos for each brand you are considering. Weigh these against pricing, performance, features and customer response. Talk to people who are using the product. What are their experiences? These are often more valuable than what's up on a manufacturer's website.

With more choices than ever on the market, buyers are lucky except the choice of which one to buy now has also become harder.
 
Last edited:
Electroair and Our Hot Air

FasGlas,

Electroair has more installs than EFII, because it has been out much longer and is an older design. The Electroair performs similarly to the Lightspeed Plasma III CDI in that it has a similar spark duration equivalent to 20 degrees of crankshaft rotation. (See Electroair FAQ #2.) The EFII system delivers full coil output over 36 degrees and has the most installs of a modern, inductive ignition. BTW, EFII did try to find an Electroair to test, but could not find a volunteer.

Also, SDS/CPI is quite vocal, but cannot come close to matching the number of EFII?s installs, satisfied customers, and successful flight experience.

On the other hand, I do agree with Ross (SDS/CPI) that it?s best for an individual to do their own analysis and make their own decision based on their own needs and missions. Those of us here on VAF are naturally biased by our own research, knowledge, experience, and decisions. Since there are a number of choices out there, anyone asking about electronic ignitions is going to get a mix of facts, opinions, and mine is the best! It?s hard to get an objective view, because everyone is so subjective! Peace to All!

It should be noted that EFII is the only ignition provider with a complete solution including a ?Bus Manager? product designed to support redundant electrical sources and keep the power flowing to the essential bus including the ignitions. In other words, an EFII-equipped engine is, in a way, self-powered via more power sources than a P-Mag-equipped engine and does not have the P-Mag?s low rpm limitations. Also, EFII has a FADEC upgrade option including full credit for an existing EFII electronic ignition system. EFII has carefully thought about the whole ?electric engine? concept; not just part of it!

As an aside:

http://www.flyefii.com/customer-projects/grove-super-legacy/
 
EFii uses the SDS computer

FasGlas,

Electroair has more installs than EFII, because it has been out much longer and is an older design. The Electroair performs similarly to the Lightspeed Plasma III CDI in that it has a similar spark duration equivalent to 20 degrees of crankshaft rotation. (See Electroair FAQ #2.) The EFII system delivers full coil output over 36 degrees and has the most installs of a modern, inductive ignition. BTW, EFII did try to find an Electroair to test, but could not find a volunteer.

Also, SDS/CPI is quite vocal, but cannot come close to matching the number of EFII?s installs, satisfied customers, and successful flight experience.

On the other hand, I do agree with Ross (SDS/CPI) that it?s best for an individual to do their own analysis and make their own decision based on their own needs and missions. Those of us here on VAF are naturally biased by our own research, knowledge, experience, and decisions. Since there are a number of choices out there, anyone asking about electronic ignitions is going to get a mix of facts, opinions, and mine is the best! It?s hard to get an objective view, because everyone is so subjective! Peace to All!

It should be noted that EFII is the only ignition provider with a complete solution including a ?Bus Manager? product designed to support redundant electrical sources and keep the power flowing to the essential bus including the ignitions. In other words, an EFII-equipped engine is, in a way, self-powered via more power sources than a P-Mag-equipped engine and does not have the P-Mag?s low rpm limitations. Also, EFII has a FADEC upgrade option including full credit for an existing EFII electronic ignition system. EFII has carefully thought about the whole ?electric engine? concept; not just part of it!

As an aside:

http://www.flyefii.com/customer-projects/grove-super-legacy/

It would be fair to mention that the computer for EFii was developed and is supplied by SDS. Also, it seems quite logical to assume the software inside the CPi uses the knowledge gained by developing the SDS computer. It may even be a copy of the ignition side of the SDS computer? Perhaps Ross could verify that?
 
ElectroAir is not a CD ignition, it is an inductive ignition. It has been in aviation use far longer than EFII. I have known many pilots that have and still use their ElectroAir without one failure. I had used an ElectroAir for nearly 10 years without one failure. I now use 2 pmags and I can tell you that the 2 pmags have far less performance than 1 ElectroAir. It was originally an automotive ignition that Jeff Rose modified for aviation, than later added the MAP sensor. Jeff was bought out more than a dozen years ago and the same basic system is still being built. I have not seen a failure in any, new or old, ElectroAir systems. Any EI can be connected to a dual buss. I don't know why EFII couldn't find an ElectroAir to compare to, there are thousands of them. Heck, I have 2 complete systems in my hangar. I have nothing bad to say about EFII, I haven't tried one. I have a friend that deals and installs them and he likes them. Pmags suck. Klaus has the worst service in the biz and they fail. But ElectroAir is one of the best systems money can buy. That's fact. The only certified as well.
 
Last edited:
Three things

I know Dan H is a big fan of the EFII. Anyone have any opinions about the system listed above? Pros and cons of each aside from price?

Thank you so much!

1. Whatever I have is better than a competitors system.
2. Caveat emptor
3. This forum has thousands of words written about electronic ignition's. Do yourself a favor and do the research.
 
It would be fair to mention that the computer for EFii was developed and is supplied by SDS. Also, it seems quite logical to assume the software inside the CPi uses the knowledge gained by developing the SDS computer. It may even be a copy of the ignition side of the SDS computer? Perhaps Ross could verify that?

Simple Digital System develops all of our own software and hardware in-house and has since 1994. EFII buys the same ECUs, programmers and Hall Effect pickups SDS sells for our aviation systems. The ECUs have the same software although SDS activates certain optional features which EFII does not use for their customers. SDS also offers a dual board programmer to access a dual ECUs with a single programmer.

EFII use the same Subaru coil packs as we do on our 4 cylinder systems. We use a different coil pack on our 6 cylinder systems.

SDS has used internal coil sub drivers for several years while EFII was using an external sub driver of their own design. I believe EFII is now using the SDS sub drivers on-board.

The CPI uses much of the same ignition software and microprocessor, power supply, filtering hardware etc. as the current generation EM-5 ECU and is also related to another SDS product line, the EIC/XIC which has been out over 15 years years now. All told, we are talking about over 10,000 production units sharing similar architecture with millions of hours of running time on them collectively. Few companies in this field can make that claim since they don't have the vast automotive background to go with the aviation one.

Yes, all of this is evolutionary and applies lessons learned. If I look back at the EM-1 from 1994, it seems pretty crude by the standards of today, although it did the basic job well enough. We still have people using these in aircraft and cars.

Our philosophy has always been to listen carefully to customer feedback to improve the product, which has been invaluable. We also never design marginally which is why there's no external cooling requirement on our ECUs or CPI.

We drive and fly our own hardware and when we discover something that's not as good as it could be, we improve it from that angle too. Our growing and learning pains are far in the past but we still believe testing the product to well beyond what it's likely to see in the real world is a necessity before releasing it for sale. Every EI manufacturer has learned some hard lesson like this at some point I think.

We came from the racing world and we raced our product at Reno in Sport Class too where we won the Gold Championship in 2010- at over 750hp and 3200 rpm/ 70+ inches MAP. The automotive racing world demands higher performance ignitions systems than most aviation projects due to the much higher rpms and cylinder pressures- up to 10,000 rpm and 150 inches MAP.

Finally, we believe great customer and tech support is paramount to building a good reputation, repeat sales and indeed, survival in this competitive and ever changing market. If we screw up, we'll make it right at our expense. If you need help, you can talk with the system designer if need be to get things working. You'll always get timely responses to your phone calls or emails- within the realities that we also have to have a life outside of the business of course.

We treat every order as a custom one since no two people or aircraft are alike. We'll tailor wiring and components supplied to your requirements and preferences.
 
Last edited:
Stop sugar-coating it and tell us what you really think.

Haha... OK, I want to see a hand count.... How many people love calling Klaus for service??? I believe I just read a post last week from a guy that removed his plasma ignition and tossed it just cuz he didn't want to call Klaus anymore.


I agree with APACHE 56. Do some homework and see what ignition suits your needs. They are all different: Cost, performance, installation and setup, failure rate, service. Don't believe everything you read or hear from manufactures, they are all trying to sell you something.
 
The Lightspeed map seems to be spot on, but, well, you know the rest.

Ah well I dont actually, I am in Australia and have got Plasma III's on my aircraft (almost finished), care to elaborate :confused:
 
Once again, a good question has degenerated into a thread full of three groups of people:
1. defending what they installed,
2. lauding the performance of what they sell,
3. the rest of us who are still on the fence, and are still left confused as all heck.

Do you have to prime the electronic ignitions before you install? Do they come in slider or tip-up versions? Same old arguments again and again and again. I wish there was a way to avoid this...
 
There are certainly some defensive customers in this thread, but there is also some hard data as well as some understandable and necessary correction of misinformation.

I understand how these threads can confuse some on the fence, but unfortunately when the questions asked are broad, so are the answers. This thread asks a fairly broad question about three very specific ignition suppliers, ignoring the others. Whether the omission of the others is on purpose or accidental is unknown to me, but does limit my answers since I only have direct experience with the P-mag. I can claim familiarity with the EFII product because I use Ross' SDS/CPI products and he in turn supplies the electronics for EFII, but Robert has his own thing going and I am not an "EFII customer".

The bottom line is that collectively we have hard data about all these ignitions and it is clear that the application philosophy is very different among manufacturers. For example, P-Mag is a simple to install, unitized ignition that (in my experience) delivers what it claims: simple installation and better performance than a magneto. It also has a fairly locked down curve that works for most, but is "optimal" for few. The P-Mag is "good enough" for many people and it's appeal is understandable. At the other end of the performance spectrum is the CPI and SDS ignition systems. Ross provides general guidance for a curve that is easy to setup and will be every bit as good as any ignition out there right out of the box, but the system also allows TOTAL user control for those who want to optimize the system to their engine/airframe/mission. It was just this flexibility that opened my eyes to the importance of getting the curve tuned to MY airplane.

For those on the fence, ask specific questions and the collective should be able to provide data beyond "opinion".

What is your mission? (full throttle, full rich acro or LOP, high altitude cross country, or everything in between?) Customer service? Ease of installation?, etc.

Many of us are here to help, but we need to know what is important to YOU! If we have to guess, then we start assigning our requirements to you, and you get one big mess of a thread with no data and all sales pitch.
 
Last edited:
There are certainly some defensive customers in this thread, but there is also some hard data as well as some understandable and necessary correction of misinformation.

I understand how these threads can confuse some on the fence, but unfortunately when the questions asked are broad, so are the answers. This thread asks a fairly broad question about three very specific ignition suppliers, ignoring the others. Whether the omission of the others is on purpose or accidental is unknown to me, but does limit my answers since I only have direct experience with the P-mag. I can claim familiarity with the EFII product because Ross supplies the electronics for that line, but Robert has his own thing going and I am not an "EFII customer".

The bottom line is that collectively we have hard data about all these ignitions and it is clear that the application philosophy is very different among manufacturers. For example, P-Mag is a simple to install, unitized ignition that (in my experience) delivers what it claims: simple installation and better performance than a magneto. It also has a fairly locked down curve that works for most, but is "optimal" for few. The P-Mag is "good enough" for many people and it's appeal is understandable. At the other end of the performance spectrum is the CPI and SDS ignition systems. Ross provides general guidance for a curve that is easy to setup and will be every bit as good as any ignition out there right out of the box, but the system also allows TOTAL user control for those who want to optimize the system to their engine/airframe/mission. It was just this flexibility that opened my eyes to the importance of getting the curve tuned to MY airplane.

For those on the fence, ask specific questions and the collective should be able to provide data beyond "opinion".

What is your mission? (full throttle, full rich acro or LOP, high altitude cross country, or everything in between?) Customer service? Ease of installation?, etc.

Many of us are here to help, but we need to know what is important to YOU! If we have to guess, then we start assigning our requirements to you, and you get one big mess of a thread with no data and all sales pitch.


I couldn't agree with you more on your post. Every installation is mission specific for the needs or the abilities of each pilot. Ignitions range from Plug N' Play to full mapping / programming capable. The truth is all ignitions (if working properly) will light your engine and fly you where you want to go. Again I stress, don't believe everything you read from manufactures, they are doing their best to sell product. They stretch the specs and downplay the negatives. Asking specific questions from actual pilots that have reasonable experience about products you're interested in will get you closer to info you're looking for. There is no one perfect ignition for every pilot. I think it's best to use what makes you feel safe and most comfortable to work with.
 
Acro?

What is your mission? (full throttle, full rich acro or LOP, high altitude cross country, or everything in between?) Customer service? Ease of installation?, etc.

Many of us are here to help, but we need to know what is important to YOU! If we have to guess, then we start assigning our requirements to you, and you get one big mess of a thread with no data and all sales pitch.

So for the full throttle, full rich acro, what would be the preferred setup and why? Not trying to start a war here just trying to learn from the voice of others. Thanks everyone!

John
 
Last edited:
So for the full throttle, full rich acro, what would be the preferred setup and why? Not trying to start a war here just trying to learn from the voice of others. Thanks everyone!

John

That?s a good question, and really goes to the heart of the EI performance selection criteria.

We?ve known all along that fat mixtures and low altitude make combustion relatively easy. Since the very first testing of EI?s it was shown that the increased spark output was not much of an advantage over a magneto when down low. The performance really starts to diverge with increasing altitude and lean mixtures. Evidence the high output (and huge) ?high altitude? Bendix 1200 series magnetos which were employed to help with the ?high and lean? flight conditions.

With that said, if your mission is fat mixtures and low altitude, then some of the demonstrated advantages of an EI are really not applicable. Several remain, such as weight, service interval, better starting and idle, etc. but purchase of an EI becomes less compelling. That?s not to say it is a poor investment ? only that some of the plusses just go away.

So that is the ?high spark output? element of EI. But there is another aspect to consider: Variable timing.

I have long theorized that the fixed timing shown on the Lycoming data plate is a compromise between takeoff power and high altitude cruise. My testing shows that you need some advance well beyond the data plate figure for the most efficient cruise, but you need less than the data plate number to make takeoff power. So if you add enough advance to run high and lean then you are going to run well into the detonation margin at takeoff. On the flip side, pull the timing out to satisfy the very modest advance requirement at takeoff and the engine will fall on its face in cruise. Ergo ? the data plate number is a compromise.

So to answer the question ? If my mission involves a lot of full rich, high power flying, I?m not going to be too excited about the ?spark output? of an EI because any magneto will light that fire. But I sure would like to be able to move the timing around to suit the actual needs of the engine at any given moment. And if I found that my engine makes just as much power at 22 degrees as it does at 25 for takeoff, you can bet that I?ll program my ignition to do just that. Increasing my detonation margin with the press of a keypad is a fairly compelling ?plus? in my book.
 
..
In other words, an EFII-equipped engine is, in a way, self-powered via more power sources than a P-Mag-equipped engine and does not have the P-Mag?s low rpm limitations.

...

What would these "low RPM limitations" be? I've been working with P-mags for 10 years now and I'm not aware of any such limitations.
 
Power Source Low RPM Limitations

Bill Repucci said:
What would these "low RPM limitations" be?

From the E-Mag 114 Installation & Operating Guide, V27, Page ?22? of the guide:

? Emergency Power - The P-model?s internal alternator power output rises in proportion with engine rpm. Unlike previous versions, Series 114 ignitions will transition off of aircraft power (and onto internal power) as the internal power rises. Somewhere around 1200 to 1500 rpm P-model ignitions should be operating totally on internal power. At this point, internal power is the ignition?s primary power supply and the aircraft power is the backup. Transitions to and from the aircraft power supply are managed automatically by the ignition. There is no need for operator action of any kind. If you lose external power, your P-model ignition is capable of providing emergency power down to 900 rpm, and sometimes less.?

In other words, from a power source standpoint, the P-Mag as an ignition is completely dependent on aircraft power below approximately 900 engine rpm and is partially dependent on aircraft power until reaching an engine rpm of between 1200 and 1500rpm = ?low RPM limitations? from a power source perspective (aircraft external power versus P-Mag internal alternator power).
 
From the E-Mag 114 Installation & Operating Guide, V27, Page ?22? of the guide:

? Emergency Power - The P-model?s internal alternator power output rises in proportion with engine rpm. Unlike previous versions, Series 114 ignitions will transition off of aircraft power (and onto internal power) as the internal power rises. Somewhere around 1200 to 1500 rpm P-model ignitions should be operating totally on internal power. At this point, internal power is the ignition?s primary power supply and the aircraft power is the backup. Transitions to and from the aircraft power supply are managed automatically by the ignition. There is no need for operator action of any kind. If you lose external power, your P-model ignition is capable of providing emergency power down to 900 rpm, and sometimes less.?

Yep - that is what is says. From operational experience however the pMags self power all the way down to idle in my RV-8A. In practical terms, few people who have suffered a full electrical system failure will be flying around at 1000 rpm so the issue is mute.

Like "spark energy", self power is a design element to achieve a balance in reliability and system operation. If you want you can install backup batteries and associated wiring to provide the functionally of the pMag, you can also find fire breather ignitions that have higher spark energy. As you go down such sub-optimization curves you end up adding complexity, weight, typically reduce reliability, increase cost and you end up with an ignition that, in practical operational terms, does not performs any better.

Of note the new 200 series pMags will self power down below idle. These will first come out as six cylinder ignitions for the experimental market, then six cylinder for the certified market. The last step will be four cylinder for the certified market. Brad at pMag is teasing me that my long awaited six cylinder ignition for my RV-10 will soon be in my hands.

Bottom line - look at all options for your aircraft with an eye toward system performance and value. Then pick what you want and fly on.

Carl
 
I was worried about the "RPM limitations" of the P-mag at first as well, but in practice it has not been an issue for me. Once powered up, it has been my experience that they will stay alive down below 700 RPM or so. There are not many airplanes where this low RPM is going to occur in flight.
 
in practice it has not been an issue for me. Once powered up, it has been my experience that they will stay alive down below 700 RPM or so. There are not many airplanes where this low RPM is going to occur in flight.

This is my experience as well. I am very saticefied with my dual Pmags.

Bevan
 
I was worried about the "RPM limitations" of the P-mag at first as well, but in practice it has not been an issue for me. Once powered up, it has been my experience that they will stay alive down below 700 RPM or so. There are not many airplanes where this low RPM is going to occur in flight.

This is exactly what happens and can be tested during your preflight.

They have had a number of "saves" where the engine did not "die" until the engine RPM dropped below 7-800 RPM on rollout. On approach, your RPM will be around 1,000 RPM, regardless of the prop type.

Having the engine die on the runway, after landing isn't such a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
... If you want you can install backup batteries and associated wiring to provide the functionally of the pMag, you can also find fire breather ignitions that have higher spark energy. As you go down such sub-optimization curves you end up adding complexity, weight, typically reduce reliability, increase cost and you end up with an ignition that, in practical operational terms, does not performs any better...

I missed this before and I’m not 100% clear on what you are trying to say here, so forgive me if I took this wrong, however, and let me comment on 2 aspects.

I’ll readily admit that the unitized P-mag is light and easy to install, but I’m not convinced that a distributed system has a “reduced reliability” as a function of configuration. Any “owner executed” system has the potential to be poor, but I don’t think we can demonstrate an inherent reliability advantage of an all in one system if both are installed and maintained properly. Billions of hours of operation in automotive, marine and industrial applications prove the viability of a “distributed” ignition system.

Regarding performance, it has been my experience that the P-mag delivers on its promises, but it is a very limited adjustability “one size fits all” solution. After flying both systems, I am very confident that a head to head “practical operational” comparison (like the CAFE flight test series used to do) between an “optimized” P-Mag installation and a CPI would show a very clear real world advantage to the CPI.
 
Last edited:
...

Regarding performance, it has been my experience that the P-mag delivers on its promises, but it is a very limited adjustability “one size fits all” solution. After flying both systems, I am very confident that a head to head “practical operational” comparison (like the CAFE flight test series of a few years ago) between an “optimized” P-Mag installation and a CPI would show a very clear real world advantage to the CPI.

I agree 100% with Mike's comments, above, but...

It comes down to how much customization a builder wants to do and how much additional gain you might get when comparing one ignition to another. All are more efficient than mags but is one EI 10 or 20 HP or 1 GPH better than the other? I can't say.

You, the pilot, should install the ignition you are comfortable flying behind, not the one that is ruled "better" by some guys on an Internet forum.
 
Last edited:
You, the pilot, should install the ignition you are conformable flying behind, not the one that is ruled "better" by some guys on an Internet forum.

Absolutely agree with Bill on this.

I might add, install one you can actually get your hands on.

Five years after holding the "mythical" 6 cyl Pmag in my hand----well, a dummy copy at least---- I gave up and installed CPI.
 
If you're comparing prices of integrated system like the P-mag vs. CPI even with a $25 battery and toggle switch for backup power to it, the complete P-mag setup is a lot more money, especially if you add up the extras not included in the basic price and the external $600 monitoring/ programming device to have similar capabilities as the CPI.

From a technical standpoint, is the internal generator setup inside a P-mag actually more reliable than the primary alternator and battery on board the aircraft? The CPI only draws 1- 1.5 amps in cruise so once you shed load, you could fly for hours on primary battery power alone. If your alternator packs up mid way on a 3 hour leg, you are 1.5 hours away from landing which is 1.5 to 2 amp hours of battery draw. I think many people make too much of the self generating part of the P-mag.

Finally, as Mike said, distributed component ignition systems in this world outnumber integrated ones 10,000 to 1. We've been doing this twice as long as P-mag with hundreds of times the amount of operational time on ignition systems, in much more severe conditions. We just don't see a lot of failures due to wiring if good practices are used and we have the advantage of not worrying about blast tubes or heat. We also don't have the liability of mag gears and support bearings to inspect or fail.

P-mag is easiest of all of the systems here to install, few people would dispute that. When it comes to performance, cost and reliability I think you need to look at the hard numbers, track record and logic.
 
It would be very unlikely for a belt to take out an SDS hall sensor if the SDS parts are used and the installer takes advantage of their provisions to armor the wiring.

Not saying it cant happen, but this is another area where SDS has improved upon the limitations of other products.
 
Bill Repucci and seconded by Mike Starkey said:
You, the pilot, should install the ignition you are conformable flying behind, not the one that is ruled "better" by some guys on an Internet forum.

A final hope: If ?ruled,? then ruled through unbiased lab test data, actual performance parameters/numbers, successful installations, good flying, forward thinking, and great customer experiences overall; not just words and feature matrices; for all ignition options. An evaluation based on your own needs, mission, and comfort level is highly recommended. Call, email, research, examine various installations, and do whatever you need to do to feel comfortable with your ignition choice. Regardless of choice, I hope everyone experiences safe, confident flight and has great engine performance. Best Wishes to All; Signing Off.
 
Past ElectroAir Issues

For what it's worth, I had Dual ElectroAir systems back when Jeff Rose owned the company (1st RV-6A). The main modules never failed, but the Mag Slot sensor failed often. Jeff later redesigned that housing for a 1/2" sensor (instead of the 1/4" sensor) and I still had failures. I ALWAYS carried a spare sensor in the aircraft. The issue appeared to be quality control in the sensor manufacturing process.

I'm now running two PMAGs in my RV-7A......

ElectroAir is not a CD ignition, it is an inductive ignition. It has been in aviation use far longer than EFII. I have known many pilots that have and still use their ElectroAir without one failure. I had used an ElectroAir for nearly 10 years without one failure. I now use 2 pmags and I can tell you that the 2 pmags have far less performance than 1 ElectroAir. It was originally an automotive ignition that Jeff Rose modified for aviation, than later added the MAP sensor. Jeff was bought out more than a dozen years ago and the same basic system is still being built. I have not seen a failure in any, new or old, ElectroAir systems. Any EI can be connected to a dual buss. I don't know why EFII couldn't find an ElectroAir to compare to, there are thousands of them. Heck, I have 2 complete systems in my hangar. I have nothing bad to say about EFII, I haven't tried one. I have a friend that deals and installs them and he likes them. Pmags suck. Klaus has the worst service in the biz and they fail. But ElectroAir is one of the best systems money can buy. That's fact. The only certified as well.
 
Back
Top