What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Best EI setup for the money

Sig600

Well Known Member
I've been reading and talking to guys for a long time on this subject, and have gotten 50 different opinions. I understand the pro's/con's of the different variations (emag, pmag, lightspeed, slick, etc) but I can't come to any conclusion on how to setup the ignition based on the options or real data. Dual Pmags, one Pmag one slick, or one Pmag one Lightspeed are the three combos I've come down to...

Thoughts?
 
Electroair

Don't forget to look at the Electroair EI. It has been around for a few years and just recently STC'd for numerous aircraft. I had Lightspeed on my previous RV and prefer the Electroair. Easy installation, very smooth, performs great, and no maintenance.

The problem you are probably finding is real performance gains are difficult to measure because most people have different engine configurations and have no baseline to compare an EI to dual mags or another EI since they have been flying only with the EI since day one. On my RV4 I added the Electoair after flying on dual Slick mags. I gained about .5 gph in hard flying and 1 gph in leaned cruise. The engine runs so much smoother that I can easily run 25deg LOP without detonation and pick up another .25 gph savings over leaned ROP cruise flight while only giving up around 10kts of airspeed. Although not easy to measure it was pretty obvious I picked up some HP as well.
 
This is what I did. Not necessarily right :) Lightspeed on one side with a mag on the other.

Reasoning: Wanted to have the advantage of an electronic ignition system for timing advancement under various conditions. Wanted to have a magneto for it's decades of proven reliability.

Additionally, if I'm away from home base and the EI dies, chances are I'm not going to be able to get it fixed however, you can get a magneto fixed almost anywhere.

Hope this helps
 
Look at this.

This new ignition system was shown here last year, built by another experimenter:

http://www.g3ignition.com/

I lost electrical power earlier this year and worried about my Lightspeed dying on me but the battery stayed up long enough.

This G 3 system reverts back to a mag, should the electronics go TU. A good alternative, IMO.

Best,
 
I've been reading and talking to guys for a long time on this subject, and have gotten 50 different opinions. I understand the pro's/con's of the different variations (emag, pmag, lightspeed, slick, etc) but I can't come to any conclusion on how to setup the ignition based on the options or real data. Dual Pmags, one Pmag one slick, or one Pmag one Lightspeed are the three combos I've come down to...

Thoughts?

Go to this site
http://cafefoundation.org/v2/research_reports.php
and read the very long reports on this subject. Maybe it will help to arrive at a decision.

I concluded from the reports if you fly mostly below 10,000' mags work just fine. One CAFE comment indicated that up to 8500' mags may be better.

Anyway, I've been with EI (Jeff Rose Electroair) and liked it. But that was with the Cozy MKVI where most flying was up around 12,000'. Oh yea, the engine does start quicker but it also kicks back on the starter gear once in a while necessitating a fly wheel change due to a broken cog. That happens when voltage drops to a point where EI looses its brain. A wire wound starter will go a long way to prevent this from happening. A very reliable electric system is also a must to keep the thing happy and the engine running on EI. Don't believe the fuel burn hype, the Lycoming engines need fuel to produce HP. EI may be a tiny bit more efficient but it isn't what is claimed. For better or worse, EI also changes CHT and EGT temperatures from what you see with mags. Some believe EGT's are too hot causing early exhaust system failures. The jury is also out on what running at 30-36 degrees advance does to the valves, the Lycoming system was designed to run at 24-25 advance.

I'm on 2 Slicks for now and doing just fine. If one quits, I may go to one of the EI systems. They all work but I am partial to Electroair.
 
It is necessary to advance the timing when running less than maximum MAP, due to throttle retard or higher altitude, since the amount of A-F charge in the cylinder is lower and takes longer to burn. The optimum ignition timing is when the peak pressure occurs at about 15? ATDC, so to get this you must ignite at earlier and earlier degrees as the charge decreases. That is why an EI will give more power and lower fuel burn. If you have fixed timing the peak pressure will take place much beyond the optimum giving more fuel burning as the valves open and higher CHTs and EGTs. Which do you think will be harder on the exhaust valves?
 
It is necessary to advance the timing when running less than maximum MAP, due to throttle retard or higher altitude, since the amount of A-F charge in the cylinder is lower and takes longer to burn. The optimum ignition timing is when the peak pressure occurs at about 15? ATDC, so to get this you must ignite at earlier and earlier degrees as the charge decreases. That is why an EI will give more power and lower fuel burn. If you have fixed timing the peak pressure will take place much beyond the optimum giving more fuel burning as the valves open and higher CHTs and EGTs. Which do you think will be harder on the exhaust valves?

I totally agree with advancing a single spark system on the lower MAP. However, light the air/fuel mixture with multiple sparks, the same amount of btu?s produced will happen in a shorter window of time. Basically, light a piece of paper on one corner, x-amount of time to burn completely. Now light all 4 corners, a complete burn in a much shorter time period. With the same amount of btu?s produced. Another perfect example of flame propagation is when a (L/R) mag drop is performed. Its not because the ignition system is weak, just poor flame travel at peak cylinder pressure at that rpm and low MAP. These are some of the topics that I will be discussing @ AirVenture 2011. Hope to see ya there.

Thomas S.
AirVenture Presenter 07/26/11
http://www.eaaapps.org/presenterinfo.aspx?id=1470
 
Oh yea, the engine does start quicker but it also kicks back on the starter gear once in a while necessitating a fly wheel change due to a broken cog. That happens when voltage drops to a point where EI looses its brain.

Perhaps a thread drift here on David's experience above. When I installed my system I elected to go with the key switch option instead of the standard toggle switch on/off option. My right mag was replaced with the Electroair since my left has the impulse coupling. When I would do a mag check on the right (now the EI) then back to on I'd get a huge kick back as the system powered itself back on and going through left where the mag was being grounded out momentarily. I switched the leads on the key switch between L & R and have not had an issue since. The brain box takes about 1 second to power up so switching it on with no power on the mag caused the problem.

The Cafe Foundation articles David mentioned are very good but dated. Definitely worth the read. Also check out each of the EI's sites where they have a good amount of information on how their systems work.
 
I totally agree with advancing a single spark system on the lower MAP. However, light the air/fuel mixture with multiple sparks, the same amount of btu’s produced will happen in a shorter window of time. Basically, light a piece of paper on one corner, x-amount of time to burn completely. Now light all 4 corners, a complete burn in a much shorter time period. With the same amount of btu’s produced. Another perfect example of flame propagation is when a (L/R) mag drop is performed. Its not because the ignition system is weak, just poor flame travel at peak cylinder pressure at that rpm and low MAP. These are some of the topics that I will be discussing @ AirVenture 2011. Hope to see ya there.

Thomas S.
AirVenture Presenter 07/26/11
http://www.eaaapps.org/presenterinfo.aspx?id=1470

This is a good theory except that spark plugs are fixed in the combustion chambers so kernel initiation points are also fixed. You can't light 4 corners so to speak from one or two points and on mutiple spark systems, any sparks after the initial ones are late as well.

Not to pick on anyone here but the merits of CDI vs. inductive discharge vs. multispark CDI as applied to conventional, slow turning atmo aircraft engines is pretty much a moot point. These engines have relatively low spark energy needs due to the low cylinder pressure they operate at. All the systems out there will work about the same from that viewpoint, the timing curves are far more important.
 
This is a good theory except that spark plugs are fixed in the combustion chambers so kernel initiation points are also fixed. You can't light 4 corners so to speak from one or two points and on mutiple spark systems, any sparks after the initial ones are late as well.

Not to pick on anyone here but the merits of CDI vs. inductive discharge vs. multispark CDI as applied to conventional, slow turning atmo aircraft engines is pretty much a moot point. These engines have relatively low spark energy needs due to the low cylinder pressure they operate at. All the systems out there will work about the same from that viewpoint, the timing curves are far more important.

Off topic a little bit,
A basic point about cylinder filling. When the air/fuel charge enters into the cylinder a swirl pattern takes place. On my SuperFlow bench I have a swirl meter that is located at the base of the cylinder and reads the RPM of the swirl vortex. The vortex RPM is direct proportional to intake valve lift. I have seen numbers upward of the 2500 RPM range. So where the multiple spark comes into play, the multiple spark is still exposed to un-burned air/fuel mixture, the analogy is that the paper is spinning at high rate exposing combustible material at different points to the fixed location of ignition. This is great stuff, I love it.
Thomas S.
 
Off topic a little bit,
A basic point about cylinder filling. When the air/fuel charge enters into the cylinder a swirl pattern takes place. On my SuperFlow bench I have a swirl meter that is located at the base of the cylinder and reads the RPM of the swirl vortex. The vortex RPM is direct proportional to intake valve lift. I have seen numbers upward of the 2500 RPM range. So where the multiple spark comes into play, the multiple spark is still exposed to un-burned air/fuel mixture, the analogy is that the paper is spinning at high rate exposing combustible material at different points to the fixed location of ignition. This is great stuff, I love it.
Thomas S.

Hard to draw conclusions from a flow bench especially a dry bench like the Superflow as it relates to charge stratification in an actual engine. The valves are closed when the spark happens in any case and several milliseconds pass from piston BDC to near TDC when the spark takes place. The piston movement has a large effect on turbulence and mixing. Some top engine builders use wet benches to better visualize mixture flow and always validate theory through dyno testing.

I've run flow benches for many years and dynos as well. Have yet to see a power improvement with multi spark systems on run of the mill engines. Using inductive discharge ignitions we only see issues with igniting very dense charges on highly boosted race engines operating at specific outputs well in excess of 200hp/L (a 1200hp 360 Lycoming for comparison).

It would be most interesting to take all the EIs on the market today and dyno them with identical timing curves on the same engine. My guess is that you'd see no more variation than experimental error though.
 
Ignition talk @ KOSH

On the field today & tomorrow surfing around. Any EI topics / question you would like to personally talk about, Best contact is my cell 303-906-6846 and will be over @ Russ?s Supercharged 7 off and on through out the day. Front row over in the RV parking

Thomas Shpakow
AirVenture Presenter 07/26/11
http://www.eaaapps.org/presenterinfo.aspx?id=1470
 
Off topic a little bit,
A basic point about cylinder filling. When the air/fuel charge enters into the cylinder a swirl pattern takes place. On my SuperFlow bench I have a swirl meter that is located at the base of the cylinder and reads the RPM of the swirl vortex. The vortex RPM is direct proportional to intake valve lift. I have seen numbers upward of the 2500 RPM range. So where the multiple spark comes into play, the multiple spark is still exposed to un-burned air/fuel mixture, the analogy is that the paper is spinning at high rate exposing combustible material at different points to the fixed location of ignition. This is great stuff, I love it.
Thomas S.

The 2500 rpm swirl bolsters Russ's point I think. At that rate, the swirl would turn 90 degrees during the whole expansion stroke. Ignition is a mere fraction of that stroke timing so the fresh mixture movement over the plugs would me minimal.
 
You guys make my brain hurt!

Went with one PMAG and one Slick mag. Look at maybe going all EI in the future if there's a good reason.
 
EI

I have always questioned the installation of standard mags (slick, Bendix) next to an EI for "safety" or "backup". Standard mags have a proven reliable life of 500 hrs. after that you are being a test pilot. Now it is a very solid 500 hrs vs an EI that runs a really really long time but we dont know when it might fail. So I would run two EI's with the odds of failure super low, and the odds of a double failure being almost never. Now I would recomend 2 Pmags, or an independant backup ignition power supply for other EI models requiring external power, so that I had 2 compleat stand-alone ignition systems. I have see enough single mag failures not to want them as my backup. My .02 Russ
 
EFII ignition

We have competitively priced ignitions in both single mag replacement and dual mag replacement versions. Our systems can also be upgraded to complete electronic engine management with electronic fuel injection. Our systems utilize a sturdy billet crank trigger that does not require engine case modification for installation and include Iridium spark plugs, spark plug adapters, plug wires, and a durable Tefzel wiring harness with weather sealed connectors.

Our systems feature a high energy inductive ignition much like what you will find on any modern car and are fully programmable.

More details can be viewed here:
http://www.flyefii.com/

If you have additional questions or are interested in a system, please email me directly at:
[email protected]

Robert Paisley
 
Robert, any plans to take care of us 6 cyl folks?

Your web site only shows systems for the 4 cyl engines.

Thanks,
 
EFII ignition for six cylinder

Hi Mike,
Yes we can do six cyl ignitions using three coil packs.
Next year we will have a version of the six cyl ignition that has two six outlet coil packs.
Robert
 
My 5 Swedish cents

For fuel effiency and power, mixing different ignition system can`t be a good thing unless they have exactly the same timing curve, runnin a Mag together with a EI system is working "good enough" below around 2400rpm, the EI system alone ignites the Air/fuel mixture way before the magneto, and after 2400rpm the mag starts to mess with the Air/Fuel Mixture before the EI wants to ignite it...

Redundancy is a good thing, but to be fair, how often do you have a ignition problem on a car with CDI? As long you have power to the systems at least one of them will work, lets say your generator quits... Your battery will provide power to the systems long enough to get you down safe...

On the SAAB 2000 Airliner i curretly working with, it is a Fly By Wire aircraft, it has got a back up system on the back up system and so on, but in case of total AC power loss, you have 40min on the batteries, thats it...

=) /Dennis
 
Anyone flying with a battery-powered ignition should resolve to get the airplane on the ground with a failure of the main power even though they have a back-up battery. The LSE should have a minimum 4AH back-up, and should the main power fail in a dual EI, the back-up battery should support one EI for at least 1/2 hour to 1 hour at 1.6A at 2700 rpm drain on a four cylinder or at least 1/2 hour in 2.4A/EI six cylinder. A 4AH battery's capacitance drops off at higher load, so it will not support 2 hours at 2A. The one remarkable thing about the LSE is it will keep giving full spark power down to 6V +/- 0.5V. Everything else in the electrical load will have long-ago died before the LSE. That's really great when starting with a weak barrery because if the battery has at least 8V when the switch is turned on, the LSE will still operate down to 6V! Always play it safe!
 
Elippse, isn't the PMag, with it's internal alternator, insurance against battery/electrical failure? I understood that the design was such that it created it's own power like a conventional mag...
 
Anyone flying with a battery-powered ignition should resolve to get the airplane on the ground with a failure of the main power even though they have a back-up battery. The LSE should have a minimum 4AH back-up, and should the main power fail in a dual EI, the back-up battery should support one EI for at least 1/2 hour to 1 hour at 1.6A at 2700 rpm drain on a four cylinder or at least 1/2 hour in 2.4A/EI six cylinder. A 4AH battery's capacitance drops off at higher load, so it will not support 2 hours at 2A. The one remarkable thing about the LSE is it will keep giving full spark power down to 6V +/- 0.5V. Everything else in the electrical load will have long-ago died before the LSE. That's really great when starting with a weak barrery because if the battery has at least 8V when the switch is turned on, the LSE will still operate down to 6V! Always play it safe!

My back-up EI battery is 5.0 AH. 3.5 lbs. 4"X3.5X2.75". It lost .20 volts sitting on my bench for 8 months. $18.00 each.

http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Power-Sonic/PS-1250F1/?qs=p0FfUnYFXn/SYb5HNrGVBw==

That gives me three sources of power for my Lightspeed IGN. without needing a built in power source (more parts).
 
EFII

What Lycoming models can the FlyEFII system be used with? Looking at O320's and O360's. It isn't clear if the system is designed to adapt a Lycoming with a fuel injection system already or a carburetor model...

I mean, if your relying on electricity for spark anyways then might as well go for electronic fuel injection also.
 
EFII applications

Hi James,
The EFII-1 kit can be used on any of the 320 or 360 Lyc engines.

Personally, I agree with you about switching to the complete electronic engine management. Once you have flown behind a Lyc with modern engine control, you'll never want to go back.

Robert Paisley
 
Fuel pumps for fuel injection versus carburetor

What Lycoming models can the FlyEFII system be used with? Looking at O320's and O360's. It isn't clear if the system is designed to adapt a Lycoming with a fuel injection system already or a carburetor model...

I mean, if your relying on electricity for spark anyways then might as well go for electronic fuel injection also.

FYI,
Carburetor engines require anywhere from 0.5 to 6 psi to be output from both the mechanical and the electric boost pumps. Any more pressure than that, will cause the carb to flood. The mechanical fuel injection used by Bendix [aka Precision] & Airflow Performance need 25 psi [10 to 40 psi is allowable] to operate.
I can not comment on whether FlyEFII has a variant of their fuel pump designed for the low pressure needs of a carb. Actually, only the fuel pressure relief valve would need to be different.
Using electronic fuel injection would GREATLY increase the number of amps that your aircraft would need to supply in an "alternator out" situation. This would require the use of an electrical design such as Bob Nuckholls suggests in his book AEROELECTRIC CONNECTION.

http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/pub/pub.html

See his Z13 wiring schematic. If you do not already own this book, I STRONGLY suggest you read it, so that you can understand the issues involved with electrically dependent engines. Electronic EFI will also add a control computer to the system. This adds another "single point of failure" to the system. Computer failure in autos is not common, but it does happen occasionally.
Perhaps Mr. Paisley can comment knowledgeably regarding the fuel pressure requirements of their EFI system. My 25 years experience with automotive port fuel injection is that they require fuel pressures in the 30 to 60 psi range.

Charlie
 
FYI,
Carburetor engines require anywhere from 0.5 to 6 psi to be output from both the mechanical and the electric boost pumps. Any more pressure than that, will cause the carb to flood. The mechanical fuel injection used by Bendix [aka Precision] & Airflow Performance need 25 psi [10 to 40 psi is allowable] to operate.
I can not comment on whether FlyEFII has a variant of their fuel pump designed for the low pressure needs of a carb. Actually, only the fuel pressure relief valve would need to be different.
Using electronic fuel injection would GREATLY increase the number of amps that your aircraft would need to supply in an "alternator out" situation. This would require the use of an electrical design such as Bob Nuckholls suggests in his book AEROELECTRIC CONNECTION.

http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/pub/pub.html

See his Z13 wiring schematic. If you do not already own this book, I STRONGLY suggest you read it, so that you can understand the issues involved with electrically dependent engines. Electronic EFI will also add a control computer to the system. This adds another "single point of failure" to the system. Computer failure in autos is not common, but it does happen occasionally.
Perhaps Mr. Paisley can comment knowledgeably regarding the fuel pressure requirements of their EFI system. My 25 years experience with automotive port fuel injection is that they require fuel pressures in the 30 to 60 psi range.

Charlie

My understanding of how these systems work is the computer controls the fuel/air ratio by varying the time the injector is open. The proper F/A ratio is then a function of injector time open AND fuel pressure. If fuel pressure varies, so does the F/A ratio. A reliable pressure regulator is essential.

Ross Farnham at

http://www.sdsefi.com/

probably knows as much about these systems as anyone on the planet. Before making a move in this direction be sure to check out what is going on with his company.

I believe the most sophisticated systems come from the auto manufactures. The original Subaru ECU that came with the 4 cylinder engines was excellent, its only short coming was lack of pilot control of the F/A ratio, which was somewhat conquered by Robert and Jan by adjusting fuel pressure. The pressure regulator that was adjusted by MP was a great idea and worked reasonably well. That regulator also had an adjustable needle valve to reset basic pressure. Mine was lowered from about 40 to 32 to get fuel flow down to a reasonable level. This adjustment has to be monitored with a F/A meter. The systems marketed by Robert and Ross I believe include such an instrument. It is essential if the pilot has the capability to set F/A ratio in flight.

There are a number of Lycoming engines operating in the field with ECU systems but I do not know of any personal reports on their success or problems. Such reports are essential before spending the kind of money we are looking at, not only for the system but for that lost getting rid of an existing system. (I suppose one could buy a Lycoming kit without a fuel system or mags and go from there, it would make sense financially.)

I've been down this road and spent a ton of money along the way. The results were mixed. Some of it was fun, some not. But I learned a lot and I guess that's worth something.

As you know, I am back to Lycoming and mags with the AFP injection system. The package works so well, I am a bit bored but that's not all bad. :)
 
Last edited:
I built a prototype dual-redundant EFI which uses timed injection, not a dribbler. It has been flying for at least four years. The injectors only need about 1-2A depending on MAP and rpm, but the 43 psi pump requires up to 7-10A, which is load dependent.
 
I built a prototype dual-redundant EFI which uses timed injection, not a dribbler. It has been flying for at least four years. The injectors only need about 1-2A depending on MAP and rpm, but the 43 psi pump requires up to 7-10A, which is load dependent.

What's a dribbler?:confused:
 
EFII fuel pressure

Hi Charlie,
We run the fuel pressure on the electronic fuel injection system at 35psi.
This is at the lower end of the spectrum of pressures you will find with EFI systems. We chose the lower pressure so as not to encourage leaks on the high pressure end of the fuel system.

As David mentions, the fuel pressure tracks manifold pressure with our system as it does in most cars. This presents a constant pressure across the injector valve as manifold pressure variations occur. This is a common scheme in EFI systems to make injector timing calculations easy for the ECU.
Robert
 
Injector electrical draw

I built a prototype dual-redundant EFI which uses timed injection, not a dribbler. It has been flying for at least four years. The injectors only need about 1-2A depending on MAP and rpm, but the 43 psi pump requires up to 7-10A, which is load dependent.

Paul,
Your quote of 1 to 2 amps for the injectors, is that each? or for all 4 combined?
Charlie
 
What's a dribbler?:confused:

That's a name I use to describe an EFI that constantly squirts fuel into the intake manifolds at a high rep rate but in varying periodicity, as opposed to a timed injection, as in mine, which always starts the injection at TDC, then shuts it off at a predetermined time based on intake charge density and mixture setting.
 
That's a name I use to describe an EFI that constantly squirts fuel into the intake manifolds at a high rep rate but in varying periodicity, as opposed to a timed injection, as in mine, which always starts the injection at TDC, then shuts it off at a predetermined time based on intake charge density and mixture setting.

I'm not clear if you are referring to TBI systems or port type systems here? You do know that many modern timed/ sequential OEM automotive port EFI systems start injecting on a closed valve?
 
I'm not clear if you are referring to TBI systems or port type systems here? You do know that many modern timed/ sequential OEM automotive port EFI systems start injecting on a closed valve?

Can't say as I do, Ross. I'm really not familiar with more recent automotive systems. The older ones I rread about just had a fixed frequency injection rate and controlled the opening time. The one I've designed has the injectors located in the intake manifold several inches downstream from the valve. When I start injection at TDC the valve is slightly open and the spray of fuel toward the valve will, I think, get the charge in the intake manifold flowing toward the valve to overcome the gas inertia which is still not seeing the pressure depression in the cylinder. Because the injectors are located on the bottom of the engine they don't heat soak so there has been no hot-start problems at all.
 
I've been reading and talking to guys for a long time on this subject, and have gotten 50 different opinions. I understand the pro's/con's of the different variations (emag, pmag, lightspeed, slick, etc) but I can't come to any conclusion on how to setup the ignition based on the options or real data. Dual Pmags, one Pmag one slick, or one Pmag one Lightspeed are the three combos I've come down to...

Thoughts?


No one answered you... and I will keep the status quo... It is 100% YOUR decision, pocket book, choice and preference. If as you say understand all the pro's/con's of the different variations, then you can decide, unless you want me or some one else to tell you. What do you want? Do you max performance, cost no object? dual LSIII's and a back up battery. Good enough easy to install, dual P-mags. Is money an issue? MAGNETOS! Spend less money and time wiring, especially if you already have mags that came with the engine.

WHY EVEN DO EI? Because it does lower fuel burn (more efficient) and increases power. There are not to many mods that lower fuel and increase speed! Drag reduction comes to mind as win-win mod. Carb to FI is a fuel saver but not much gain in HP. The gains of EI are not huge, so the cost of EI over mags will never really pay back... However ONE EI is the most bang for the buck. A second EI does help but marginally.

1) As much as some bad mouth mags, I never had issue with for many 1000's of hours in many planes, BUT if you buy a new engine with a set of slicks that is the easiest, cheapest way to go. They will work, be safe, reliable. The only time mags were terrible was when they got the bright idea to drive two mags from one drive, on odd ball Lycs engines. Bad idea to state the obvious. I recall looking at new Lyc clones and asked about leaving the mags off... they discount was small.... it would be better to keep them and sell them I think.


2) There are only three main electronic ignitions systems on the market PMAG (they don't make EMAGS any more I believe), Lightspeed and Electroair. The first two are most popular. None of them are cheap, and with the PMAG price increase they are $1,375 with with wire harness. The cheaper LS is the plasma II $1,120 complete, but its not going to have the umph of the top end Plasma III model with MSD (multi spark discharge). This over comes the one draw back of CDI (capacitive discharge) short duration. CDI is always HOT or HOTTEST, but MSD adds some fatness to it. So you are going to realize the full potential of the LS system by going with the LSIII which is $1,395, about the same as PMAG. The PMAG's "induction ignition" will drop in spark voltage at higher RPM, wherea CDI or MSD ignition will not drop. However at a 2500 RPM Lyc (even with the wasted spark) the PMAG should be OK. The LSII should still be better than PMAG in performance, but enough to make the difference? May be but depends on you. If you go LS consider the plasma III. Electroair is $1,275 in the middle At least one EI (any brand) is your best bang for the bucks assuming you have one good magneto. However dual EI is going to cost at least $2240 to $2790. The cheapest is the Plasma II at $1,120. The light speed prices are with crank trigger (which is improved). LS with magneto hall effect unit is almost a $200 option. So you can easily get two Plasma III's with hall effect up to $3000! That is a lot of cash. For grins, two brand new slick mags outright are about ($1600) and harness ($375), total two new mags and harness $1,975! So it's cheaper. However if you get a new engine from ECI or Superior, mag credit I recall is small. Keep them and sell them...

3) Zero, One or Two EI? Cafe did tests, compared two mags to one mag + one EI (early Jeff Rose Electroair) vs two EI. There was a noticeable improvement with one EI. The second EI was a slight but measurable gain. As was mentioned EI works better at lower power, because the MAP sensor will advanced the timing (on a very conservative schedule). Mags are 25 deg BTDC all the time which is worst case max power timing. Fixed mag timing works OK in an engine that runs operationally from ~2300-2700 rpm from 18" to 25" of map. It's a compromise and protects the engine from detonation. The EI can advance a lot more, but the EI does not do it until the map gets fairly low. The EI is STILL better at higher power power, with the retarded timing equal to the mag, simply because it's a hotter fatter spark. EI is always going to give a HOTTER spark, may be longer, be more efficient by burning more of the fuel in jug. There is no problem going with one mag, one EI. It may be easier and save adding a back up battery, diode, switches. Again one EI gets you 90% of the gain. (I pulled that number out the air for illustration).


Light speed is CD (capacitance discharge) ignition, as was mentioned, has lower battery drain, may be better if the alternator dies. The single spark is short duration but the multi spark version is longer, which cost a premium. The Lightspeed will give more performance with advanced (racing) features (advance degree display and control, rpm and map output*). The LS offers crank trigger firing option AND a hall effect unit for the mag hole, which cost more. (* I just noticed EMAG now offers a serial output if you want to play with the timing curve.)

The E-mag is a induction coil system (aka old but reliable automotive coil ignition, electronically triggered). It's all in one self powered unit... so there you go, may be the best choice for ease of installation. Plugs into the mag hole. I think they came out with a new generation, however they stopped making E-mags I recall (could be wrong). They are all P-mags now just because that is what people wanted. They still use that cheap looking barrier strip for electrical connections. I would like it if they put a pig tail with a mil spec/aerospace connector on it. All the spark wires go back to the PMAG like a magneto or car distributor. The LS has coil packs, which is kind of a pain.

Electroair is kind of like E-mag (induction coil) but with out the ease of installation, kind of like LS with seperate parts. It is a little less expensive than the EMAG. I am sure it is fine... If you want something in between the EMAG and Plasma III this might be it.

There has been reports of problems, whining or genuine Oh @#$% with every one of them... fortunate few and far between. For the PMAG and LS with mag hole driven hall option you need to have or buy mag gears. They are not cheap new from Lyc ... but PMAG I think now manufactures clones of those gears .. Just consider that adds some cost.

Aviation plugs or auto plugs? It seems the automotive plugs are fine and may be better for high voltage ignitions. The spring contact of the aviation plugs can arc.

Safety is the #1 factor, price, then form fit function. They all promise to be safe if installed properly. I don't think you need to go nuts on electrical redundancy, but with out a standard magneto or the p-mag in the mix, it would be wise to have a parallel electrical power source to ignition's.... figure that adds about 5 lbs.

The choice is yours. You know the numbers.... If you have working mags now go with that. You can add one PMAG later or what every EI you want... That will give you most bangs for bucks.... any thing else will be more complicated, more expensive, and the gains will be smaller than going from zero to one EI.
 
Last edited:
CRIPES AMIGHTY! gmcjetpilot is alive!

It has been so long since I have seen you post, I frankly thought you were killed, disabled or imprisoned. Glad to see your point of view back in the fray. Hope you are well. You haven't lost your touch!
 
My Electroair Experience

For what it's worth, I run an Electroair as the right mag and a Slick 4371 impulse mag on the left on a IO-360 parallel valve. The electroair is a 1995 vintage and still going strong after 600 hours. With the EI, I can lean to about 50 LOP and the engine runs smooth, it costs me about 8-10 knots in cruise but I save at least 1 GPH depending on altitude. The best fuel flow I've seen was cruising at 13,500 on a cold day, running 50 LOP, 160 KTAS, burning 6.8 GPH! I can routinely get 7.1-7.5 GPH at 50 LOP with the EI. Back when I had 2x Slick mags, I could not even get to 20 LOP without roughness and best fuel flow I could get was around 8 GPH.
 
One Hundred and One...

Now you've got 100 different opinions. :D

Steve,

I bought Jeff Roses 3rd system back in the early 90's and it's still running on my RV4 2000 hours later. Two other systems are running great on my HR2 and my RVX, I have had nothing but great success and support from the current owners. I have always used a 1 Mag/1 EI setup using automotive Autolite 386 or Denso L-14U plugs which are cheaper to replace than clean and thread right in the existing hole. 5HP noticeable gain and 1 GPH decrease in fuel burn, a win-win.

Great Product, highly recommended...

Latest press release from E.I.
http://www.electroair.net/press_releases.html

V/R
Smokey
Dues gladly paid in Iraq...
Gladly paid to DR anyway...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top