Dual P-MAG Reliability in 2017

[DanH]

Mags fail too.

There, issue settled in just three words. Another public service

Come on guys, steer it back over there to the magenta line....

[ChiefPilot]

Originally Posted by DanH

Mags fail too.

[Captain Avgas]

This thread has seen some enthusiastic opinions expressed but to date it has been reasonably civilised and some interesting information has emerged. So let's keep it that way.

I think that one of the problems in assessing the reliability of experimental ignition systems is the tendency for non-disclosure of actual failures. This is certainly true of the manufacturers of the systems. Try to get some failure data from EMAG or LightSpeed and you will come up against a stonewall.

So we on VansAirforce are largely left with forming opinions on the reliability of Experimental electronic ignitions largely based on forum reports from disgruntled users.

The question that therefore needs to be asked is whether actual builders/pilots are prepared to make those disclosures on a public forum. My guess is that, in the main, they are not. And there is a logical reason for that. Does it make sense to bag Brad or Klaus's products in public when they are the only people that you can turn to to support your installation with maintenance and spare parts. I don't think so.

That leads me to believe that the reports of failures that we get are only a minor percentage of the real problems that arise with these systems. In other words the track record of these products is probably worse than you think.

And I don't think that this problem off non-disclosure applies to just experimental ignition systems. I think it probably applies in respect of all complex solid state experimental devices (e.g. EFISs) produced by essentially very small companies to whom the end user is totally dependent for ongoing support.

So I believe that there is a very large disincentive for users to complain publicly about their experimental ignitions when they have problems. On the lesser side it might damage relations with a party upon whom they rely. On the more serious side too much bad press might actually affect sales of the product leading to collapse of what is probably a very small and financially brittle company resulting in installed ignition systems being orphaned.

[vic syracuse]

Some of the emotion centers around the timing failures, as they can be very inconvenient at times when we are expecting a reliable airplane. As mentioned, the same failure phenomenon applies to many other things on the airplane besides the ignition systems. That's why it is good to have a different backup and not put all of the proverbial eggs in one basket.

Sure we have a single engine airplane when talking about the RV's, but there are ways to eliminate some of the risk---- mechanical and electric fuel pumps, one mag and one electronic ignition (NOT dual electronic ignitions), dual alternators, regular maintenance, etc.

For EFIS's, I'm one who believes that the backup should be of a different manufacturer and protected as best as possible from an aircraft electrical problem. No sense frying everything when the alternator fails with over voltage.

Most likely everything about our airplanes could fail at some time. The idea is to minimize the risk while taking advantage of increases in performance. Otherwise we would just stay at home and watch TV.

Pretty soon, the electronic ignitions are going to rank up there with the primer wars.

Vic

[Brantel]

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

This thread has seen some enthusiastic opinions expressed but to date it has been reasonably civilised and some interesting information has emerged. So let's keep it that way.

I think that one of the problems in assessing the reliability of experimental ignition systems is the tendency for non-disclosure of actual failures. This is certainly true of the manufacturers of the systems. Try to get some failure data from EMAG or LightSpeed and you will come up against a stonewall.

So we on VansAirforce are largely left with forming opinions on the reliability of Experimental electronic ignitions largely based on forum reports from disgruntled users.

The question that therefore needs to be asked is whether actual builders/pilots are prepared to make those disclosures on a public forum. My guess is that, in the main, they are not. And there is a logical reason for that. Does it make sense to bag Brad or Klaus's products in public when they are the only people that you can turn to to support your installation with maintenance and spare parts. I don't think so.

That leads me to believe that the reports of failures that we get are only a minor percentage of the real problems that arise with these systems. In other words the track record of these products is probably worse than you think.

And I don't think that this problem off non-disclosure applies to just experimental ignition systems. I think it probably applies in respect of all complex solid state experimental devices (e.g. EFISs) produced by essentially very small companies to whom the end user is totally dependent for ongoing support.

So I believe that there is a very large disincentive for users to complain publicly about their experimental ignitions when they have problems. On the lesser side it might damage relations with a party upon whom they rely. On the more serious side too much bad press might actually affect sales of the product leading to collapse of what is probably a very small and financially brittle company resulting in installed ignition systems being orphaned.

My impression is that you are more likely to see a public complaint from someone that has an issue than a positive post by someone who has not. Many complain online before even contacting the manufacturer for assistance. The flip side seems to be that many that have no issues are likely never heard from unless provoked. The history here is full of examples of this behavior. You also have to wade thru all the self inflicted issues that are not product issues/failures and anyone that is in the business of selling to the masses will tell you, this is typically their #1 support issue.

[rv6ejguy]

Well, I'll break the mold here and publish our stats if you care to believe them. I published this (with some new additions) on another aircraft forum a while back. Note, most of our systems for aircraft, outside of military usage, are integrated fuel and ignition systems so more complex than ignition-only products. I've presented the whole history here to the best of our records and my recollections. If you're a direct SDS customer, feel free to ad any comments, negative or positive.

The stats on our electronics, compiled over the last 20+ years (reported to us or observed personally, attributed to actual electronic component failure):

550,000 + flight hours on over 1850 systems
High time ECU- 145,000 hours (bench test one)
High time fliers of our systems- 1500 hours (Rover V8), 1700 hrs (Lycoming O-360 and Subaru), 2 at 2000+ hours (Rotax 912 and Jabiru used for flight training)
High time automotive system (EM-1, circa 1994 used in 5 different cars- estimated 12,000+ hours).
ECU failures on aircraft- zero
Crank sensor failures- zero
EJ25 coil pack failures- zero
Fuel pump failures- zero (2 failed when improperly mounted)
Wiring harness failures- zero
Injector failures- 2 unconfirmed (claimed but never sent back for our inspection)
Temp sensor failures- 2 in aircraft (non-critical system failure and new fix applied 5 years ago)
MAP sensor failures- 5 in aircraft (non-critical failure, cause on 4 found to be improper mounting with vacuum port facing up- moisture ingress and these sensors were 3rd party supplied as well)
TPS failures- 2 in aircraft (1 over 20 years old, moisture ingress. Sealed design used for last 10 years)

Incidents/ Accidents

We've heard of 1 forced landing which was the result of poor wiring by the installer with an injector wire pinched to ground. Same customer, some time before had intermittent engine running, traced to a very scary wiring connection to injector power.

One V6 where the user installed an aluminum exhaust system which collapsed under the heat load and melted through the Hall sensor cable. Forced landed in a tomato field. Afterwards, we supplied with fire sleeve over the cables and now have Tefzel cables.

One plane limped around the pattern after takeoff on 3 of 4 cylinders with an apparently dead injector (low EGT and CHT indication). Landed safely. Injector was checked extensively, worked fine in testing. ECU changed out and old one sent back. No fault found in old one and it has been running perfectly in our shop car for nearly 4 months now. We suspect a wiring issue in the aircraft as no fault was found with the ECU or other components. I should mention that this aircraft has a brand X ignition system on it, not ours. This one remains a mystery.

One fatal accident locally here where I helped the TSB find that the installer had mis-wired circuits to the wrong breaker value. Breaker tripped at about 300 feet AGL, pilot tried to land back on a crossing runway, stall/spin.

We've had reports of three, 3rd party ignition drivers attached to our systems which failed from poor/cold solder joints, fortunately all on the ground. Lesson: don't attach 3rd party devices to SDS. We sent new parts to people so they could remove the defective 3rd party components and continue flying safely.

At least a dozen reports of rough running/engine shutdowns in flight. Most of these eventually linked to wrong plug wires or non- resistor plugs used or wired contrary to our recommendations. Bad grounds are the #1 cause of odd running issues. Some ECUs have been found wet inside or had flood damage at some point. Third party parts added to our electronics in several cases. All aircraft down safely although probably some soiled underwear in a couple cases.

Several ECUs sent back by customers saying they didn't work. Bench tested, installed on test engine here. Worked fine, sent back, customers later found issues with their wiring or installation.

Of course, we've had a number of people screw up wiring on installation and fry things, usually when they cut into the harness and make their own connections. Others have programmed things inappropriately, mounted magnets wrong, fuel pumps with reverse polarity, forgot power and ground connections etc.

We've had some vexing, weird issues on occasion but have eventually solved almost all of them for our customers. Almost always wiring installations.

I can think of two software screwups on release of EM-5 6 cylinder systems. Discovered prior to any engines being run in one case and a rough running issue which was not a safety concern, new boards shipped to our commercial customer. New hardware/ software sent out to 4 affected customers immediately at our expense in the second case.

We supplied some components to a vendor about 10 years ago which, through insufficient testing and rushing to meet a deadline, were causing hot running coils COP. Lesson learned, test, test, test and the design is only ready when it's ready.

Zero CPI failures in aircraft or automotive usage to date.

The bottom line, based on all this experience, is that you're unlikely to suffer a critical electronic failure with our products in your flying career if not modified in some way and are properly installed and operated as we recommend.

Of course, not all EFI/EI brands have our record of reliability and some are really quite poor from reports we get from their ex-clients who are replacing other brands with our stuff.

We encourage everyone to report their problems so we can see if there is a pattern and develop a fix. I have no problem with people reporting their problems here. We won't cut off support to you.

If you've had an issue/ failure with SDS that we haven't resolved, contact me directly or post it here. We don't have anything to hide.

We're not perfect but we try to fix anything wrong and make it right. We build on evolutionary improvements which we try to test thoroughly before product release.

[Canadian_JOY]

Yeah... and that's why my next electronic ignition will be an SDS product. Gotta like a vendor who says it like it is.

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

...The stats on our electronics, compiled over the last 20+ years (reported to us or observed personally, attributed to actual electronic component failure):

550,000 + flight hours on over 1850 systems
High time ECU- 145,000 hours (bench test one)
High time fliers of our systems- 1500 hours (Rover V8), 1700 hrs (Lycoming O-360 and Subaru), 2 at 2000+ hours (Rotax 912 and Jabiru used for flight training)
High time automotive system (EM-1, circa 1994 used in 5 different cars- estimated 12,000+ hours).
ECU failures on aircraft- zero
Crank sensor failures- zero
EJ25 coil pack failures- zero
Fuel pump failures- zero (2 failed when improperly mounted)
Wiring harness failures- zero
Injector failures- 2 unconfirmed (claimed but never sent back for our inspection)
Temp sensor failures- 2 in aircraft (non-critical system failure and new fix applied 5 years ago)
MAP sensor failures- 5 in aircraft (non-critical failure, cause on 4 found to be improper mounting with vacuum port facing up- moisture ingress and these sensors were 3rd party supplied as well)
TPS failures- 2 in aircraft (1 over 20 years old, moisture ingress. Sealed design used for last 10 years)...

An enviable track record, for sure.

Do these total fleet hours in service include the SDS units "re branded" and sold as their own?

[DanH]

Ross, where can I download a wiring diagram for the CPI?

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

An enviable track record, for sure.

Do these total fleet hours in service include the SDS units "re branded" and sold as their own?

Yes, this estimate includes re-branded ECUs which account for nearly 1/4 of the total number but not total number of flight hours since they've only been using our ECUs for about 5 years.

Of course some of these numbers like total flight time are educated estimates. We have hundreds of customers with many hundreds of hours each. The military UAV flight hours are obviously not discussed with us directly but we've heard from someone acquainted with one project saying that a couple of airframes flew over 3000 hours each and we don't know if the ECU was transferred to another engine or the airframe/ engine was lost in use at that point.

I should add that the architecture and software is very similar between the aircraft and automotive side so we get feedback/ experience from the vastly larger automotive side where we have many millions of hours of operating hours on our products.