What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Ignition - Mag/Electronic/Both?

JDA_BTR

Well Known Member
Can we discuss ignition systems? My Arrow has 2 mags. A friend with an RV-10 has mag/electronic. What are the risks/benefits of 2 mags vs mag/electronic vs all-electronic? Does the engine care? I'll be putting in an IO-390.....
 
While it is "best" to have identical ignitions, having dissimilar ignitions will work just fine.

To discuss the advantages and disadvantages of mags vs. EI would take a few pages of writing and that is without getting into the differences between the various ignition options.

Basically the EI's allow the timing to advance when the MAP drops off. This allows your engine to ignite the fuel-air charge at closer to the optimum time before Top Dead Center (TDC), which will maximize the chemical energy converted to mechanical energy within the cylinder and not blown out the exhaust pipe. This will reduce your GPH burn on long cross country flights.

If you stay in the pattern and do an hours worth of TOL's, then your fuel burn with an EI will probably be identical to a mag because the EI will set the advance at or close to what your standard mag should be.

Check your PM's.
 
Im suprised there haven't been more replies to this thread.
On the same plane I have flown with:
1 Jeff Rose-ElectroAir/1 Slick
1 Pmag/1 Slick
2 Pmags
Now Im moving to 1 CPI system and my old friend Slick, who has never let me down. Feel free to read between the lines.

Unless you're a very good test pilot or have access to a Dyno, you will not be able to measure the difference with a second EI, at least I couldn't. And I'm talking about measured fuel burn and performance, not subjective "It feels smoother" or being impressed by the RPM delta when doing a mag test vs EI. (That's more about the timing advance delta between the two systems at idle than a hotter/longer spark).

IMO, the first EI is very much worthwhile, but for me the second ignition system has to be simple and reliable. A single well maintained magneto does that with no loss of performance or fuel economy, nor added weight from standby batteries or alternators.
Just one guys opinion
Tim Andres
 
IMO, the first EI is very much worthwhile, but for me the second ignition system has to be simple and reliable. A single well maintained magneto does that with no loss of performance or fuel economy, nor added weight from standby batteries or alternators.
Just one guys opinion
Tim Andres

The key element in this discussion, for me, is highlighted by Tim in his reply above. The words "well maintained magneto" are of significance. Particularly, the COST of maintaining that magneto. While our aircraft currently has one impulse-coupled Slick and one P-Mag, I am dreading the cost of keeping that Slick running. When it comes up to the 500 hour mark I may very well dump it in favour of another P-Mag or similar, simply to get away from the regular maintenance required with this highly mechanical device.

There's more to the decision-making equation than just engine performance. Economics and long-term reliability are also factors which need to be considered.
 
Im suprised there haven't been more replies to this thread.

Im moving to 1 CPI system and my old friend Slick, who has never let me down. Feel free to read between the lines.

IMO, the first EI is very much worthwhile, but for me, the second ignition system has to be simple and reliable. A single well maintained magneto does that with no loss of performance or fuel economy, nor added weight from standby batteries or alternators.
Just one guys opinion
Tim Andres

I value and appreciate your opinion Tim. Looks like you have had an opportunity to test a variety of ignitions and have a good understanding of what works and why.

In your newest configuration is the Slick a backup to the CPI in case the electrons stop flowing for some reason or do you have second battery, second alternator or something else?
 
I value and appreciate your opinion Tim. Looks like you have had an opportunity to test a variety of ignitions and have a good understanding of what works and why.

In your newest configuration is the Slick a backup to the CPI in case the electrons stop flowing for some reason or do you have second battery, second alternator or something else?

The Slick would be a backup yes, but it does contribute to ignition even when the EI is advanced beyond *25, you can tell that by doing an inflight mag test.
IMO, if you lose D.C. power it's time to land anyway and find out why, no matter what ignition system you have.
Tim Andres
 
A friend of mine has a 2-year old RV-8. He installed a P-mag and a Slick. The Slick failed catastrophically at 300+ hours requiring an engine tear down. He is replacing the Slick with a second P-mag. Anecdotal, yes - but one can't assume that the old faithful mechanical system is the most reliable. Also, P-Mags are electronic but no more dependent on battery/alternator (once running) than a magneto due to their internal power generation.

My Rv-14 has dual P-mags.
 
A friend of mine has a 2-year old RV-8. He installed a P-mag and a Slick. The Slick failed catastrophically at 300+ hours requiring an engine tear down. He is replacing the Slick with a second P-mag. Anecdotal, yes - but one can't assume that the old faithful mechanical system is the most reliable. Also, P-Mags are electronic but no more dependent on battery/alternator (once running) than a magneto due to their internal power generation.

My Rv-14 has dual P-mags.


When considering which mag to replace on my recent P-mag install, I decided to dump the Slick impulse mag on the left side, partially because it was starting to give me problems, but also because of concerns of the impulse mechanism coming apart and ruining the engine internals...which sounded as if what happened to your buddy.

I was told one "downside" to doing so was the loss of being able to hand-prop the aircraft if the battery was dead...which wasn't a downside to me as I don't ever plan on hand-propping it...I will either charge or replace the battery. (There's also a way to get the P-mag to fire with a 9v battery if you REALLY want to hand-prop it..)

Only ~20 hours on the P-mag so far (Slick on the RH side) and I am very happy with it so far. Once the other Slick croaks, I will probably go dual P-mag too...
 
Im suprised there haven't been more replies to this thread...

...Unless you're a very good test pilot or have access to a Dyno, you will not be able to measure the difference with a second EI, at least I couldn't. And I'm talking about measured fuel burn and performance, not subjective "It feels smoother" or being impressed by the RPM delta when doing a mag test vs EI...

This subject has been discussed in great detail recently, so that might be the reason for the lackluster response.

As for not being able to measure the difference with a second EI - that has not been my experience. I have a couple of threads documenting my single and dual CPI performance. The second unit will most certainly show a gain if you are running high and lean. The higher and leaner you go, the more important the second unit becomes. That said, this is less true of the CPI in particular due to the ability to taylor the curve to your mission. If your single EI has the adjustability (like CPI) you should be able to get the single plug to initiate the combustion event to create an optimal ICP. At this point, the magneto is just along for the ride.

I was in the planning stages of testing the "optimum" single plug operation when I took the airplane down for the SDS EFI installation. The experiment will have to wait, but it looks promising.

And Tim, since you are going CPI, I would highly recommend installing the dual hall sensor now. Its not much of a cost/weight difference and if you ever decide to add the second system, the "hard" part is done. Or think of it as a "spare".
 
Last edited:
I'll step in an mention that there is no scheduled maintenance with the CPI/SDS ignition systems- no drive gears or shaft bearings to inspect or fail. You can toss the $3 plugs every annual when you do a compression check and maybe replace the plug wires every 5 years/1000 hours if you like- about $150 for an all new harness with the recommended MSD parts on all 8 plugs.
 
...
I was told one "downside" to doing so was the loss of being able to hand-prop the aircraft if the battery was dead...which wasn't a downside to me as I don't ever plan on hand-propping it...I will either charge or replace the battery. (There's also a way to get the P-mag to fire with a 9v battery if you REALLY want to hand-prop it..)
...

I have the schematic on how to wire in a 9 volt battery for hand propping. Contact me, if you want it.
 
I'll step in an mention that there is no scheduled maintenance with the CPI/SDS ignition systems- no drive gears or shaft bearings to inspect or fail. You can toss the $3 plugs every annual when you do a compression check and maybe replace the plug wires every 5 years/1000 hours if you like- about $150 for an all new harness with the recommended MSD parts on all 8 plugs.

One thing we have found with the EICommander connected to P-mags is that the auto plugs start to deteriorate at a little over 100 hours +/-.

Thus, regardless of which system you ultimately choose, be sure to change your spark plugs every annual, or more frequently, if you fly a lot.

The odd thing about the plug issues is that even though the EIC was able to tell us there is a plug issue, you could not tell it in the way the engine ran or performed. Without the EIC reporting on the plug condition, I would have been happy to continue running the plugs indefinitely.
 
E-mag and slick on new IO 390 exp10

I have just received my new engine IO 390 exp10 from lycoming and I'd like to know what is the best e-mag to replace the slick that came from the factory and Who makes the e-mag that came on my new engine I would greatly appreciate some information please
 
Something to note a very nice Lanceair crash here in Australia. Done up with all the latest equipment including duel electronic ignition.
Reason for the accident was the alternator fan belt let go just after take-off and took out the flywheel pick-ups for the ignition timing resulting in that noisy silence.
 
Something to note a very nice Lanceair crash here in Australia. Done up with all the latest equipment including duel electronic ignition.
Reason for the accident was the alternator fan belt let go just after take-off and took out the flywheel pick-ups for the ignition timing resulting in that noisy silence.

It was a Glasair and maintenance and workmanship lapses were found to be the main causes.
 
I have two impulse coupled Slick mags on my io360 that were covered by the SB. It cost me $250 to have them both rebuilt by a reputable A&P. So cost should not be a conversion driver in my opinion.
Take a look at the CAFE reports on electronic ignitions. Mags make more horsepower, especially at high power settings.
There have been several recent writups on this forum of the high mileage acheived with electronic ignitions. My mag powered Superior io360 gets almost identical mileage, so this advantage is in my opinion illusory. I've got several screen shots of my EFIS published elsewhere on this forum to prove it.
The advantage to electronic ignition is the ability to advance spark allowing leaner operation under some limited circumstances. Leaner also often means less power.
 
Search the Forum

There have been multiple forum discussions regarding ignition systems going back several years. Kitplanes ran a long article about ignition systems when Paul Dye replaced mags with Pmags. I configured my IO-360 with one mag and one Lightspeed. Now have 900+ hours on the plane - overhauled the mag at 500 hours.

Considered going to two Pmags but ultimately decided that the current configuration was as bullet-proof as I could get and still get the very noticeable advantages of EI. Folks I've talked to with two Pmags seem very satisfied with that option.

I chose Lightspeed during the build 8+ years ago. There were both hardware and software issues with Pmags (since corrected). I am very happy with the Lightspeed - and have even found Klaus to be a very knowledgeable and helpful guy!
 
I am a believer in one electronic ignition and one mag, as I think it provides the best all around solution, both in economies and in redundancy. Having been in technology for most of my life, I am a believer in backups.

Yes, the mag could be a weak point, and there are always the stories about catastrophic failures of mags. The weak point of the mag is the impulse coupling, and I leave that part off. The argument about needing to be able to hand prop it doesn't really hold a lot of weight, as there are nice compact jump start battery packs that you can carry these days, and it's a lot safer than hand propping your aircraft. I have personally jump started IO-540's with them, I always have one in the back of my airplane, and I regularly charge it.

The 500 hour overhaul on a slick direct drive mag is really cheap, and you can do it yourself for less than $75.

Vic
 
I went from 2 Bendix mags to 1 Bendix & 1 ElectroAir, worked great for years. Then I removed them and installed 2 pmags & EI Commander, never worked right one issue after another. Used this setup for some years. Pulled all that out and installed 2 ElectroAir's & I built a custom advance monitor and adjustment that fit in the 2 1/4" hole the EI Commander came out of. Been running that for a year and works just fine.
 
Curious, for those who went electronic ignition.
How many electrical backup strategies do you have, and have you tested them?

Tim
 
I am a believer in one electronic ignition and one mag, as I think it provides the best all around solution, both in economies and in redundancy. Having been in technology for most of my life, I am a believer in backups.

Yes, the mag could be a weak point, and there are always the stories about catastrophic failures of mags. The weak point of the mag is the impulse coupling, and I leave that part off. The argument about needing to be able to hand prop it doesn't really hold a lot of weight, as there are nice compact jump start battery packs that you can carry these days, and it's a lot safer than hand propping your aircraft. I have personally jump started IO-540's with them, I always have one in the back of my airplane, and I regularly charge it.

The 500 hour overhaul on a slick direct drive mag is really cheap, and you can do it yourself for less than $75.

Vic

I agree 99% with Vic's philosophy...

I prefer to have the one mag with an impulse coupling though, despite its short comings. It can also be inspected well at the normal 500 Hr interval.

I have personally had to hand prop for a start at a remote location where we would otherwise have been stranded for quite some time.
It was not because of a dead battery, but a dead starter motor.
 
Curious, for those who went electronic ignition.
How many electrical backup strategies do you have, and have you tested them?

Tim

When I changed to dual ElectroAir's I went with 2 Lion batteries. Both are smaller, weigh less and have more power than the single PC680 that wore out. I run the ignitions power on one and the A/C on the other. They link or bypass with a small "Backup" switch on the panel. Both are diode protected from each other and both charge with one Alt. Yes, I can shut down the master and switch on the backup and both ignitions run, along with one EFIS. Tested.
 
The 500 hour overhaul on a slick direct drive mag is really cheap, and you can do it yourself for less than $75.

Vic

The 500 hour "inspection" can be cheap if you don't find anything wrong with the mag. The "overhaul" parts can quickly exceed the value of the entire mag.

At a minimum I would change on the 500hr "inspection":
Points Kit ACS $61.95
Brush ACS $12.80


From the manual:

"The following parts must be replaced at overhaul.
Additional parts may require replacement depending on
conditions as determined during magneto inspection. Install
only Unison Replacement Parts.

ALL MAGNETOS
Condenser ACS $138.75
Double Sealed Bearing ACS $46.20
Bearing Cap Assembly ACS $107.75
Coil ACS $385.00
Impulse Coupling ACS $462.00
Oil Seal ACS $12.70
Contact Point Kit ACS $61.95
Rotor Gear ACS $11.55
Distributor Block and Gear ACS $399.95"

Totals to $1625.85 and that does not include finding any other parts that need replaced.

Typical Impulse coupled Slick mag:
ACS list Kelly "Overhauled" mags for ~$615.00 (reports are that these are not overhauled but just inspected and obvious bad parts are replaced)
ACS list Champion "Rebuilt" mags for ~$794.00 (they claim they are same rebuilt to same as new specs)
ACS list a new mag at $1028.00
 
Last edited:
The maintenance labor and parts costs of mags are a big reason why so many are dumping one or both mags. Our EI has no moving parts other than the magnets attached to the crankshaft. With an epoxy potted coil pack, there are no things to suffer vibration failures as on mags, no spinning parts, no bearings, no wearing parts, the electronics are isolated from engine heat and vibration in the cabin.

Combine this spark hardware with reliable electronics having literally tens of millions of hours of real world validation on them and you have stuff which is far more reliable than mags with no maintenance required. One of our bench test ECUs had 145,000 hours on it when we changed it over to a newer spec model. It ran 24/7 for over 16 years.
 
Question for Ross (SDS),

Is it possible to operate a dual SDS electronic Ignition system using only the EM-5 (dual channel) and the SDS LCD programmer (round controller), absent the SDS fuel injection system being full installed and operational?

The reason I ask is:

1. I want dual SDS EI now but don't want the rectangular CPI control modules.
2. I want the ability to eventually change over from my mechanical FI to a SDS FI system.

Titan IO-360.

I know the FI part of my statement is considered off topic/thread drift, so please forgive me.
 
Last edited:
It was a Glasair and maintenance and workmanship lapses were found to be the main causes.

The aircraft was Glassair 111 VH-USW and the ATSB final report does not really support the above statement.

The final ATSB report can be found at:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-221/

This should be mandatory reading for all builders considering dual electronic ignitions of the Lightspeed (or similar) type.

I've been flying for decades and I've never heard of a single incident of a plane coming down because both magnetos failed simultaneously. But despite the fact that there are not a lot of dual EI aircraft flying there have been numerous incidents of dual EI systems failing simultaneously (including PMags) resulting in complete loss of power.

But people often believe what they want to believe.

One EI and one mag for me.
 
Last edited:
The maintenance labor and parts costs of mags are a big reason why so many are dumping one or both mags. Our EI has no moving parts other than the magnets attached to the crankshaft. With an epoxy potted coil pack, there are no things to suffer vibration failures as on mags, no spinning parts, no bearings, no wearing parts, the electronics are isolated from engine heat and vibration in the cabin.

Combine this spark hardware with reliable electronics having literally tens of millions of hours of real world validation on them and you have stuff which is far more reliable than mags with no maintenance required. One of our bench test ECUs had 145,000 hours on it when we changed it over to a newer spec model. It ran 24/7 for over 16 years.

Ross,

If I were not already half pregnant with an existing Pmag, you would be getting an order for a dual CPI. The only thing I had never considered was the risk of an alternator belt taking out the timing sensor but what are the odds of that? I love the looks of the quality of your components and the price!
 
Ross,

If I were not already half pregnant with an existing Pmag, you would be getting an order for a dual CPI. The only thing I had never considered was the risk of an alternator belt taking out the timing sensor but what are the odds of that? I love the looks of the quality of your components and the price!

You might take another look at the price difference between Pmag and CPI before you get "completely pregnant". Ill bet you could sell your existing Pmag for more money than a new CPI, so you would still be ahead.

The belt vulnerability is a non issue. The mount and sensor are **** for stout and the wiring can easily be armored.
 
Question for Ross (SDS),

Is it possible to operate a dual SDS electronic Ignition system using only the EM-5 (dual channel) and the SDS LCD programmer (round controller), absent the SDS fuel injection system being full installed and operational?

The reason I ask is:

1. I want dual SDS EI now but don't want the rectangular CPI control modules.
2. I want the ability to eventually change over from my mechanical FI to a SDS FI system.

Titan IO-360.

I know the FI part of my statement is considered off topic/thread drift, so please forgive me.

I know that this is directed at Ross, but the answer is "yes". I worked with a guy last year doing exactly that.
 
The aircraft was Glassair 111 VH-USW and the ATSB final report does not really support the above statement.

It doesn't support either statement. The report is a best guess as to cause; there was too much fire and impact damage to be sure of exactly what happened. Factually, the installation was non-standard, a single trigger for two ignition units. Duh.

Moving to belief as to cause, belt damage disconnecting the trigger wires is not an argument against EI, but rather an argument for better wire installation. My brothers, that's true of every wire in every EI brand, regardless of trigger location.

Ross, go ahead and design bolt-on armor for the trigger, something in machined billet robust enough that the wires can't be harmed with a Colt 45. It would cause joy among the concerned, and make a nice profit too.

At the other end, arguments against accessory drives are also weak, given that we have about 80 years of experience with them, with most of the fleet subject to AD for any prevalent failure. Mags and their associated couplers fail a lot, the accessory case drives not so much. Moving to EI, one might look at failure rates for the bearing and trigger components in the triggers themselves, just like the mags.

And there we find the detail which should determine crank-triggering vs accessory case triggering. In terms of mechanical design, a 4-cyl accessory case trigger is very simple, a shaft, two bearings, a wheel, and a pickup. However, all the 6-cyl accessory case pickups seem to require internal gearing, which brings new complications and quality control issues to the party. Plus the 6's are more prone to torsional vibration issues due to the longer crank. So, for me the decision would be simple. I'll take the accessory case triggers for a 4-cyl, and crank triggers for a 540.

All the moving parts in a basic 4-cyl trigger:

 
Last edited:
. SNIP......So, for me the decision would be simple. I'll take the accessory case triggers for a 4-cyl, and crank triggers for a 540....SNIP.

Dan's logic is spot on. As I have had personal (bad) experience with the LightSpeed variant in these discussions I would never consider a crank sensor for a dual EI install. Others will violently disagree with me but shoot fire, that is why be build instead of buy.

So I'm left in the valley of waiting for the six cylinder pMag. Considering the 700 hours of fauless dual pMag operation in the RV-8A, taking with Brad at eMag and reviewing the new 200T series ignition documentation, I'm happy with my decision to wait. Now with the waiting period end in sight it looks like I'll get the ignitions just before the 500 hour check is due on the Slick mags.

Carl
 
P-mags are a special case. On one had, they are largely self-contained, and offer internal power in the event of ship's power interruption. On the other hand, being self contained and self powered means considerable complexity as compared to the previous 4-cyl trigger example. Complexity tends to lower reliability, while KIS is seldom the wrong path.

The advance schedule appears to be wrong as a soup sandwich for operation at best power mixture, the result being high CHT for no gain. Control of timing requires purchasing a separate control device, and even then it doesn't appear possible to dual map for both ROP and LOP ops. And oddly enough, the P-mag external wiring and switching requirements are significant.

Yes, I too think Brad is a nice guy, and the whole E-mag crew bends over backwards to support the product. The product itself benefits from a lot of operating maturity; it's better than it once was. However, given all factors....

Dan's logic is spot on.......So I'm left in the valley of waiting for the six cylinder pMag.

Thank you Carl, but you do realize a P-mag on the accessory drive end of a 6-cyl would be my worst case example?
 
Last edited:
I know that this is directed at Ross, but the answer is "yes". I worked with a guy last year doing exactly that.

Thanks Michael.

Would two SDS LCD programmers, and one SDS EM-5 (Dual Channel) be required to operate two SDS EI's as previously described?

..., or could two SDS EI's be operated from one dual channel EM-5 and one LCD SDS programmer?

Michael, any chance I could call you to discuss your experience with SDS?

Thanks
 
It doesn't support either statement. The report is a best guess as to cause; there was too much fire and impact damage to be sure of exactly what happened. Factually, the installation was non-standard, a single trigger for two ignition units. Duh.

Moving to belief as to cause, belt damage disconnecting the trigger wires is not an argument against EI, but rather an argument for better wire installation. My brothers, that's true of every wire in every EI brand, regardless of trigger location.

Ross, go ahead and design bolt-on armor for the trigger, something in machined billet robust enough that the wires can't be harmed with a Colt 45. It would cause joy among the concerned, and make a nice profit too.

At the other end, arguments against accessory drives are also weak, given that we have about 80 years of experience with them, with most of the fleet subject to AD for any prevalent failure. Mags and their associated couplers fail a lot, the accessory case drives not so much. Moving to EI, one might look at failure rates for the bearing and trigger components in the triggers themselves, just like the mags.

And there we find the detail which should determine crank-triggering vs accessory case triggering. In terms of mechanical design, a 4-cyl accessory case trigger is very simple, a shaft, two bearings, a wheel, and a pickup. However, all the 6-cyl accessory case pickups seem to require internal gearing, which brings new complications and quality control issues to the party. Plus the 6's are more prone to torsional vibration issues due to the longer crank. So, for me the decision would be simple. I'll take the accessory case triggers for a 4-cyl, and crank triggers for a 540.

All the moving parts in a basic 4-cyl trigger:


Is the the shaft, two bearings, and wheel, depicted and described for 4 cylinder trigger/pickup, a custom fabricated part or is that something that a part that can be procured through AC parts sources and then be modified to work?

Seems like there would be a market for such an item. It mitigates the vulnerability of the crank trigger issues described which I admit do concern me.
 
Question for Ross (SDS),

Is it possible to operate a dual SDS electronic Ignition system using only the EM-5 (dual channel) and the SDS LCD programmer (round controller), absent the SDS fuel injection system being full installed and operational?

The reason I ask is:

1. I want dual SDS EI now but don't want the rectangular CPI control modules.
2. I want the ability to eventually change over from my mechanical FI to a SDS FI system.

Titan IO-360.

I know the FI part of my statement is considered off topic/thread drift, so please forgive me.

Yes to question #1 and #2. We just shipped such a system on Friday to a 540 customer. EI for now and he can use most of the parts when he adds the EFI parts later.
 
It doesn't support either statement. The report is a best guess as to cause; there was too much fire and impact damage to be sure of exactly what happened. Factually, the installation was non-standard, a single trigger for two ignition units. Duh.

Moving to belief as to cause, belt damage disconnecting the trigger wires is not an argument against EI, but rather an argument for better wire installation. My brothers, that's true of every wire in every EI brand, regardless of trigger location.

Ross, go ahead and design bolt-on armor for the trigger, something in machined billet robust enough that the wires can't be harmed with a Colt 45. It would cause joy among the concerned, and make a nice profit too.

At the other end, arguments against accessory drives are also weak, given that we have about 80 years of experience with them, with most of the fleet subject to AD for any prevalent failure. Mags and their associated couplers fail a lot, the accessory case drives not so much. Moving to EI, one might look at failure rates for the bearing and trigger components in the triggers themselves, just like the mags.

And there we find the detail which should determine crank-triggering vs accessory case triggering. In terms of mechanical design, a 4-cyl accessory case trigger is very simple, a shaft, two bearings, a wheel, and a pickup. However, all the 6-cyl accessory case pickups seem to require internal gearing, which brings new complications and quality control issues to the party. Plus the 6's are more prone to torsional vibration issues due to the longer crank. So, for me the decision would be simple. I'll take the accessory case triggers for a 4-cyl, and crank triggers for a 540.

All the moving parts in a basic 4-cyl trigger:


We've had threaded holes in both our 3.25 and 3.50 inch crank sensors mounts for some time specifically to attach any hall sensor cable armor the user desires which mates with his front baffling. This was in response to concerns voiced by customers and others here on VAF.

I quite agree with most of what Dan says here. Do the best installation you can.
 
Thanks Michael.

Would two SDS LCD programmers, and one SDS EM-5 (Dual Channel) be required to operate two SDS EI's as previously described?

..., or could two SDS EI's be operated from one dual channel EM-5 and one LCD SDS programmer?

Michael, any chance I could call you to discuss your experience with SDS?

Thanks

Just need one programmer to operate dual EM-5 ECUs for dual EI or dual EFI/EI.
 
Thank you Dan. I searched extensively for that part. Came up with nada.

Your part is very nicely done. It somewhat resembles a B&C SD 8 Alternator. I wonder what those look like under the bell cover. Seems like it (B&C alt) could do double duty and do the crank position sensor job aside from generating electrons.
 
Same concept (magnetic reluctor) as Electroair, which uses a 60 tooth wheel. This one is for Ford EDIS control, 36 tooth, different electronics. A flying magnet with a Hall effect pickup is more common today, more accurate (square wave ON-OFF if IIRC), not that the difference matters at only 2700 RPM. Either type would be fundamentally the same in terms of machining.

Reliability is in the details, both mechanical and electrical. For example, the Amphenol AT/Deutsch DT wire connectors are not cheap, but the whole system depends on them. Connectors deserve as much attention as the triggers and computers. The homebuilt community often does a poor job with electrical details. I suspect self-inflicted failure is the largest risk in a swap to EI.

It somewhat resembles a B&C SD 8 Alternator. I wonder what those look like under the bell cover. Seems like it (B&C alt) could do double duty and do the crank position sensor job aside from generating electrons.

Wire coils on ferrous cores. The bell is a flying magnet. There are plenty of ignitions which combine the generator and ignition functions with a similar layout, Rotax for example. The vacuum pump/SD8 drive pad is 1.3:1 ratio, while the mag drive is 1:1, so the generator part would need to be re-engineered a bit to produce suitable output at a lower RPM.
 
Last edited:
Cable Armoring



You can see two of the four 10-32 threaded holes for mounting cable armoring on our 3.5 inch Hall sensor mount here
 
Back
Top