What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Six cylinder pMag now shipping

Carl Froehlich

Well Known Member
All,

Brad has shipped me the final production version of the new six cylinder pMag. I?ll remove the beta version he sent me and install this one.

I?ll let you know how it works. I can say the install is as simple as the four cylinder pMags, and provides options to set the advance to what you want. It also supports a switch on the panel to set timing at your base number (typically 25 degrees for a parallel valve engine) at anytime - including while the engine is running.

Carl
 
Wow! - That's great - only 7 years late .......

It is much better for them to shop late than ship a faulty ignition.

I think those of us who lived through the teething problems with the four cylinder P-mags will agree.
 
It is much better for them to shop late than ship a faulty ignition.

I think those of us who lived through the teething problems with the four cylinder P-mags will agree.

That may be true, but I struggle to have respect for someone that is so disconnected from the reality of their own companies abilities, priorities, schedule, etc. Continually promising and extending an availability date for 7 years exposes real issues for a commercial operation. Understandable if building a nuclear powerplant, but not for a simple ignition device. It is quite possible that he fully understood the limitations and challenges and simply kicked the can and lied for 7 years. Equally large of a problem if that was the case. Most quality business professionals understand their abilities and limitations and plan their projections accordingly. When their wrong, they typically fess up and admit it.

The teething issue is no consolation. I also don't respect a company that will release a product so far from a stable state that it takes 5 years of continual changes to get it right. This I can accept though, given that it was the early days for this type of product/application and undertaken by a new and small company trying to introduce advanced technology in our arena. I don't extend that pass to the their next generation product though. By that time, they should know better. If they know that it takes 7 years to make the product stable and don't want to do that in the field with their customers (a wise decision), they should promise accordingly.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind the six cylinder pMag was developed with the certified market in mind. This, as I understand it, drove a lot of the delay.

As we know, the only other option for an ignition system that runs on its own power is a 1930 technology magneto. I choose pMag - and have close to 1000 trouble free hours running a dual install in an RV-8A.

Carl
 
Cool it’s finally released. I’m at approx 200 hrs on dual Slicks. I’m looking forward to some others putting the hours on these before I need to make a decision when (I’m told it’s not really “if”) the Slicks start acting up.
 
Surefly Mags as opposed to PMags ?

Haven't noticed any mention of the SureFly Sim 6 Mags in this thread? We are running the SIM 6 on my (RV10) IO-540 for about 50 hours now and Love it! Starts quick with advancing help from Manifold Pressure monitoring and leans out nicely to 9.5 GPH at 9500ft, Although we prefer to set the fuel burn rate to 11 GPH for cooling purposes, and too often I forget to richen the mixture when decreasing altitude. The stumbles always remind me :rolleyes:, I am not affiliated with SureFly but if Lycoming considers re-branding them, then that seems to be a good enough endorsement to me.
 
Haven't noticed any mention of the SureFly Sim 6 Mags in this thread?

And why should there be any mention of them--------this is a thread about the release of the Pmag. It is not a comparison of various brands.
 
That may be true, but I struggle to have respect for someone that is so disconnected from the reality of their own companies abilities, priorities, schedule, etc. Continually promising and extending an availability date for 7 years exposes real issues for a commercial operation. Understandable if building a nuclear powerplant, but not for a simple ignition device. It is quite possible that he fully understood the limitations and challenges and simply kicked the can and lied for 7 years. Equally large of a problem if that was the case. Most quality business professionals understand their abilities and limitations and plan their projections accordingly. When their wrong, they typically fess up and admit it.

The teething issue is no consolation. I also don't respect a company that will release a product so far from a stable state that it takes 5 years of continual changes to get it right. This I can accept though, given that it was the early days for this type of product/application and undertaken by a new and small company trying to introduce advanced technology in our arena. I don't extend that pass to the their next generation product though. By that time, they should know better. If they know that it takes 7 years to make the product stable and don't want to do that in the field with their customers (a wise decision), they should promise accordingly.

Larry

Couldn?t agree more Larry. Been in product development my whole life. I would have been fired if my performance looked like this.
 
I find it somewhat comical that you guys are complaining about this like EMAGAIR owed you something. I’m for one am pretty excited about this news.
 
Well, in many cases they DID "owe us"... They had my deposit for the 6 banger model in their bank account for a LONG time before I finally gave up and went with SDS.

In retrospect, I guess I should be thankful for the education I have gained.

I certainly wish them well, but their feet dragging has allowed superior competitors to gain a good grip on the market. Let's hope their gamble pays off.
 
Last edited:
Wow 😳

I don?t think EMAG or Brad owes us anything! They are a small shop in Texas doing GREAT things for us home builders and I for one am grateful for the brilliant entrepreneurs out their that make my experimental aircraft ownership life easier. Going on 6 years on my trouble free PMags and now looking forward to one for my 0-540. With some experience in R&D I completely get the frustrations and time delays that come with having the guts to try something new. Keep up the good work Brad👍👍👍
 
I find it somewhat comical that you guys are complaining about this like EMAGAIR owed you something. I?m for one am pretty excited about this news.

In 2018 I received my "invoice" for two Emags for my RV-10. At Oshkosh Brad reassured me I would have them when my engine arrived. I ordered my Thunderbolt without mags saving $1000. Bought for $75 the Safe-norm switch from Emag and had Stein wire it up along with the test switches and breakers on my panel. Engine installed panel done ready for Faa inspection September 2019 no Emags. Ordered Slicks and installed them Engine starts and runs great and I have those switches to look at. My $1000 savings on the engine order has been spent!
 
Two things I've learned the hard way (sometimes multiple times): 1-Never, ever bet on the come, and 2-never, ever buy v1.0 of anything. Anyone who made deposits on this or anything else based on projections of the future should have known better....this industry is rife with unkept promises. Why does Jim Bede suddenly come to mind?
 
... With some experience in R&D I completely get the frustrations and time delays that come with having the guts to try something new. Keep up the good work Brad������

Sure, but let's put that in perspective. I've been flying Pmags since 2005, and held a "deposit" on the 6 banger for a while. I'm "invested". But in the time that Emag started taking deposits on the P-200 until now, SDS developed and released the opperationally flawless CPI-1 ignition which totally changed my perspective on aircraft ignition, AND THEN designed, tested and released the CPI-2. That's a competitor releasing TWO new ignition systems in the time that Emag air was taking deposits on a system that was "one month away" from shipping.

This is an eMag thread and Brad is undeniably a fine person, but this development program is going to go down in E-AB history as a classic example of what NOT to do. There are too many people that have been promised too much for too long to not generate some spirited comment. And I can tell all of you with certainty that the P-200 development (and the resulting awareness of SDS) has driven me away from EMag as a customer. Though some look at this situation with religious devotion, the issue is simply a supplier/customer relationship and Emag really dropped the ball.
 
Last edited:
And I can tell all of you with certainty that the P-200 development (and the resulting awareness of SDS) has driven me away from EMag as a customer. Though some look at this situation with religious devotion, the issue is simply a supplier/customer relationship and Emag really dropped the ball.

I get your frustration but your constant knocking of PMAG, one that you have not had experience with yet, and in my view a subjective comparison to the one you are currently using give me pause as a subjective review instead of an honest and objective comparison.
Has EMAG failed its six-cylinder customer with broken customers? certainly. But I do welcome their new product in the market and I hope it is as successful as its 4-cyliinder unit. Competition of manufacturers are great for our community and EMAG certainly is providing that competition.
As for more competition and since SDS is such successful company, it will be great if they can design a product that is not so complicated to install or require a backup battery. If they do, they will certainly will have my interest and potentially as a new customer.
 
SDS -exactly

Same thoughts on SDS, too complicated and space consuming. Also, no 24 volt option unless one uses a step down to 12v box, more complication. PMag uses the space of a mag with its own back up power source. BRILLIANT!

Electroair has a 24v option but again, space consuming and more complication.

Lastly, when one chooses to put a deposit on a product in research and development, especially a small company with a booming business with excellent customer service with an in market proven product, you gots to be circumspect of any timeline. Just sayin. The complication of a 6 banger compared to the 4 cylinder variety, specifically with the spark timing, I was wary of the proposed timeline and chose not to deposit. Never pick an apple until it?s ripe! Dos centavos
 
I get your frustration but your constant knocking of PMAG, one that you have not had experience with yet, and in my view a subjective comparison to the one you are currently using give me pause as a subjective review instead of an honest and objective comparison.
Has EMAG failed its six-cylinder customer with broken customers? certainly. But I do welcome their new product in the market and I hope it is as successful as its 4-cyliinder unit. Competition of manufacturers are great for our community and EMAG certainly is providing that competition.
As for more competition and since SDS is such successful company, it will be great if they can design a product that is not so complicated to install or require a backup battery. If they do, they will certainly will have my interest and potentially as a new customer.

This is not a performance comparison thread - that one is coming. And we can expect that the mechanical integration of the P-200 has improved over the ones I've been flying for 15 years. We hope. What remains to be seen is if the programming and the curve in the new model is appropriate with what we know today. Is it based on flight test across a wide variety of engine configurations or the same pool of beta testers that simply reported "good starting" like 20 years ago? What is the objective criteria? In this day and age it HAS to be more than "kept running" and "didn't blow up". Look, I've flown Pmags for a long time on several aircraft with acceptable reliability, but as a product they have long been eclipsed. If tbe P-200 features a totally user configurable curve to suit every engine and has finally overcome the substantial engineering challenge of the all in one packaging, then they have a shot.

But make no mistake - I was a Pmag advocate, and it was the P-200's development problems that drove me to look elsewhere and opened my eyes to the technical and operational deficiencies of the Pmag concept. However my opinions of Pmag are viewed (they are not meant to be hostile), they are from a position of substantial experience and formal test - something very few people on this forum have taken the time to do. And no, "starts great" and "1gph fuel savings" does not cut it as formal test results.

Concerning ease of installation - yep, that's Pmags claim to fame and it's a strong pull. After spending thousands of hours building an airplane, I don't understand the significance of a 1 hour vs 5 hour install for an ignition (especially when you will live with the operational deficiencies of the inferior ignition forever), but yes, that's something that some will never be overcome. But considering that there are some of your fellow pilots on this forum that think the earth is flat, I can live with a few holdouts. Never will convince them all.

I do share the desire for competition in the market though. It keeps innovation humming and suppliers on their toes. I wish Brad and Emag the very best.
 
And let's not pretend here... There is 9+ years of pent up frustration involved with this subject. This thread is going to be a wild ride, and everyone knows it.
 
I am looking forward to getting mine. I am early in the list, have deposits on two but will install one and fly a while before the second.
 
And let's not pretend here... There is 9+ years of pent up frustration involved with this subject. This thread is going to be a wild ride, and everyone knows it.

Now I understand why you came back so hard on another thread when I questioned a post by Ross of SDS.
So I don't have such pent up frustration about any ignition system other than traditional magnetos having had the usual array of problems and one event where the impulse mechanism came apart, jammed the mag, broke out the accessory case and cut through the oil line going to the oil cooler. All happened out over the cold waters of puget sound. Made it to a landing with the engine running and no oil pressure. Expensive day but could have been much worse.
I understand the issues of schedule pressure, the need to keep the existing product line supported and keep going with a new product development all the while trying to retain new customers. Releasing a product and expecting the customers to be part of the development program without their consent is never a good plan. So you should be thankful you only got the progressive reveal part of the development plan. I have no issue with the application of automotive technology in EAB when the company doing the rebranding has the technical capability to fully understand the technology from a design perspective, the fundamentally different set of requirements and is capable of doing the supplemental engineering to apply the product to the EAB application.
So its important and beneficial to do your own research. Does the company have the technically capable people doing the design engineering, do they have the financial resources to do the work, do they have the facilities necessary, what are their production capabilities. Asking the right questions is just as important as doing the checks and balance on the answers they give to those questions. If the public face of the company is all about feel good marketing, the company is operating from a 50x50 ft lockup and the best of the technical capability has to pull together an ad hoc test plan to collect data that should have been collected as part of the pre-production engineering testing and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the fundamentals of electrical engineering then maybe there might be a better alternative supplier out there.
Maybe SDS is a credible supplier that provides excellent customer service (I would need to be convinced) but I would prefer to have a self powered drop in electronic replacement for a conventional magneto. Now if somebody came up with conversion of an automotive plasma based ignition system that would allow lycoming engines to run on non leaded auto fuel that would really get my attention and support.

KT
 
I gave up waiting for the six cylinder pMag. I REALLY wanted to go this route early on in my build. Even stopped by their booth multiple years in a row. Finally got to the point where I had to make a real decision on what I wanted installed and how certain I was the parts were available. Decided that even with the announcement that the first six cylinder pMag was "HAND DELIVERED" at OSH last year, my trust was already lost. I'm hoping they do deliver a wonderful product and for a lot of people this may be an easy drop-in upgrade?

Hopefully this time it's real and the pMag is actually shipping to everyone that put down a deposit. It will be sad to see this long running joke of "shipping next month" die.
 
Haven't noticed any mention of the SureFly Sim 6 Mags in this thread? We are running the SIM 6 on my (RV10) IO-540 for about 50 hours now and Love it! Starts quick with advancing help from Manifold Pressure monitoring and leans out nicely to 9.5 GPH at 9500ft, Although we prefer to set the fuel burn rate to 11 GPH for cooling purposes, and too often I forget to richen the mixture when decreasing altitude. The stumbles always remind me :rolleyes:, I am not affiliated with SureFly but if Lycoming considers re-branding them, then that seems to be a good enough endorsement to me.

ShureFly, SDS, LightSpeed, and the others, while good ignitions, do not have internal generators like the P-mags. Thus, they are not in the same class. It also means they are not programmable, like some of the others.

If a builder wants a reliable, easy to install, six cylinder EI setup that doesn't require a complex electrical system, P-mags are the way to go.

The P-mags are designed to fit any six cylinder engine, which was a challenge as there are many different configurations of accessory cases. More so when you realize they will work with any Continental or Lycoming engine. Then toss in the FAA certification requirements and the R&D cycle extends even further.

The only mistake they made was announcing the six cylinder version at the start of the development cycle and taking deposits, which they are honoring.
 
Last edited:
its on the way

Got my notice Friday that my E-mag has been shipped. UPS says it will be here by the end of today. I put my deposit down in 2015 for 2 E-Mags. Even though the wait was long, I would rather have them get out all the kinks in it before I got mine. Because of the many orders, they will only be shipping 1 E-Mag to me at this time. That's OK with me since I was only going to install one to begin with and keep the mag as a backup. When they ship number 2, I will still get it at the promised price when I placed my order.
 
First 6 cylinder PMAG in the land of upside down pilots installed, ran for say 14 hours before it lost its marbles and could not be retimed.

Replacement on its way. I hope this is an isolated case. My friend and customer was planning dual installation after one light speed kept playing up randomly. Fortunately the other light speed seems reliable.

I would appreciate any other experiences. This is not a PMAG bashing thread nor is this post but I think sharing honest experiences is helpful for safety awareness.
 
More Secret Sauce

First 6 cylinder PMAG in the land of upside down pilots installed, ran for say 14 hours before it lost its marbles and could not be retimed.

After 12 years dealing with EMAG I would suggest this is expected. They started out registering a patent to put a generator in an electronic ignition and mount it all in one package on the aircraft. Their plan was always to certify, and use ABE as a testbed. Based on what I have heard about the 6 cyl model I have no doubt that is their intent this time around. Nothing wrong with that as long as you go in with your eyes open.

Early 4 cyl units had magnets glued to shafts and no conformal coating on the CCT board so they could more easily figure out where things failed in the field. The bearings are too small. They glue them in with Loctite. Holding a constant tolerance on a bearing bore can be difficult when you anodise the housing. Seems to be minimal attempt to balance the rotating assembly. Run one up on the bench with a power drill and it should not take too long to make some assumptions about why they now recommend yearly removal and inspection of the bearings.

I have had two failures across four units in ~1,000 hours, one generator failed, covering the CCT board with copper - somehow it continued to run. One had the screws that hold the rectangular section to the round section back out. It was flapping around on the back of the engine, still firing but startup on the previous flight had been erratic enough that I went looking for the cause.

The are numerous things about the 4 cyl units that might have been improved including the default timing curve that was actually designed for a low compression engine, clunky software with bugs, the fact it can't tell you the exact firing angle etc. Even if you clock them the advance probably starts too early and is too aggressive but how would you know as they don't publish the curve?

Every time they go back to the US its 4 weeks downtime, a return trip costs $400-500 in freight, plus 2x the US$185 fixed price service fee + CCT boards if they need them. My experience has been they are easily the least reliable components on the aircraft.

The six cylinder unit has a number of additional challenges to contend with. The drive ratio on the magneto pad is 1:5 so it must have a gearbox. All the electronics inside has been redesigned to aid certification and the installation procedure looks complex too.

There are many people who have had good luck with them. The onboard generator and easy installation is almost a religion in itself, but I won't be doing the testing on the new model. It's someone else's turn.
 
Last edited:
First 6 cylinder PMAG in the land of upside down pilots installed, ran for say 14 hours before it lost its marbles and could not be retimed.

Replacement on its way. I hope this is an isolated case. My friend and customer was planning dual installation after one light speed kept playing up randomly. Fortunately the other light speed seems reliable.

I would appreciate any other experiences. This is not a PMAG bashing thread nor is this post but I think sharing honest experiences is helpful for safety awareness.

I?m looking at installing a pair of these on my F1 Rocket. Would you be willing to share your experience in a little more detail?
 
I would not put a pair on at all.

Stick with one mag, for a few years at least.

The replacement has been installed, and it runs fine. But so far due to bushfire season ending and CV the hours flown are minimal.

I have a fellow builder assist friend with dual SDS, and redundant power etc. It runs delightfully well. 24 degrees when ROP and 28-29 when LOP. Starts well and runs really nice.

The 6 cylinder Pmag might be a good thing but time is required, so if you wanted one, make it one only for now.

For my personal opinion....I prefer two mags, still. Despite Ashleys SDS working so well, we both run LOP the same, same flow, same TAS.....no difference. He can go further LOP at the same MP/RPM because with a few degrees of advance it will run smoothly enough down to much lower flow rates. BUT, the speed rolls off as you would expect. I can leave the mixture alone and reduce MP to the same flow rate and still be a similar speed. So there is no real advantage for all the complexity and weight of wiring, switches, backup battery etc.

It is your airplane............ :)
 
Easy install; better starting; LOP OPS better too

I?m looking at installing a pair of these on my F1 Rocket. Would you be willing to share your experience in a little more detail?

Hey Danny:

I have one of the development units on my engine - just got the final version today, so no more quick change of developmental units. I can feel the timing change at LOP, and the dang thing gets my TCM 550 lit off way better hot than the stock mag setup can. The install sheets are far better than when I got started on this road too, so now the install should be much easier. You will end up with auto plugs and wires in the change-over too.
 
If a builder wants a reliable, easy to install, six cylinder EI setup that doesn't require a complex electrical system, P-mags are the way to go.

A complex electrical system? Come on Bill, you know better...

ALL design is an exercise in the art of intelligent compromise. Each ignition vendor makes choices based on what he/she considers most valuable, and accepts the compromises which inevitably accompany the decision(s).

Thinking consumers then judge if those features and compromises are acceptable to them. Obviously not everyone agrees, which is fine. The problem starts when way too many act like this is some kind of team sport, rather than a decision based on analysis of strength and weakness.

Gents, let's forget the pom-pom stuff and concentrate on design and reliability, ok?
 
For my personal opinion....I prefer two mags, still. Despite Ashleys SDS working so well, we both run LOP the same, same flow, same TAS.....no difference. He can go further LOP at the same MP/RPM because with a few degrees of advance it will run smoothly enough down to much lower flow rates. BUT, the speed rolls off as you would expect. I can leave the mixture alone and reduce MP to the same flow rate and still be a similar speed. So there is no real advantage for all the complexity and weight of wiring, switches, backup battery etc.

It is your airplane............ :)

I am in the same camp as Dave above, after 10 yrs of running every type of single/dual EI out there I've come full circle back to mags on my new IO370. Add serviceability in the field to list as well, you can travel almost anywhere in the world and get a mag repaired. I also find that 1 gal/hr savings means less to me then the speed.
 
A complex electrical system? Come on Bill, you know better...
SNIP

Dan,

A lot of people, me included, value your opinion. Here however you may inadvertently let builders think that an ignition install other that traditional mags or pMags does not require careful thought on how to make sure the ignition(s) have reliable power. Specifically, installing any ignition that requires external power on a ?I used the Van?s wiring kit? project without modification is not acceptable.

Carl
 
My neighbor just installed one on his Lancair 4 (the one that flew over both North and South Poles and recently broke the recorded for circumnavigating they globe heading west). He is happy with the performance.

Carl
 
I am currently putting in my second unit, flew with one for 2 months, easier starting and reduced fuel burn for same power.
 
Last edited:
Pmag

I installed 6 cylinder pmag in my rv10 in March. I installed with std settings. Fixed 25 deg. Btdc and advanced up to +9 deg or 34 deg btdc in variable position. On hot days I have to leave in fixed position and reduce power shortly after takeoff to keep cht below 400 degrees and also keep higher fuel flow. In cruise when I change to variable I see higher egt and slightly higher cht at same fuel flow before I replaced the magneto. LOP 12-12.3 gph. Starting hot or cold works well but I had a slick start and it started well with that. The jury is still out for me on pmag at almost twice cost of slick mag.
 
I installed 6 cylinder pmag in my rv10 in March. I installed with std settings. Fixed 25 deg. Btdc and advanced up to +9 deg or 34 deg btdc in variable position. On hot days I have to leave in fixed position and reduce power shortly after takeoff to keep cht below 400 degrees and also keep higher fuel flow. In cruise when I change to variable I see higher egt and slightly higher cht at same fuel flow before I replaced the magneto. LOP 12-12.3 gph. Starting hot or cold works well but I had a slick start and it started well with that. The jury is still out for me on pmag at almost twice cost of slick mag.

Please read your engine operating handbook. Lycoming states 435 degrees is the max for continuous operation and 500 as the upper limit. It is not unusual to see climb temps over 400. The goal is to get them below 400 in cruise, not climb.

Lycoming O & IO-540 Oper Manual said:
See Page 3-5
Never exceed the maximum red line cylinder head temperature limit. [Max Cylinder Head Temp is 500°F (260°C).]

For maximum service life, cylinder head temperatures should be maintained below 435°F (224°C) during high performance cruise operation and below 400°F (205°C) for economy cruise powers.
 
Last edited:
My experience

I have 30 hours on my pmag in our RV10 since winter upgrade. Happy customer here, but then I am bias as we have 2000 hours on PMAG in our RV7a. Would have more time on 10 but smoke in the west has limited summer trip flying.
 
Back
Top