Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:36 AM - Efii system 32 (Matt Bousman)
2. 07:56 AM - Re: Efii system 32 (Robert Jones)
3. 11:05 AM - Re: Magneto upgrade? (CARL FROEHLICH)
4. 05:21 PM - Re: Efii system 32 (kearney)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I am trying to find information on the EFII System 32 and can only find limited
info. Seems like many are using on new builds but there is little feedback on
how its working.
Matt Bousman
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Efii system 32 |
A friend of mine is putting it in his RV10 but it is not flying yet. I made my
first flight in my RV10 last February. I chose an old school engine by Barrett
Precision Engines with an Airflow Performance FM300 fuel system and 9-1 Pistons.
It generates 290 hp. I paired it with the Whirlwind 77HRT prop. It likes
to fly high. At 18,000 DA I was getting 175 knots TAS on 12 gal/hr. I was somewhat
put off the by EFI 32 because it required ships power to run it. I understand
that they have two computer systems to run the EFI 32 that can be switched
on the fly in the event of failure of one. It might be quite reliable but I
dont think there is enough flying time on the system quite yet, at least for me.
Robert Jones
> On Dec 27, 2020, at 7:39 AM, Matt Bousman <mtbousman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am trying to find information on the EFII System 32 and can only find limited
info. Seems like many are using on new builds but there is little feedback
on how its working.
>
> Matt Bousman
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto upgrade? |
Some thoughts on what has been discussed:
- pMag timing. Four cylinder pMags are selectable between 9 degrees of max timing
advance (jumper in) and 14 degrees max timing advance (jumper out). The six
cylinder pMag is a new design targeting the larger certified world. For the
six cylinder pMag you set both the base timing (typically 25 degrees for a stock
IO-540) and the max timing (high RPM/low MP). For the max you decide what
you want, but as been discussed the max advance is 9 degrees. I suggest this
reflects the certified market target.
- I offer that all my reading on timing advance indicates that a max of 9 degrees
advance is exactly what should be set. My experimentation on four cylinder
pMags verifies this setting. I got no increase in cruise efficiency going from
9 degrees to 14 degrees of advance (parallel valve IO-360, base timing set
at 25 degrees), but CHTs went up (as predicted). On an IO-390 engine (base timing
set at 20 degrees) the engine really was not happy at 14 degrees of advance.
One test flight and it want back to 9 degrees of advance.
- You will note that Lycoming now offers the four cylinder pMag on their line of
experimental engines from Vans. I would not be surprised for Lycoming to start
offering the six cylinder pMag for their line of experimental IO-540 engines.
- My old RV-10 has been flying for most of the year with the final production version
of the six cylinder pMag, (it did fly for several months before that with
a pre-production version that Brad at pMag called back to upgrade to the production
version). The production version of the pMag has been flawless - the
plane now with 100+ hours on the new ignition and just flew from Florida to California
for Christmas. Brads after the sale support has been superb. A second
pMag will be installed when it comes time to replace the existing mag. Brad
now has a large base of flying six cylinder pMags. I suggest a call to him
for details.
- The RV-10 demonstrated a significant gain in fuel efficient in high, LOP cruise.
For all you cross country guys this translates to perhaps not needing that
extra fuel stop. As with most electronic ignitions, engine start was a blade
or so.
- I would assume the delay in getting the six cylinder pMag out the door was the
negotiation to achieve an FAA certification to install this ignitions on certified
engines. This may be reflected in the requirement do a redesign to have
the FIXED/VARIABLE timing control.
- If only running one pMag I suggest running it on the bottom plugs (using auto
plugs) is the right way to go. The pMag spark will keep them cleaner. After
a 15 years of running pMags I have some confidence in this recommendation. I
also suggest that standard NGK BR8ES plugs (for parallel valve cylinders) provide
better value than the expensive Iridium plugs. I never clean BR8ES plugs.
I just replace then every year or two - way too cheap to clean.
- Considering how much I hated standard aviation plugs when the RV-10 just had
mags I would never consider keeping them with any electronic ignition install.
But, this might be the price to pay for some electronic ignitions. This might
reflect their painful how to get an FAA certification process.
- I helped install a ship power dependent ignition on a Lancair. The cobbled together
timing sensor, control board, ignition coils and associated wiring was
not what I expected for todays state of the market.
- For those running dual ship power dependent ignitions, I strongly recommend careful
thought on how your keep power to them, and how long that power will last
when the inevitable failure occurs. The plethora of backup battery schemes
out there to address this rarely meet this hard requirement. If you do not have
experience in power distribution fault analysis, get some help before you
go down this road.
- On the spark plug wire falling off the plug comment - I too had this happen during
the brief time I had LightSpeed II+ ignitions on the first RV (I assume
the less than great Lightspeed provided plug wires were the root issue for Tim
and me). I replace the plug wires and fixed that issue, but after 300 hours
of multiple problems they were pulled and replace with dual pMags. The dual pMags
have been flawless on that plane for 1000+ hours, as they have been on the
new RV-8, now 110 hours since first flight last April.
Happy flying,
Carl
> On Dec 26, 2020, at 3:57 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Kelly,
> A couple of thoughts on that.
>
> 1) I'm actually not a huge fan of auto plugs, on the BOTTOM. That's one the
reasons I purposely went surefly, and one of the reasons I didn't do
> lightspeed on the bottom. I've had a plug boot clip get loose over time
> and although it felt tight when installed, it repeatedly released, off a
> TOP plug, in flight. So the more I pondered it, I'm much more happy to
> use iridium aviation plugs on the bottom, with a standard harness that is mechanically
bolted on to the plug. The bottom plugs could have an
> even easier time of gravity/vibration induced plug wire disconnects. So
> I considered that a +1 for the Surefly for sure.
>
> The other thing that I call a -1 for the P-Mag is that I really don't
> think there are many 6 cylinder units out in the field yet, and they had
> them promised to ship "next month" for far too many years. My gut
> feeling is that they ran into issues, and I would want to see a lot more
> track record on them before personally considering them. I know that
> some of the early units from the company suffered gear wear issues
> as well, and if you read enough on VAF you'll find a few comments here
> and there that indicate potential issues. Yes, you'll also find a huge
> amount of support, but, I'm not sure you can just read all the positives
> and still trust it. There is enough moderation going on there that you
> never know what is the whole story. Case in point...there are multiple
> threads that completely disappear regarding EarthX battery issues.
> Anything that becomes too big of a publicity problem for an advertising
> manufacturer just goes away. So you really have to watch for threads
> over a long period of time to see what kinds of issues people run into,
> and I've seen enough that I myself would want to see far more time,
> especially if considering 6-cylinder P-Mags.
>
> I also consider it a +1 that the Surefly has been adopted by Lycoming
> as their electronic ignition too. They claim it has their own custom
> proprietary timing curve, but from a hardware perspective, it's the same
> unit. So if Lycoming has seen enough to be comfortable, I'm more
> inclined to be interested as well.
>
> I think you're probably off on the payback, as well. If you look at
> mags from a perspective of slick mag required/recommended maintenance,
> you're going to spend enough in the first 1,000 hours of operation to
> come out definitely ahead by going Surefly. The impulse couplers
> are also a disaster waiting to happen, with their rivet wear, so you
> avoid that whole concern. Add in the fact that you can also leave
> surefly enabled for starting and you'll have a nicer starting airplane.
> With my Lightspeed + Surefly, I have 2 that can fire during start,
> both with more engergy than a magneto. I also like that the Lightspeed
> I think is the best running and one of the longest in business of all
> the EI systems, and that it has a simple no-moving-part operationg.
> It makes for an ideal top side ignition. And I wouldn't want to put
> all my eggs in the same basket by having dual front mount sensors
> that could get ripped off by an alternator belt failure, so I'm glad to
> have the second system be a rear accessory case mounted system...again,
> with bolt on ignition harness wires.
>
> I'm just saying that when thinking through it, you have quite a few
> small details to consider. The PMag does get the +1 with the self
> generating power, but really that's one of the few places I can give it
> positive over the competition. It would be nice to see that feature
> on some competing products. That said, now that I'm dual-alternator
> and dual-bus feed to the surefly, I really don't have much concern
> anymore about the power side of things.
>
> My personal advice for people is, if you're running 2 mags presently,
> you should probably at least have a plan to replace one by the time
> you have 1,000 hours on one of them. It's pretty inevitable that
> you're going to want the long term benefits, so gear up and embrace
> one of the products so you don't get stuck in the high maintenance
> and lower reliability that magnetos (certainly slick magnetos) have.
> I know you like Bendix, which may change the decision slightly too.
> There's nothing worse than having an unexpected Mag issue force you
> to keep buying new magnetos because you weren't ready to make the jump.
>
> Also, the upgrade from a surefly standpoint, is about as simple as it
> gets, and can be done with about as little down time as a person
> could expect.
>
> Tim
>
>
>> On 12/26/20 2:59 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> After this thread got going I started thinking seriously about SureFly and
PMag 6 cylinder. After research, I found that SureFly has one possible advantage,
of advancing timing as far as 38 degrees under low power vs PMag only goes
to 34 degrees.
>> The P-mag has two more significant advantages....It has a built-in alternator
that supplies power to run the electronic all except during start, so you have
the same advantages of old magneto with much higher spark voltage. You can
even hand prop using a 9 volt battery to power the electronics until engine is
running. SureFly must have external power to operate.
>> The other BIG advantage is that it uses automotive plugs available anywhere
for about 1/6th the price of massive aircraft plugs. Plug gets fouled or quits...don't
waste time cleaning, just replace.
>> Both offer similar fuel economy and power boost possibilities. Both give automotive
variety starts, hot or cold. Price is very similar, unless you have to
buy Slick harness for SureFly (Bendix won't work) which is several hundred bucks.
Either way, payback is likely to be over TBO of the engine to at best payback
at half TBO. They look about even on effort to install. SureFly has STC approval
for certified aircraft, P-Mag is experimental only.
>> I probably will wait awhile longer to see this market mature.
>>> On 11/25/2020 4:02 PM, Phil Perry wrote:
>>> And I believe it requires a magneto with an impulse coupling on the other side.
Correct?
>>> Im pretty sure that is right.
>>> Phil
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> On Nov 25, 2020, at 3:49 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sheesh, I don't know how you pass the A&P practical if you can't do basic
trouble shooting on a mag.
>>>> If it won't fire with P lead disc, the problem is inside the mag, It could
be worn out points, bad condensor, damaged rotor.
>>>> A bad rotor will be pretty obvious from where it the contact is made at each
plug wire. Yes, it requires taking off the main rotor cap.
>>>> Slick mags have easy to get tools to verify e-gap setting.
>>>> Sent from myTRS-80 Model 100
>>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 2:33 PM Lenny Iszak <lenard@rapiddecision.com <mailto:lenard@rapiddecision.com>> wrote:
>>>> <lenard@rapiddecision.com <mailto:lenard@rapiddecision.com>>
>>>> Marcus,
>>>> The easiest swap is the Surefly. Keep the same plugs, harness and
>>>> magneto cap, and just swap in the Surefly for the mag, then
>>>> install a power wire and thats it. If it ever breaks while on a
>>>> trip you can always swap in a standard mag.
>>>> Theres only one minor issue with it, most current EFIS systems
>>>> can't read the RPM from the P-lead of the SureFly. Using a hall
>>>> effect sensor in the other mag takes care of that though.
>>>> Lenny
>>>>> On Nov 25, 2020, at 12:13 PM, Marcus Cooper <cooprv7@yahoo.com
>>>> <mailto:cooprv7@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>> <cooprv7@yahoo.com <mailto:cooprv7@yahoo.com>>
>>>>> During my run up to fly to meet the family for thanksgiving the
>>>> left magneto was completely dead. Back to the chicks to
>>>> troubleshoot where I removed the P leads in case they had grounded
>>>> somehow with no effect. I spoke with 3 mechanics and all had no
>>>> ideas other than replace the mag.
>>>>> Ive read some sporadic news about P Mags and maybe other
>>>> hybrid magnetos on the market. I dont want to go pure electronic
>>>> ignition due to other battery source issues, but does anyone have
>>>> any recommendations that would be a step up from a pure magneto?
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Marcus
>>>> ==========
>>>> -List" rel="noreferrer"
>>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> ==========
>>>> FORUMS -
>>>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> ==========
>>>> WIKI -
>>>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>>>> ==========
>>>> b Site -
>>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> ==========
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Efii system 32 |
Matt
I can't speak to the FLYEFII system, but do have experience with the SDEEFI.COM
system. I have been flying there electronic ignition / electronic fuel injection
system for 18 months and have 160+ hours.
Ross has a number of youtube videos showcasing the system, some created using my
-10. I believe Ross has 2,000+ systems flying so he does have a track record.
Cheers
Les
RV10 C-CGCWZ (vacationing in the US)
RV10 C-GROK flying
RV10#3 under construction
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=499839#499839
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|