Peter
Can you clarify your comment? “think that this will probably never get certified” when it has just been STC’ed, it only replaces one magneto, you always have the standard magneto in the second hole.
For the electroair soltion for the dual mag – the dual mag installed on the engine will be replaced by the hybrid magneto which also had a generator and the second igntiion will be the standalone EIS 4100.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/september/12/electroair-ignition-system-approved-for-turbocharged-lycoming-series
My comment applied to the link, which is a single shaft dual magneto. Having seen your post – many thanks – I will update the other thread.
I agree with Peter, this unit can’t replace a Bendix dual Mag as a single point electrical failure will stop the engine.
So they got an AML for the surefly approved – however ignition advance is not allowed, though that is only a dip switch setting away
Without ignition advance, how can this possibly work?
In any electronic ignition system where you leave one of the two magnetos in place, the only performance benefit can be derived from advancing the timing on the electronic ignition.
You cannot retard it because the original magneto will fire anyway at its normal time, so the electronic ignition’s spark will be largely wasted.
There may be a reliability benefit in case the original magneto fails totally, but this is really far fetched because the probability of that happening and the second conventional magneto failing then, is astronomically small (unless somebody did a dodgy mag overhaul, etc).
No wonder there is so little interest in electronic ignition…
I agree, not much benefit unless you turn on the advance, easier starts though as timing is set to 0 degrees below 500rpm.
On Mooney space there was a survey from surefly looking for climb and cruise cht/egt, if the faa was looking for that information then I can understand why they could not get advance approved, of course the faa has all that experimental information from the electroair certification but it would not be a bureaucracy unless you had pointless repetition of information and form filling
Isn’t the spark much more powerful than a conventional mag, ensuring better combustion even without advancing the timing?
True, but the advanced timing is the key, personally if I did not have the bendix dual mag I would install this, run it and then turn on the advanced timing myself, on a Mooney with chts around 340 during cruise at 10k a little bit of advanced timing could do wonders.
Electroair has proven that advanced timing on an aero engine works, why reject the science!!
The Q of why electronic ignition is not around in the certified scene has been done in various threads, and it depends on who you talk to. The makers blame certification and as usual in GA I think that is a handy excuse for not much interest. Why not much interest? Electronics in GA has a poor reputation for reliability (I recall various reliability issues being reported; some previous threads) and people trust the old technology, even if you could get another few % off the fuel burn (in cruise) with optimal timing. But no manufacturer wants to admit that. I think the market is speaking, and not in the way which is obvious.
Isn’t the spark much more powerful than a conventional mag, ensuring better combustion even without advancing the timing?
It might be. I used to build electronic ignitions for Yamaha 2-strokes, in the late 1970s 
But unless the magneto is shagged, the effect of this will be very second-order. The motorbike ignitions were crap…
I am sure some mags have a lot more power than others. The Bendix ones are capable of blowing the insulation in the magneto if the spark plug gap is too big, so there is plenty of spare power.
A_and_C wrote:
I agree with Peter, this unit can’t replace a Bendix dual Mag as a single point electrical failure will stop the engine.
This isn’t correct. Modern engines have electronic ignitions (ULP, Rotax, etc). Even with just one battery, one bus, there is still redundancy. Both the alternator and the battery has to go down before the ignition stops.
Besides, when working with reliability you have to look at real numbers, real actual probabilities of failure, not just redundancy. You have only one crank, one carb, one propeller etc also. The probability of the ignition failing with the implicit redundancy of power is insignificant (considering it is quality made).
What you get is a largely problem free ignition that just works all the time. But, performance wise, I’m not so sure it’s even measurable in normal circumstances. You also have manual mixture, which will offset any performance gain if you are not 100% on all the time. The real performance gain is electronic fuel injection. We learned that when installing it on our glider tow plain. It’s like night and day. Starts every time with the push of a button, runs super smooth, all cylinders get exact equal amount of fuel, optimal mixture in all conditions.
