Both the alternator and the battery has to go down before the ignition stops.
Yeah, and that’s exactly what happens in GA. The alternator packs up and half an hour later….. the engine stops! Except with magnetos it never stops. Not unless both fail. This point is not lost on prospective customers.
The probability of the ignition failing with the implicit redundancy of power is insignificant (considering it is quality made).
Having been in electronics since the 1960s and having seen the junk which GA electronics often are, I would disagree. I would never abandon magnetos, unless I had two separate electronic ignition systems, with each having their own power source. And preferably designed and manufactured by two different companies.
What you get is a largely problem free ignition that just works all the time
That would imply 100% reliability 
The real performance gain is electronic fuel injection.
Sure, but then you have a pile of other things which can and do fail e.g. oxygen sensors.
I think a mechanical Lycosaur is something that is trusted. Not because it is a particularly reliable device, far from it, but because it is known. Every detail is known. Everything that can happen, has happened at some point in time to some particular unit(s). You do the engine check procedure before take off. Everything is OK 99 out of 100 times. The one time it is not OK also increases your trust because it “tells” you about it. If something fails in the air, it is seldom a total failure (unless out of fuel), and this also increases your trust in it.
If you change something, your head suddenly is filled with “what ifs”. What if the battery explode, what if the wires burns and so on. This is normal because it is new and “unknown”. Regaining the trust requires time in the field. You simply have to gain experience again. Those who will never appreciate the reliability and simplicity of operation of a Rotax 912 iS, are those who never have experienced it over time. They never will experience it over time because they do not have the trust in it that requires experience over time to get. It’s as simple as that.
Long term, I am concerned that the system could fail due to excessive vibration or heat. There’s a reason that the electronic brain of a car’s electronic ignition system is not mounted directly to the engine. It will be interesting to see as more of these are installed and hours are racked up. I would think making the circuit boards separate from the unit and mounted elsewhere would make more sense, but then again, it would require more to install.
There is also an Electroair system, which does advance the timing. As mentioned above, dynamic timing advance is the real benefit of an electronic ignition. There is an interesting article in the May 2018 Aviation Consumer, primarily on the Electroair system but also mentioning the Surefly unit. Of course the approval status information is of that date only. Note the very last paragraph of the article……
Electroair’s Electronic Ignition: Performance
It seems that installation cabling is critical and Electroair has even made a YouTube video to help do it properly. Almost all installation problems are because the mechanic doing the job didn’t quite get it right. 
One comment that I found interesting is that the 2nd mag is then essentially just there for backup and during normal operation has no real added value.
Some interesting stuff in that article…
Having a 12,000-volt spark in the midst of a 70,000-volt spark-created combustion event doesn’t do much to help the event and doesn’t hurt it.
Hmmm the spark gap will break down at a voltage which is determined by the gap and the gas type and gas pressure. I used to work in high voltage. So the difference will be (potentially) in the energy, not in the voltage.
The additional power allowed Suderman to climb 10 percent higher—previously the Pitts topped out at 21,000 feet. Now he was able to get above 23,000 feet.
That is amazing too. You need way more power for 23k than 21k.
A flying club operating Cessna 172s reported a reduction in average fuel consumption of 1.25 GPH according to the records it kept on fuel consumption on club airplanes.
That is massive – unless they are just flying a bit slower, or have suddenly started to lean the engine. Otherwise it would be a ~10% improvement in SFC, which is not possible.
It does sound great, but some of the claims don’t make a lot of sense, which worries me a bit.
Forty years back when I was a penniless engineering apprentice by Triumph Trident motorcycle had three sets of points that provided the ignition this was the original factory fit, a company came along offering an electronic ignition system that claimed the same sort of benifits that the aircraft systems are now claiming.
I fitted the system and it ran faultlessly for years ( well until the bike was stolen ) with smoother runnng much better starting and improved fuel consumption that over time paid for the unit.
While the improvement in fuel consumption did not entirely meet the claims of the makers I would have been happy just to get the other benifits of fitting the system such as not spending lots of time adjusting the old ignition system and knowing the bike would fire first time on a cold morning.
I suspect that the Electronair system is going to be a bit like the system fitted to the bike in that the lower maintenance costs from better starting and lower vibration will be hard to quantify, not having to do the 500 hour check on one mag you can quantify as you can reduction in fuel consumption but I don’t expect the fuel advantage to be as good as some say.
Strangely enough back when I fitted the electronic ignition to the bike the critics said much the same as some above most being cynical about the advantages.
I was entirely happy when I ditched the points ignition on the bike and then intend to fit the electronair system to my aircraft as soon as the ESTC is granted , I expect the experience to be much the same as the bike in terms of operation and advantages but would never have dreamed that it would take forty years to get to see the back of a set of ignition points on aircraft.There is no doubt that electronic ignition brings reliability and the better trigger mechanism avoids regular maintenance of the ridiculous contact points.
What I don’t understand is why we don’t have direct-swap replacements for the magnetos. Such a product would contain its own generator. What is so difficult? It is always hard to enter a market with a half-baked product and having to retain one of the two mags (and having to IRAN or overhaul it etc periodically) is an acknowledgement that the product “can’t be trusted”.
So what’s the process for something like this to get EASA approval? And how long are we talking?
My guess is that electronair will have the ESTC by the end of the year as it is already flying on EASA aircraft that have an American type certificate by using the FAA STC.
Interested in feedback from anyone who might have installed the SureFly mag. I gather it is only approved for N-Reg but looks like the end of an era for the old mag mechanical as the primary.
Given our Conti/Lyco engines would make a German engineer cry, some sort of advance to the 21st would be most welcome.
PF
