Thanks for the shoutout, and I'm glad the footage of our instal was helpful to tell the story! I'm beyond pleased with the ElectroAir electronic ignition that we put on my 1961 172B (Continental 0-300) - improved starting, and about 1 gallon per hour lower fuel burn at the same altitude and power settings... which of course lets me run a higher power setting for the same fuel burn as before. Stop by my channel if you want to see the whole instal.
Hotter spark & easier starting. Some units offer automatic timing adjustment based off manifold pressure for optimized spark timing. This also includes fuel efficiency improvements if optimized ignition timing is provided at altitudes.
For what it's worth, I have a 1968 Cherokee 235 (O540-B4B5) and had the Electro Air system installed and have two years and 300+ hours on it. Love the push button start, engine stays clean, smooth power and noticeably stronger than Magneto. You'll see only about a 10-20 RPM Drop when mag checking (magneto off) because the EI is so strong (70,000 volt). Also, I replaced my Left (impulse) mag because EIS provides full spark at 0 RPM, includes MAP sensor/control of timing so starts are a breeze. I have been very happy with my investment, and have flown from Las Vegas to South Florida, the Bahamas and back twice...never even a hiccup. Just my experience, your milage may vary. Purchased through Smooth Power, they were great with support for my shop and me.
Forgot to mention, I purchased the recommended fine wire plugs from Electro Air as well, and also replaced my others with fine wire too. Make sure to check the plug recommendations when researching. The voltages are high, so the plug gaps are different. I went with fine wire and could not be more pleased.
I've installed a Surefly Impulse magneto for my PA38 112 Piper Tomahawk. Love every minute of it. Smoother hot starts, lower fuel GPH, Lower CHT/EGT, leaning has shown smoother LOP, Slightly more power on takeoff. Less 500 hour maintenance with Surefly Impulse magneto. Waiting to install my EarthX TSO900 battery next to see how much more power on hot starts I will have after replacing my Concorde battery and save 25lbs in overall weight.
I fitted the Electroair system to my Robin DR400-180 ( Lycoming O-360 ) and am very pleased the initial impression is better starting, smoother running and a fuel saving of around 1 USG/HR. The paperwork was a bit of an issue with it being a French aircraft that never got an American type certificate and on the British register. The U.K. CAA have been very helpful over the certification as they have seen this Electroair system fitted to a PA28 using the FAA STC. The aircraft is very short on space forward of the firewall so getting the coil pack fitted required some work but all the rest of the install was not troublesome. It took me three days to get this job done but I would guess I could do it in two days ( on a Robin ) with the experience gained from the first instal. Aircraft like the PA28 & C172 should be a great deal less trouble as they have much more room forward of the firewall and better access. As I only have 35 hours on the engine and EI system the long term benefits are not yet apparent but my overall impression is very positive.
Excellent episode Dan and Christy. Cleaner engine, more power, fuel saving, and easier starts. Sounds like a great investment to me. Thank you for the great topic. Keep up the excellent work. Safe skies my friends 🇺🇸🛩️
Quicker starting due to hotter spark - That's a plus! More power - who doesn't like more power? (cue the Tim Allen "Uuuh-uhhh-uhhh!") Only at the end did they talk about the cost saving benefit of NOT having to send each of your magnetos in for overhaul every 500 hours. Figure over $800 for a mag overhaul, providing nothing is otherwise out of spec. 10 working days (two weeks) plus shipping for the overhaul shop for your mag overhaul, then the added cost of your own A&P time/scheduling... So figure that $10k initial investment in the Electroaire ignition (including labor) minus the $4k for the mag overhauls for the one magneto over 2000hrs... That brings the cost per 2000 hrs to $6k Also subtract the fuel savings (most figure almost 1gal/hr less fuel burn ($6/gal x 2000 hrs)) so another $12k saved, so we've actually SAVED $6k for 2000 flight hours AND the more efficient burn meaning less Top overhauls... another major savings!!! You'll actually probably see a NET SAVINGS of nearly $10k or more between Engine Overhauls!!!
FADEC: The PA28 can be converted to the Continental Diesel Engine. ElectroAir: I have one in my 1974 Cherokee Warrior (installed it on a mid time engine). It's worth every penny. Starts better, uses less fuel, runs smoother.... Power Increase is quite nice... and the EAir's TBO is significantly higher than any magneto. So: Fuel savings, Magneto Overhaul and everything else considered.... this Mod pays for itself.
We put EIS on left engine of Archer and it would leave pilot stranded as it was so difficult to start. Hard on battery and hard on starter. Followed install instruction to a tee and revisited during troubleshooting. With continued problems customer requested it be removed and Slick reinstalled. Then started dependable.
This is Sealy buyers to electro air, which is fine, but at least make it no known fly has dual magneto STC replacement and sure fly also gives a much stronger spark from its discharge coil just like electro air. They’re not the same but they are more similar than different. Let’s put out good information out there..
That's a great thought... if you have one of the aircraft they are working towards STCs on. Unfortunately they've told me that they won't be seeking an STC for my model of aircraft.
@GlenAndFriendsCooking Not certified. Certified means nothing. Not as though you could just swap a deltahawk into any certified aircraft. BMW M57 is a great engine, but not very common anymore. B57 with some modification would be better than a deltahawk. The issue is people are demanding modern powerplants when the aircraft are all designed for old engines. The B57 with slight modifications is good for about 200kw continuous power, and a peak of 225kw. The deltahawk 235 is only rated to 175kw peak, and it is about 10% less efficient. I know you will laugh at that. The BMW engines have and still are being used at max power continuously in marine applications on a commercial level. I'll be using one for my next experimental helicopter as it's the best option available. There are 4 cylinder variants available, just as diamond uses a mercedes version in their aircraft.
B&C among others sells backup alternators that mount on the vacuum pad so it's not too difficult to move to dual alternators. Given the crap reliability of vacuum pumps I'd rather have dual alternators. There's also EMag which claims to built a mini alternator into their system so it can pull from aircraft bus or its internal alternator but I don't know much about them.
THERE IS NO FADEC IN PISTON ENGINES... FADEC IS A TURBOJET TERM. Magnetos are not weak at high RPM. However Electronic is stronger at START and gives you advance below 75% power. There are no moving or wear parts. That is EI advantage. In Experimental you can run CAR SPARK PLUGS which are much much cheaper.. One EI is about 4% and second is about 2%. One EI and one MAG is a good compromise and saves from redundant electrical AUX bus. EI does nothing for people who fly at low altitude at higher power. You do lots of cruise above 8000 ft it helps. COST, fuel savings will take 10 to 20 yrs in fuel savings. Save MAG AD and inspections.
@@LesOReilly tell me more does it manipulate the propeller? The single lever cirrus the propeller is a mechanical linkage, not electronically controlled. Do you say cars have FADC because they have electronic ignition and electronic fuel injection with one pedal? No, because it’s just electronic ignition and fuel injection (and electronically controlled transmission). The FADC is doing so much more in turbojets. It’s internally moving stator vanes, fuel controllers, valves and a host of other things that are not related to piston engines. I don’t even think these companies that have electronic fuel injection and ignition for piston engine aircraft call it FADC. Some aircraft with the Rotax UL iS engines could be considered single lever with a fixed pitch prop. The Rotax has electronic ignition and electronic fuel injection and they don’t call it.FADC. About 30 or more yrs ago jet engines went from controlling engines with mechanical cables and hydraulics to electrical wires with digital information.
@@gmcjetpilot I think you need to look up the 172 JT-A and the CD-155 engine. Seems like you need to take it up with Cessna / Continental/ AOPA and all the others calling it a true dual FADEC design. I am sure you can save the internet.
I don’t need to look it up. CD-155 has been out for a long time and it is a commercial failure OK. I know all about it and I’m sure you’re impressed but it’s not really not full authority digital control that applies to turbojets. In their literature, they mentioned FADEC electrical system? That is the sales department making up hype because low info ppl liked you will be impressed. “FADEC” offers no real value. They didn’t sell so many and I don’t think they plan on making it much longer or they’ve already discontinued it. It’s really a warmed over car diesel engine and only makes 155 hp. The electronic prop rpm control is rudimentary and based on throttle position. apology like automatic vs manual car transmission. I’d rather be choosing my own RPM like manual transmission.. cd-155 really a rudimentary rpm mapping. Unlike a car going up and down gears, a constant speed prop plane you set rpm 3 times, climb, cruise , landing. It’s not needed to remove prop control and not Full Authority. Cirrus is not impressed with continentals other FADEC TIO550. jets FADEC was game changing So called FADEC on piston engines not so much. It’s just electronic fuel and ignition like every car on road. My TDI VW diesel common rail fuel with pizio injectors is far more advanced. The DSG transmission is a dual clutch manual that is automatically shifted or I can shift manually. Car tech more Adv and not FADEC. But to that point advanced complications is not needed in small plane’s. Most important reliability simplicity weight redundancy and cost. These “FADEC plane engines are stupid costly and provide no real advantage. Jets it was game changing. What are you not getting? It has electronic fuel injection. Yawn it’s diesel. Electronic ignition? or in this case diesel it has NO ignition just glow plugs. Still not fadc still. OK
@@gmcjetpilot I think you have a solid case for False advertising and Fraud. You should go after all of these airplane manufacturers and engine manufacturers. You keep fighting that good fight!
Way too much misinformation on this video. Gummed up oil rings can be resolved by doing a ring wash. In many cases, you DO NOT need to do a top overhaul. You guys need to watch Mike Busch’s videos on this. Also, leaning INCREASES cylinder head temp due to less fuel cooling the cylinders, which is why you do not want to do it in a climb as you increase the chance for detonation. Lastly, since hot starts are caused by air in the fuel lines, kindly explain how a hotter spark would help??
Thanks for the shoutout, and I'm glad the footage of our instal was helpful to tell the story!
I'm beyond pleased with the ElectroAir electronic ignition that we put on my 1961 172B (Continental 0-300) - improved starting, and about 1 gallon per hour lower fuel burn at the same altitude and power settings... which of course lets me run a higher power setting for the same fuel burn as before.
Stop by my channel if you want to see the whole instal.
1 gal per hour is pretty significant on an O-300. That’s impressive. How different are the CHT’s?
@@VictoryAviation The increase in CHT temp is negligible and well within the safe range.
Hotter spark & easier starting. Some units offer automatic timing adjustment based off manifold pressure for optimized spark timing. This also includes fuel efficiency improvements if optimized ignition timing is provided at altitudes.
Huge fan of Electroair.
For what it's worth, I have a 1968 Cherokee 235 (O540-B4B5) and had the Electro Air system installed and have two years and 300+ hours on it. Love the push button start, engine stays clean, smooth power and noticeably stronger than Magneto. You'll see only about a 10-20 RPM Drop when mag checking (magneto off) because the EI is so strong (70,000 volt). Also, I replaced my Left (impulse) mag because EIS provides full spark at 0 RPM, includes MAP sensor/control of timing so starts are a breeze. I have been very happy with my investment, and have flown from Las Vegas to South Florida, the Bahamas and back twice...never even a hiccup. Just my experience, your milage may vary. Purchased through Smooth Power, they were great with support for my shop and me.
Forgot to mention, I purchased the recommended fine wire plugs from Electro Air as well, and also replaced my others with fine wire too. Make sure to check the plug recommendations when researching. The voltages are high, so the plug gaps are different. I went with fine wire and could not be more pleased.
I've installed a Surefly Impulse magneto for my PA38 112 Piper Tomahawk. Love every minute of it. Smoother hot starts, lower fuel GPH, Lower CHT/EGT, leaning has shown smoother LOP, Slightly more power on takeoff. Less 500 hour maintenance with Surefly Impulse magneto. Waiting to install my EarthX TSO900 battery next to see how much more power on hot starts I will have after replacing my Concorde battery and save 25lbs in overall weight.
I fitted the Electroair system to my Robin DR400-180 ( Lycoming O-360 ) and am very pleased the initial impression is better starting, smoother running and a fuel saving of around 1 USG/HR. The paperwork was a bit of an issue with it being a French aircraft that never got an American type certificate and on the British register. The U.K. CAA have been very helpful over the certification as they have seen this Electroair system fitted to a PA28 using the FAA STC. The aircraft is very short on space forward of the firewall so getting the coil pack fitted required some work but all the rest of the install was not troublesome. It took me three days to get this job done but I would guess I could do it in two days ( on a Robin ) with the experience gained from the first instal. Aircraft like the PA28 & C172 should be a great deal less trouble as they have much more room forward of the firewall and better access. As I only have 35 hours on the engine and EI system the long term benefits are not yet apparent but my overall impression is very positive.
Excellent episode Dan and Christy. Cleaner engine, more power, fuel saving, and easier starts. Sounds like a great investment to me. Thank you for the great topic. Keep up the excellent work. Safe skies my friends 🇺🇸🛩️
Helps me uderstand why aircraft engine failures are common - incomplete ignition leading to fouling.
Making a 3hr flight with a known electrical system failure is how the holes in the Swiss cheese start to line up…..
Quicker starting due to hotter spark - That's a plus!
More power - who doesn't like more power? (cue the Tim Allen "Uuuh-uhhh-uhhh!")
Only at the end did they talk about the cost saving benefit of NOT having to send each of your magnetos in for overhaul every 500 hours. Figure over $800 for a mag overhaul, providing nothing is otherwise out of spec. 10 working days (two weeks) plus shipping for the overhaul shop for your mag overhaul, then the added cost of your own A&P time/scheduling...
So figure that $10k initial investment in the Electroaire ignition (including labor) minus the $4k for the mag overhauls for the one magneto over 2000hrs... That brings the cost per 2000 hrs to $6k
Also subtract the fuel savings (most figure almost 1gal/hr less fuel burn ($6/gal x 2000 hrs)) so another $12k saved, so we've actually SAVED $6k for 2000 flight hours
AND the more efficient burn meaning less Top overhauls... another major savings!!!
You'll actually probably see a NET SAVINGS of nearly $10k or more between Engine Overhauls!!!
FADEC: The PA28 can be converted to the Continental Diesel Engine. ElectroAir: I have one in my 1974 Cherokee Warrior (installed it on a mid time engine). It's worth every penny. Starts better, uses less fuel, runs smoother.... Power Increase is quite nice... and the EAir's TBO is significantly higher than any magneto.
So: Fuel savings, Magneto Overhaul and everything else considered.... this Mod pays for itself.
👍✅ How things have changed for the better👏Tks Dan & Christy
Dang straight it’s worth it! Easier starting, timing advance at altitude for more power. No 500 hour overhauls.
My aztec when I owned it was horrible at hot starting.
Somewhat inaccurate, Surefly now allows dual installation. A little biassed to Electroair.
Key barrel is tricky to start so getting a new engine????
Christy, our club has one on our Archer and we all feel it was well worth it.
We put EIS on left engine of Archer and it would leave pilot stranded as it was so difficult to start. Hard on battery and hard on starter. Followed install instruction to a tee and revisited during troubleshooting. With continued problems customer requested it be removed and Slick reinstalled. Then started dependable.
This is Sealy buyers to electro air, which is fine, but at least make it no known fly has dual magneto STC replacement and sure fly also gives a much stronger spark from its discharge coil just like electro air. They’re not the same but they are more similar than different. Let’s put out good information out there..
If one is replacing the engine, then I would consider the Deltahawk diesel.
That's a great thought... if you have one of the aircraft they are working towards STCs on.
Unfortunately they've told me that they won't be seeking an STC for my model of aircraft.
Already better diesel engines on the market.
@@chippyjohn1 Please let us know what these better engines are, and which aircraft they are certified / STC'd for.
@GlenAndFriendsCooking Not certified. Certified means nothing. Not as though you could just swap a deltahawk into any certified aircraft. BMW M57 is a great engine, but not very common anymore. B57 with some modification would be better than a deltahawk. The issue is people are demanding modern powerplants when the aircraft are all designed for old engines. The B57 with slight modifications is good for about 200kw continuous power, and a peak of 225kw. The deltahawk 235 is only rated to 175kw peak, and it is about 10% less efficient. I know you will laugh at that. The BMW engines have and still are being used at max power continuously in marine applications on a commercial level. I'll be using one for my next experimental helicopter as it's the best option available. There are 4 cylinder variants available, just as diamond uses a mercedes version in their aircraft.
@@chippyjohn1 Got it - you're not talking about powerplants for certified aircraft.
Thumbs up 👍
Hey, I have a AMD CH2000. Its not on SureFly’s AML
I always hated those double magnetos. One drive on two magnetos.
C’mon guys. You don’t need an electronic ignition to eliminate the key. Simply replace with a push button (experimental:)
I can't imagine trying to add a second alternator to an engine. It seems putting twin electronic mags in an older plane would be very difficulty.
Some Cessna 210's have dual alternators. THere have been many times I wish I did in mine.
B&C among others sells backup alternators that mount on the vacuum pad so it's not too difficult to move to dual alternators. Given the crap reliability of vacuum pumps I'd rather have dual alternators.
There's also EMag which claims to built a mini alternator into their system so it can pull from aircraft bus or its internal alternator but I don't know much about them.
How would you power the alternator if mounted on the back of the engine on the vacuum pump attachment site ?
Has n[thing to do with your key.
THERE IS NO FADEC IN PISTON ENGINES... FADEC IS A TURBOJET TERM. Magnetos are not weak at high RPM. However Electronic is stronger at START and gives you advance below 75% power. There are no moving or wear parts. That is EI advantage. In Experimental you can run CAR SPARK PLUGS which are much much cheaper..
One EI is about 4% and second is about 2%. One EI and one MAG is a good compromise and saves from redundant electrical AUX bus.
EI does nothing for people who fly at low altitude at higher power. You do lots of cruise above 8000 ft it helps. COST, fuel savings will take 10 to 20 yrs in fuel savings.
Save MAG AD and inspections.
The 172 JT-A ran the CD-155 which has a Tru Dual Channel FADEC .. So how is that not in a piston engine?
@@LesOReilly tell me more does it manipulate the propeller? The single lever cirrus the propeller is a mechanical linkage, not electronically controlled. Do you say cars have FADC because they have electronic ignition and electronic fuel injection with one pedal? No, because it’s just electronic ignition and fuel injection (and electronically controlled transmission). The FADC is doing so much more in turbojets. It’s internally moving stator vanes, fuel controllers, valves and a host of other things that are not related to piston engines. I don’t even think these companies that have electronic fuel injection and ignition for piston engine aircraft call it FADC. Some aircraft with the Rotax UL iS engines could be considered single lever with a fixed pitch prop. The Rotax has electronic ignition and electronic fuel injection and they don’t call it.FADC. About 30 or more yrs ago jet engines went from controlling engines with mechanical cables and hydraulics to electrical wires with digital information.
@@gmcjetpilot I think you need to look up the 172 JT-A and the CD-155 engine. Seems like you need to take it up with Cessna / Continental/ AOPA and all the others calling it a true dual FADEC design.
I am sure you can save the internet.
I don’t need to look it up. CD-155 has been out for a long time and it is a commercial failure OK. I know all about it and I’m sure you’re impressed but it’s not really not full authority digital control that applies to turbojets. In their literature, they mentioned FADEC electrical system? That is the sales department making up hype because low info ppl liked you will be impressed. “FADEC” offers no real value. They didn’t sell so many and I don’t think they plan on making it much longer or they’ve already discontinued it. It’s really a warmed over car diesel engine and only makes 155 hp.
The electronic prop rpm control is rudimentary and based on throttle position. apology like automatic vs manual car transmission. I’d rather be choosing my own RPM like manual transmission.. cd-155 really a rudimentary rpm mapping. Unlike a car going up and down gears, a constant speed prop plane you set rpm 3 times, climb, cruise , landing. It’s not needed to remove prop control and not Full Authority. Cirrus is not impressed with continentals other FADEC TIO550. jets FADEC was game changing So called FADEC on piston engines not so much. It’s just electronic fuel and ignition like every car on road.
My TDI VW diesel common rail fuel with pizio injectors is far more advanced. The DSG transmission is a dual clutch manual that is automatically shifted or I can shift manually. Car tech more Adv and not FADEC. But to that point advanced complications is not needed in small plane’s. Most important reliability simplicity weight redundancy and cost. These “FADEC plane engines are stupid costly and provide no real advantage. Jets it was game changing.
What are you not getting? It has electronic fuel injection. Yawn it’s diesel. Electronic ignition? or in this case diesel it has NO ignition just glow plugs. Still not fadc still. OK
@@gmcjetpilot I think you have a solid case for False advertising and Fraud. You should go after all of these airplane manufacturers and engine manufacturers.
You keep fighting that good fight!
This isn't new to the automotive world... and think about how often a modern ignition fails. I'm guessing the system will out live the the engines.
Way too much misinformation on this video.
Gummed up oil rings can be resolved by doing a ring wash. In many cases, you DO NOT need to do a top overhaul. You guys need to watch Mike Busch’s videos on this.
Also, leaning INCREASES cylinder head temp due to less fuel cooling the cylinders, which is why you do not want to do it in a climb as you increase the chance for detonation.
Lastly, since hot starts are caused by air in the fuel lines, kindly explain how a hotter spark would help??