My experience with the ElectroAir ignition upgrade
Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray
- BlackMammoth
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:50 pm
- First Name: Phil
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N29PG
- Airports: KPSP
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 23 times
My experience with the ElectroAir ignition upgrade
A year and a half back, our DA40 went in for annual. Both of our magnetos required service and one needed replacement. This seemed like a logical time to install electronic ignition in N29PG.
Install Process:
The install is not difficult, but it is lengthy. Gryphon Aircraft Services charged us 7.5 hours of labor total.
We chose to mount the coilpacks on the bracket that used to hold the Slickstart module (no need for that anymore). The ignition "brain" and MAP sensor housing ended up behind the right side of the instrument panel. Two new breakers were added to the panel to support the ignition system. Our existing Tempest Fine Wire plugs were regapped for the ElectroAir locations.
Flying the plane with Electronic Ignition:
Starts are instant now, not that they were slow before. Even when the engine is at a less than ideal mixture or quite cold, it fires right up.
Once you get the engine running it is clear something has changed as it is very smooth at idle. Even if you pull the throttle back to the stop and end up at 600ish rpm it still happily idles smoothly.
Run-up is a little different as running on the ElectroAir alone during a mag check produces almost no drop in RPM, obviously the remaining magneto still produces a noticeable drop in RPM. When you complete the run-up and switch back to "Both" the ElectroAir restarts the computer that drives it and it shuts down for 1/10 of a second during this time... weird if you aren't expecting it.
Takeoff and climb performance seem similar to me at airports near sea level. Once you get above 5-7k feet or retard the throttle below 24" of manifold pressure the system begins advancing the ignition timing. It advances the timing roughly 2 degrees per inch lost of manifold pressure after 24 inches.
If you don't fly below 24" of manifold pressure frequently you probably won't see a huge benefit. The ignition system does not care if you reduce the manifold pressure by climbing or by retarding the throttle.
Once you get the ignition timing advanced, the differences in performance become clearer. The airplane is faster on the same fuel burn that you used to fly, or you can fly your previous mag-equipped speed on less fuel by easing the throttle back (but who does that?).
At 8k feet the difference in speed for us was about 4 knots - at higher altitudes the difference is much greater. For the first time since owning the plane our cruise speeds LOP topped 140 KTAS regularly.
Speaking of LOP...
We fly LOP during every flight with a significant cruise portion. Installing the ElectroAir system allows to run leaner (a lot leaner) and still remain smooth. Additionally, the speed penalty for running LOP vs ROP diminished significantly. A typical example was 144 KTAS on 10.4gph or 140 on 8.2gph with no detectable change in the "feel" of the engine.
CHTs - Producing more power produces more heat, and our CHTs were higher after ElectroAir than before. Especially at altitude this is apparent! I have seen 380+ CHTs ROP while at 16k feet, swapping to LOP dropped them into the mid 300s. High CHTs have not been a problem, just be aware if you have marginal cooling now...
Maintenance - There really isn't any. You have replace the plugs (just like a mag ignition) and one day the ignition wires will begin to fail (just like a mag ignition). I expect it to be cheaper than a magneto over the course of it's life.
Should I buy this for my plane?
Do you fly high enough, or pull the throttle back to spend time with less than 24" of manifold pressure?
Do you fly ROP or LOP? My experience is that there is a greater gain LOP.
My guess is that Flight Schools would really benefit from this (lots of low MP flying).
How much did it cost?
Total installed was $3918 and change.
Anecdote:
Years before we installed ElectroAir my wife and I trained for our instrument rating. We made a chart of power settings for our DA40. Very simple stuff - such and such RPM and Manifold pressure in this configuration = this performance. After ElectroAir we had to make a new chart, as the same power settings now had us going 10-14 knots faster. This is because our approach power settings were at low MP settings, so we had lots of ignition advance (and efficiency)
Install Process:
The install is not difficult, but it is lengthy. Gryphon Aircraft Services charged us 7.5 hours of labor total.
We chose to mount the coilpacks on the bracket that used to hold the Slickstart module (no need for that anymore). The ignition "brain" and MAP sensor housing ended up behind the right side of the instrument panel. Two new breakers were added to the panel to support the ignition system. Our existing Tempest Fine Wire plugs were regapped for the ElectroAir locations.
Flying the plane with Electronic Ignition:
Starts are instant now, not that they were slow before. Even when the engine is at a less than ideal mixture or quite cold, it fires right up.
Once you get the engine running it is clear something has changed as it is very smooth at idle. Even if you pull the throttle back to the stop and end up at 600ish rpm it still happily idles smoothly.
Run-up is a little different as running on the ElectroAir alone during a mag check produces almost no drop in RPM, obviously the remaining magneto still produces a noticeable drop in RPM. When you complete the run-up and switch back to "Both" the ElectroAir restarts the computer that drives it and it shuts down for 1/10 of a second during this time... weird if you aren't expecting it.
Takeoff and climb performance seem similar to me at airports near sea level. Once you get above 5-7k feet or retard the throttle below 24" of manifold pressure the system begins advancing the ignition timing. It advances the timing roughly 2 degrees per inch lost of manifold pressure after 24 inches.
If you don't fly below 24" of manifold pressure frequently you probably won't see a huge benefit. The ignition system does not care if you reduce the manifold pressure by climbing or by retarding the throttle.
Once you get the ignition timing advanced, the differences in performance become clearer. The airplane is faster on the same fuel burn that you used to fly, or you can fly your previous mag-equipped speed on less fuel by easing the throttle back (but who does that?).
At 8k feet the difference in speed for us was about 4 knots - at higher altitudes the difference is much greater. For the first time since owning the plane our cruise speeds LOP topped 140 KTAS regularly.
Speaking of LOP...
We fly LOP during every flight with a significant cruise portion. Installing the ElectroAir system allows to run leaner (a lot leaner) and still remain smooth. Additionally, the speed penalty for running LOP vs ROP diminished significantly. A typical example was 144 KTAS on 10.4gph or 140 on 8.2gph with no detectable change in the "feel" of the engine.
CHTs - Producing more power produces more heat, and our CHTs were higher after ElectroAir than before. Especially at altitude this is apparent! I have seen 380+ CHTs ROP while at 16k feet, swapping to LOP dropped them into the mid 300s. High CHTs have not been a problem, just be aware if you have marginal cooling now...
Maintenance - There really isn't any. You have replace the plugs (just like a mag ignition) and one day the ignition wires will begin to fail (just like a mag ignition). I expect it to be cheaper than a magneto over the course of it's life.
Should I buy this for my plane?
Do you fly high enough, or pull the throttle back to spend time with less than 24" of manifold pressure?
Do you fly ROP or LOP? My experience is that there is a greater gain LOP.
My guess is that Flight Schools would really benefit from this (lots of low MP flying).
How much did it cost?
Total installed was $3918 and change.
Anecdote:
Years before we installed ElectroAir my wife and I trained for our instrument rating. We made a chart of power settings for our DA40. Very simple stuff - such and such RPM and Manifold pressure in this configuration = this performance. After ElectroAir we had to make a new chart, as the same power settings now had us going 10-14 knots faster. This is because our approach power settings were at low MP settings, so we had lots of ignition advance (and efficiency)
- Charles
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:36 pm
- First Name: Charles
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: C-FLEV
- Airports: CYHU
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 102 times
Re: My experience with the ElectroAir ignition upgrade
Being due for a mag overhaul in a few hours, this is timely information. What is the maintenance on that system? Other than the increased performance, is there a business case for electronic ignition for just doing away with mag overhauls?
What did it do to the W&B?
What did it do to the W&B?
- BlackMammoth
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:50 pm
- First Name: Phil
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N29PG
- Airports: KPSP
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 23 times
Re: My experience with the ElectroAir ignition upgrade
I doubt it will pay for itself in Mag overhauls @ 500 a pop. However the decreased fuel burn certainly makes a lot of financial sense.
No change in W&B.
No change in W&B.
- Rich
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
- First Name: Rich
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N40XE
- Airports: S39 Prineville OR
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1186 times
Re: My experience with the ElectroAir ignition upgrade
BM: Thanks for the info. I've been looking for some real-world info on this mod. I keep seeing on their site discussion about using the EA for the lower plugs and the mag for the tops. But the Lycomings aren't wired that way. If you just swap it out for the left mag you'd have the top plugs on the left side and the lower plugs on the right side powered by the EA. Not a big deal but curious. My recent $20K annual kind of puts a damper on this, but I might do it in the winter. My new home field is at 3200 Ft. MSL and 5K DA at field level are the norm.Charles wrote:Being due for a mag overhaul in a few hours, this is timely information. What is the maintenance on that system? Other than the increased performance, is there a business case for electronic ignition for just doing away with mag overhauls?
What did it do to the W&B?
Charles - You're still looking at living with one mag. Certain electrical system failures means you need that mag.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
- Charles
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:36 pm
- First Name: Charles
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: C-FLEV
- Airports: CYHU
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 102 times
Re: My experience with the ElectroAir ignition upgrade
Thanks for the info. I'll certainly get a quote before I overhaul the mags.
Sorry for the thread drift here but a $20k annual deserves some explaining. I went through a $17k annual this year myself excluding the fuel pump that just went bust and a few exhaust gaskets that started leaking recently. We should compare notes. Promise to chime in if you start a new thread about exceptional annuals with the details
Sorry for the thread drift here but a $20k annual deserves some explaining. I went through a $17k annual this year myself excluding the fuel pump that just went bust and a few exhaust gaskets that started leaking recently. We should compare notes. Promise to chime in if you start a new thread about exceptional annuals with the details
- Rich
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
- First Name: Rich
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N40XE
- Airports: S39 Prineville OR
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1186 times
Re: My experience with the ElectroAir ignition upgrade
Engine problem. Cam and tappet problem. I have another entire thread on this. Engine work came to just over 15K. R&R and additional stuff, such as cleaning oil cooler added right up.Charles wrote:Thanks for the info. I'll certainly get a quote before I overhaul the mags.
Sorry for the thread drift here but a $20k annual deserves some explaining. I went through a $17k annual this year myself excluding the fuel pump that just went bust and a few exhaust gaskets that started leaking recently. We should compare notes. Promise to chime in if you start a new thread about exceptional annuals with the details
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
- rwtucker
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
- First Name: Rob
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N831BA
- Airports: KFFZ KEUL
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 110 times
Re: My experience with the ElectroAir ignition upgrade
I suppose it would not conform to regs to change that.Rich wrote:I keep seeing on their site discussion about using the EA for the lower plugs and the mag for the tops. But the Lycomings aren't wired that way. If you just swap it out for the left mag you'd have the top plugs on the left side and the lower plugs on the right side powered by the EA.
Also, a more theoretical question goes to the impact of cylinders firing with both fixed and variable timing. At the extremes, the total spark duration would be changed significantly.
Last edited by rwtucker on Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- BlackMammoth
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:50 pm
- First Name: Phil
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N29PG
- Airports: KPSP
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 23 times
Re: My experience with the ElectroAir ignition upgrade
According to ElectroAir it can be done legally. My A&P didn't feel comfortable doing it, so I have ElectroAir on the top on one side and the bottom on the other.rwtucker wrote:I suppose it would not conform to regs to change that.
Not a big deal as plug fouling disappeared as in issue after swapping to Tempest Fine Wire plugs.
The only spark that matters is the one that ignites the mixture firstrwtucker wrote: Also, a more theoretical question goes to the impact of cylinders firing with both fixed and variable timing. At the extremes, the total spark duration would be changed significantly.
Actually there is quite a bit of data on this available from the Experimental Aviation side of the house. Electronic ignition has been in wide use for a long time in Experimental planes, and the difference between dual and single EI systems is well documented.
There is very large difference in spark duration between a Magneto and the EI. ElectroAir fires the plugs for 20 degrees. I believe that this is one of the reasons why the airplane is more tolerant of very lean mixtures.
Last edited by BlackMammoth on Sat Aug 15, 2015 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- BRS
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:44 am
- First Name: Brock
- Aircraft Type: OTHER
- Aircraft Registration: N8QQ
- Airports: W52
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 94 times
Re: My experience with the ElectroAir ignition upgrade
N8QQ goes in for annual today. Sitting in the back of the baggage compartment is a large but light box from ElectroAir. I was going to do the install myself but decided I've other things to do. I'm looking forward to see how it plays with the supercharger. I suspect at altitude it will be a real nice combination. My rational is that I need to make sure the EA STC is compatible with the SC STC (ha). I'm sure the question will come up eventually (if we ever get done with the FAA).
I plan on installing the system on all of the bottom plugs. Seems to me that the spark difference is great enough between the mag and the EIS (electronic ignition system) that there would be a (theoretical) difference in flame front patterns when installed in the traditional sense. Though BM has indicated that the difference is not discernible. Even though I have fine wire plugs, I chose to go with E.A.'s massive plugs in the bottom and the fine wires in the top. These massive plugs don't look like aircraft massive's though. They look more like automotive plugs but with two grounds (like the aircraft plugs). The gap is .035" like automotive plugs while the gaps for mags is in the order of .017".
Spark difference. I'm told that the mags spark duration lasts only about 5˚ of crank rotation while the EA spark duration in closer to 20˚ of crank rotation. So not only is the spark much 'hotter' it lasts longer too. This system also uses a wasted spark. Meaning that for four cylinders it really is only two spark events. So two cylinders spark at the same time. One that is firing and the other while it is exhausting. The wasted spark does nothing since the exhausted gasses have already burned.
I plan on installing the system on all of the bottom plugs. Seems to me that the spark difference is great enough between the mag and the EIS (electronic ignition system) that there would be a (theoretical) difference in flame front patterns when installed in the traditional sense. Though BM has indicated that the difference is not discernible. Even though I have fine wire plugs, I chose to go with E.A.'s massive plugs in the bottom and the fine wires in the top. These massive plugs don't look like aircraft massive's though. They look more like automotive plugs but with two grounds (like the aircraft plugs). The gap is .035" like automotive plugs while the gaps for mags is in the order of .017".
Spark difference. I'm told that the mags spark duration lasts only about 5˚ of crank rotation while the EA spark duration in closer to 20˚ of crank rotation. So not only is the spark much 'hotter' it lasts longer too. This system also uses a wasted spark. Meaning that for four cylinders it really is only two spark events. So two cylinders spark at the same time. One that is firing and the other while it is exhausting. The wasted spark does nothing since the exhausted gasses have already burned.
40.649 Sold (Still miss the DA40 from time to time)
Fly and EAB Sportsman
Fly and EAB Sportsman
- Rich
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
- First Name: Rich
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N40XE
- Airports: S39 Prineville OR
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1186 times
Re: My experience with the ElectroAir ignition upgrade
This'll be an interesting exercise. With EA advancing based on MP, I wouldn't guess it'd advance as much based on altitude in your plane as with our NA engines.BRS wrote:N8QQ goes in for annual today. Sitting in the back of the baggage compartment is a large but light box from ElectroAir. I was going to do the install myself but decided I've other things to do. I'm looking forward to see how it plays with the supercharger. I suspect at altitude it will be a real nice combination. My rational is that I need to make sure the EA STC is compatible with the SC STC (ha). I'm sure the question will come up eventually (if we ever get done with the FAA).
I plan on installing the system on all of the bottom plugs. Seems to me that the spark difference is great enough between the mag and the EIS (electronic ignition system) that there would be a (theoretical) difference in flame front patterns when installed in the traditional sense. Though BM has indicated that the difference is not discernible. Even though I have fine wire plugs, I chose to go with E.A.'s massive plugs in the bottom and the fine wires in the top. These massive plugs don't look like aircraft massive's though. They look more like automotive plugs but with two grounds (like the aircraft plugs). The gap is .035" like automotive plugs while the gaps for mags is in the order of .017".
Spark difference. I'm told that the mags spark duration lasts only about 5˚ of crank rotation while the EA spark duration in closer to 20˚ of crank rotation. So not only is the spark much 'hotter' it lasts longer too. This system also uses a wasted spark. Meaning that for four cylinders it really is only two spark events. So two cylinders spark at the same time. One that is firing and the other while it is exhausting. The wasted spark does nothing since the exhausted gasses have already burned.
Wasted spark has been commonly used in motorcycle engines for many decades. I've only had 2 multi-cylinder MC engines that didn't use this approach (one of these is my current Yamaha FJR). The only downside I see is that spark-plug electrode erosion is partly a factor of the spark itself. Sparking twice as often and for longer duration might result in shorter plug life. Nevertheless, I'll be looking to do this sometime soon.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5