Hello Everyone,
my DR253 (O-360-A3A) developed an issue with the right mag this weekend. I am looking at electronic ignition as possible replacement.
What are the options as of 2023? Most are experimental only, aren’t they? (The DR253 is neither experimental, nor Annex II)
It seems like the only non-experimental option is the Lycoming EIS. How good and reliable is it?
Is electronic ignition worth it altogether?
Thanks for any experience sharing.
Etienne
There is also an STC’d electronic ignition system by Electroair
Is electronic ignition worth it altogether? In my opinion, absolutely!
Surefly is a FAA certified EI.
There is a monster thread somewhere on EuroGA with some skeptical posts, but on a whole, EI is the only way to go, period.
Better starting, maintenance free, and above all giving unsuspected leaning power 
The vast majority of homebuilts are now using EI, the top products being EFI/EI by SDS or EFFI, then LSE for EI only. Easiest retrofit (we did one recently on the RV-8 and its IO-360) from standard mags, are the Pmags (also called Emags depending on engine brand), which also offer the best redundancy.
Surefly is a FAA certified
I know someone who installed these while ago on G-reg Mooney and recently I got a pirep from someone who did it on D-reg Mooney both were via FAA STC validation
Dan wrote:
Surefly is a FAA certified EI.
In fact, Lycoming EIS is a Surefly product, but the Lycoming-labelled version does not currently use variable timing (even though physically supported).
what Ultranomad said,
as far as I remember EIS installation manual states that one can configure the ignition advance as variable but only when using 100LL
any “alternative fuel” means fixed timing, consequently what you are really buying is electrically dependent magneto. I wouldn’t recommend this setup.
@etn, if you are using mogas, I would first talk to whoever would be signing off the installation and discuss the variable timing setting. If that would not be an option I would stay with magnetos
Thanks to all!
@RV14 yes I am using mainly mogas or UL98. Just for my understanding, why does “alternative fuel means fixed timing” ? Do different fuels need different levels of variable timings?
@Dan Thanks for pointing me to that monster thread. I have something to keep me busy for a while :D
About the “Pmag”, do you by any chance mean the Emagair magneto replacements? https://emagair.com/114-series/
In the meantime I had a phone conversation with the mechanic following the aircraft. He did an install on an aircraft a couple years ago and the EI was not compatible with the engine monitor (and I also have one of those.) I’ll research this further and contact JPI about this.
@etn, my guess is that the manufacturer (surefly) is trying to somewhat manage legal risks.
In theory: more ignition advance = higher CHT = reduced detonation margin
Different fuels generate different CHT, usually slightly higher than 100LL, which in turn might (again) decrease the detonation margin
what they are afraid of is that your plane will fall out of the sky due to engine failure caused by detonation of mogas induced by high CHT due to increased ignition advance
solution to the problem? limit the use of variable timing to 100LL
@etn, affirm.
My O-360 is running dual LSE, and has been doing so for more than 1’500hrs. Drinking all kind of gas, mainly MOGAS of different varieties, auto gas of different ratings, and eventually some AVGAS if nothing else is available.
Standard compression ratio, and never showed any sign, thank you, of detonation.
I contacted Surefly about 6 weeks ago. They are hoping to get UK approval in the next few months.
The reason for the limitations on mogas is simply because they havent tested their product on such fuel.
