MikeOH

I'm curious as to your reasoning why a squelch issue would depend upon the receiver frequency.

Is it sensitive to squelch? Is it present with the engine shut down? Is it present with all other avionics off?

The sport bike needs to come with a built in body bag

The way this thread is going, I think I know how to save Mooney! They need to start building sport bikes

Interesting. Could be a second good reason. However, for my NA Mooney M20F, I've never had any issue running as far LOP as I desire. That is, once I'm down to 7 gph (10,000 DA, WOT, 65%) I'm going too slow! Maybe for a turbo at much higher DAs it would provide a benefit when deep LOP.

Ok. I think that's the first compelling reason I've heard: Doesn't need maintenance for 2000 hours. I am curious how they get the rotor to last that long without maintenance?

I will grant you that you provided a cogent argument. However, (you knew that was coming!): 1) Not really an argument; more of a philosophy. I have no issue with improvements. I have an issue with using new technology just for new technology's sake. Show me the data that really demonstrates this improvement. I just haven't seen it with E-mags. 2) Compared to a power plant prime mover, yeah, they're not stationary. Pretty damn close, though. 3, 4, and 5) I have not seen the claim that E-mags will allow us to run in the red-box. Did I miss something? I suppose if you backed the timing way off, but why would you as the highly retarded timing would not provide the same power. 6, and 7) Agreed. Normal operation in cruise is stationary and where you want to reap benefits. 8 through 11) Ah, now we're talkin'! The gains I've heard about seem very small, if noticeable at all. Which makes complete sense: the fixed timing is already set to a near optimal value for where the engine spends the majority of its operational time! How was that? FADECs I believe in: closed loop control of all operational engine regimes. An electronic ignition system is an integral part of such a system. This is where, IMHO, the advancements need to be made...but, I'm not sure the market (personal GA) is big enough to justify the development and certification costs. Bottom line: as stand-alone product E-mags just doesn't make sense to me. YMMV, naturally

Well, other than you, I don't hear of a lot of ignition problems with those ancient tractor mags you so despise, so I'm not sure what your point about Rotax proves?? Frankly, I've heard about more issues with a VERY small data set of E-mag users. Back to the original start of this debate: I don't think the FAA is anywhere near "crazy" denying dual E-mag installations. Pretty prudent and smart, IMHO. I'm still waiting for a cogent argument about what benefits variable timing brings to a stationary engine. IIRC, you change out mags after a couple of overhauls due to your fear of a deteriorating coil. You do realize that E-mags still have a coil, right? The only thing all that added electronics bring to the party is to replace a SINGLE component: the points. My understanding is that these are NOT multiple coil systems so you still have a rotor and high-voltage spark plug wires. Yes, it allows variable timing....as I've stated, I'm just not seeing the big advantage . I'll concede that you get easier starts. So, those that install ONE E-mag I get it. Oh, on the 'hotter spark' thing. There is no reason a conventional points system cannot be designed with a larger coil for more energy; that is not a 'feature' that requires an E-mag. Also, keep in mind that while you could design a system that would clear just about any fouled plug, should you? If you have chronic fouling, something else is wrong. Personally, I wouldn't want that hidden by a 'hotter, longer spark.'. I suspect that the original engineers that designed aircraft mags understood all of this and optimized size/weight/spark energy to fit the application. In other words, they were good engineers, not professors desperate to apply new technology to every application they could find.

Hmm, what I think about is that you were flying for a company that wasn't big into maintenance That's nearly one failure per 1000 hours. YIKES. And, I really wouldn't count bad leads as a mag failure. Poor maintenance, yeah.

Not even sure you could pull accident data like this, but I'd be curious to know how many in-flight engine stoppages have been due to failed points? Probably pretty low as one mag would really already have to be out.

Yep, the engine controller can fall back to the crank sensor to keep the engine running. Surprising though, the cam (and crank) sensors are commonly reluctance or Hall sensors which are extremely reliable (not a high current/high power application)

Sure, but there is ONLY one capacitor/condenser in a points based ignition system...just how many capacitors do you think might be in a FET controller circuit? (Hint: way more than one!) And, as I previously agreed, having one EMAG would be fine for a two mag system. This discussion/debate began when someone commented that it's 'crazy' that the FAA won't approve planes with TWO EMAGs. I don't think they're crazy one bit. And, I'm not an FAA fan-boy by any means

Correct, IMHO. Or, more exactly, electronics die suddenly and points have to be worked on regularly to prevent them from half dying.

A cam sensor (position sensor) application is NOT the same as switching a high current INDUCTIVE electrical load. As far as reliability, I'd say points by a long shot...the caveat is they need to be inspected and serviced/replaced at proper intervals. It's not a question of cycles, it's a question of unintended transient events; points are immune, FETS not so much. And, yes, I've had the FET ignition control module go out in two vehicles I've owned..stopped the car DEAD both times with NO warning. And, I'm old enough to have had several cars with points. Never stranded due to points; they tend to give a warning: the car starts running like crap.

Hmm, I'm not nearly as certain as you are that we are that much better off. With a stationary engine variable timing isn't as advantageous as it is on, say, an automobile engine. True, no points, but FETs used to switch inductive loads (i.e. the coil in ANY mag, EMAG or conventional) exhibit several nasty failure modes (read catastrophic). Plus, all the control circuitry has been added vs. a three component system (coil, points, capacitor). No idea how many transistors in that...and, you know what they say, "If it has tires, t*ts, or transistors it's eventually gonna give you trouble") No argument on the PMA; very reliable (but I still of them as mags)

As a career EE I'm not so sure it is as 'crazy' as you think. Beyond the dependence upon EXTERNAL electrical power, I have seen enough ESD caused electronic component failures to be VERY nervous with both mags being electronic. Nearby lightning strike comes to mind. Further, beyond easy starts (and, one E-mag will do that) I'm not convinced they provide much, if any, benefit for a stationary engine such as those in our aircraft. I'm happy to keep my tractor mags

I had looked at the ESG, but for those of us that won't have any "trade in love" it was $2995 PLUS a shop needs to install the GPS antenna and, presumably coax. With tax and installation,...well, you tell me, but it's going to be WELL NORTH of $3500. So, AT LEAST, one AMU more for something I was forced to install (cue the guilt-tripping critics). One problem <> Buyer's remorse

Received the all good from the FAA: "please consider this matter closed."

Well, I'm willing to expend some effort to save multi-thousands of dollars. Time will tell, but as airplane 'fixes' go, this was a no-cost and quick 'repair.'. If I have to re-tune a few times a year (which I doubt) it's not going to kill me. I've made a half-dozen flights since the adjustment and they've all been perfect. All in, tax and installation, was under $2300. At that price I'm still a BIG fan. The uAvionix support was immediate, effective, and NO cost. <sarcasm on> I'm just sure that no one has ever had a problem with any of the other manufacturers' ADSB-out solutions, and if they did the installer surely turned the fix around in a day at no cost to the owner <sarcasm off>

It passed its initial test after proper configuration with no issues. I still have that PAPR report. Thing is, I never checked again...and, when I went back and looked after receiving the FAA letter, I found it was failing the Mode 3A as far back as March for EVERY flight I checked!

That is an interesting point. I assumed the 'boilerplate' policy wording states that the aircraft including all avionics is theirs in the case of a total. Hence, that's a REALLY good reason not to underinsured if you actually have valuable radios! @Parker_Woodruff, what's the scoop?

Sorry, can't help you there. Not an expert by any means; just think they are pretty cool. Never even thought about the payback. I do know that many were installed as some kind of investment/tax shelter many years back...then the law changed. So, you may be onto something as far as payback; may not work without tax advantages??

I believe modern large wind turbines DO have variable pitch props. Even a quick Wikipedia search will reveal that.

Better be!

Wonder what the glide ratio of that thing is? Count me out!