MikeOH

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!

Well, money makes my Mooney go round, that's for certain

^^^^ THIS ^^^^ When that insurance adjuster sees that fine new $60K panel in your $40K insured value plane, just what do you think he's going to set the buy-back price at? Remember, if it's totaled, it's THEIR airplane, radios and all.

Perhaps. But, that still ignores the reality of the Savvy data I posted. The median temp is 187. I find it hard to believe that there are as many planes being flown in cold temps that exactly balance out those flown in hot temps. Further, if the vernatherm is functioning correctly then even those in cold temps should see the oil temp rise to 187 (or thereabouts), hence the median should be even higher if there are other planes flying in higher OATs for which the factory heat exchange system is, by design, insufficient. Yet, the median IS 187. That implies planes like mine with higher oil temps are, in fact, outliers with some kind of issue. I'd really like to see a cogent argument otherwise; believe me, I'd like to think my temps are 'just fine.'

As I was responding to Jim Peace's question, that is NOT the scenario in play, here. Sounds to me like there is ZERO obligation for the insurance company.

1) I provided one year's worth of data; you can see the variation by season. At only ONE point are my temps close to the median. 2) You are ignoring that the cohort of data is from the entire country; all kinds of OATs, yet my temps are higher than 95%. ALL of that data ends up with a median level of 187; awfully close to the vernatherm regulation set-point. I don't think that's a coincidence; you're free to think it is. That data indicate to me that aircraft with properly functioning oil systems regulate at 185-190 REGARDLESS of OAT. Those of us with less than perfect systems end up with high temps when the OATs rise above some relatively mild level. For non-mountain southern California that's low-50s for coldest daytime temps. Hell, the POH says anything below 225 is "in the green," with 245 max. Is that you definition of "fine?" If so, are you "fine" flying all day with oil temp at 225, when the cohort for NA Mooneys shows the median temp to be 187? Those of us with temps over 200 are concerned, and would like to do something to lower them even if they are "in the green." Since we are NOT exceeding red line we are living with it. But I, for one, am NOT happy about high oil temps if statistically 'normal' is 187.

Well, what obligation do auto insurance companies have to owners when their cars rust out?

Follow-up: Got ahold of uAvionix via their on-line ticket system. They got back to me the next day and it looks like my TailBeacon is back to working. I submitted a successful PAPR report to the FAA guy that sent me the letter, but he hasn't responded. So, I'm not sure I'm 'home free' just yet. Two things fixed the issue: 1) RTFM - for those of you that have a TailBeacon and don't know/did not RTFM, it turns out that you only have 5 minutes to establish the WiFi connection before the TailBeacon goes dark (for WiFi). I had waited too long before I attempted to connect. 2) There is a auto-adjust threshold setting that uAvionix had me run and that seems to have fixed the problem; 100% pass on the Mode 3A parameter that was previously nearly 100% failing. Fingers crossed that that's the end of it!

Pretty close to my setup (430W and KX155). I think the KX155 is the best radio ever built. I'd definitely sink 2AMU to bring it back to life. I've always wanted a KX165...so, you know what I'd do!