MichMooney201

Surefly Ignition and J's

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:


But automobiles don’t mount the electronics on the engine. The heat and vibration of the engine is not good for electronics, I wonder about dependability compared to a magneto.


Tom

Some mount some electronics on the engine.  Variable geometry turbos, some of the more sophisticated self-regulating alternators, parts of throttle by wire systems, and also portions of the ignition system are pretty commonly mounted on the engine.  On my motorcycle, the ECU isn't mounted on the engine, but it is mounted to the frame, and the engine is a structural member.  A single cylinder wound out to 11,000 RPM vibrates like crazy, too.  Heat and vibration isn't great for electronics, but it's probably even worse for a mechanical system like a magneto.  Magnetos suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

All, quick update on how the SureFly is running on my "J".  We are seeing so far that this thing has been worth the price of admission thus far, at $1200 bucks ish.  We have noticed improvements on both hot and cold starts as it seems the engine cranks almost half as much before it lights off.  Additionally, there is less vibration, especially at RPM's 1200 and below.  The plane just got back from Oasis Aero/Weep No More and they said it was the smoothest "J" they have ever had.  On the trip back from MN, at 11000 feet, 24" and 1350 EGT at ROP, I had consistent fuel flow of 9.5/10 GPH on our EI engine monitor.  The only negative I have found is on engine run up where when switching between the Mag back to the SureFly, if I switch too fast, I have created a backfire in the exhaust.  If I delay the switching by just a few seconds the backfire disappears.  In relation to dealing with the Slick Mags sent with the Lycoming Reman and the 500 hr check, this new SureFly component is well worth the cost of eliminating a mag with instant benefits.  Easy installation, too.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, MichMooney201 said:

All, quick update on how the SureFly is running on my "J".  We are seeing so far that this thing has been worth the price of admission thus far, at $1200 bucks ish.  We have noticed improvements on both hot and cold starts as it seems the engine cranks almost half as much before it lights off.  Additionally, there is less vibration, especially at RPM's 1200 and below.  The plane just got back from Oasis Aero/Weep No More and they said it was the smoothest "J" they have ever had.  On the trip back from MN, at 11000 feet, 24" and 1350 EGT at ROP, I had consistent fuel flow of 9.5/10 GPH on our EI engine monitor.  The only negative I have found is on engine run up where when switching between the Mag back to the SureFly, if I switch too fast, I have created a backfire in the exhaust.  If I delay the switching by just a few seconds the backfire disappears.  In relation to dealing with the Slick Mags sent with the Lycoming Reman and the 500 hr check, this new SureFly component is well worth the cost of eliminating a mag with instant benefits.  Easy installation, too.

What plugs are you running? 
Does yours have the firmware mod that’s supposed to help with the backfire?

Skip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great pirep, Mich!

The backfire on Mag testing has been documented around here before...

I don’t recall if there was a software or setting to avoid it... or a switch or a procedure...?

 

Backfires in the muffler are hazardous to its health... ultimately letting CO into the heat system...

Best regards,

-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 6:40 PM, PT20J said:

 

What plugs are you running? 
Does yours have the firmware mod that’s supposed to help with the backfire?

Skip

Skip...the factory plugs from Lycoming...sorry...dont know the number off the top of my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, MichMooney201 said:

Skip...the factory plugs from Lycoming...sorry...dont know the number off the top of my head.

That's OK, I was just wondering if you were using massives or fine wires. Some have reported better operation with Surefly and fine wires. Sounds like you are doing well with the massives. 

Do you have the latest firmware that's supposed to help with the backfire issue?

Skip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just flew my rocket with a surefly just now successfully installed.  They just expanded the AML a few weeks ago to include the M20k and the TSIO520NB was already on there as well.  In fixed timing of course.

In any case - wow.  I was just testing ops and not testing performance.  But my first impression is - it jumps to life when turned on much faster than before and before it was not a problem.  And I swear its going faster.  Hard to tell for sure on a very cold day: 18F but it sure seemed fast.  1500-1600 fpm to 7500 at 85% power then at 65% running 1/2gph less than usual, it seemed as if it was going 5kts faster than usual - of course I need to go out and do some proper testing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

at 65% running 1/2gph less than usual, it seemed as if it was going 5kts faster than usual - of course I need to go out and do some proper testing.

@aviatoreb let me know! If you get 5 more knots and .5 gph less t 65% I'm buying this gizmo!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 3:39 PM, MichMooney201 said:

All, quick update on how the SureFly is running on my "J".  We are seeing so far that this thing has been worth the price of admission thus far, at $1200 bucks ish.  We have noticed improvements on both hot and cold starts as it seems the engine cranks almost half as much before it lights off.  Additionally, there is less vibration, especially at RPM's 1200 and below.  The plane just got back from Oasis Aero/Weep No More and they said it was the smoothest "J" they have ever had.  On the trip back from MN, at 11000 feet, 24" and 1350 EGT at ROP, I had consistent fuel flow of 9.5/10 GPH on our EI engine monitor.  The only negative I have found is on engine run up where when switching between the Mag back to the SureFly, if I switch too fast, I have created a backfire in the exhaust.  If I delay the switching by just a few seconds the backfire disappears.  In relation to dealing with the Slick Mags sent with the Lycoming Reman and the 500 hr check, this new SureFly component is well worth the cost of eliminating a mag with instant benefits.  Easy installation, too.

Are you saying that you get 24" manifold pressure at 11000feet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id like to see the dual mag at some point too!  It is sounding like a worthy purchase so far.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My annual is coming up in April. Currently the Slick mags have 442 hours since new. I flew 120 hours in the past 12 months. 500 hour inspection will fall about half way through the flying year. I am leaning toward replacing one mag with Surefly. Should I do it this annual or wait until next year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 11:05 PM, thomas1142 said:

Are you saying that you get 24" manifold pressure at 11000feet?

That was me being stupid...not 24" but 2400RPM...sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2020 at 4:38 PM, amillet said:

My annual is coming up in April. Currently the Slick mags have 442 hours since new. I flew 120 hours in the past 12 months. 500 hour inspection will fall about half way through the flying year. I am leaning toward replacing one mag with Surefly. Should I do it this annual or wait until next year?

Do it now...the $1250 to do it is minor and you are going to be ripped apart for the annual anyway.  Hardest part of the install is running power from the battery compartment to the Surefly...you are not supposed to pull power off the panel.  I cannot emphasize enough how the improvements we have seen are worth it, even in just the smoothness at idle.  I cannot comment completely on fuel savings yet, but we are seeing  between 9 and 10gph at cruise pretty consistently.  Trip to FL and back to MI in Feb the plane averaged 9.7, flown between 6K and 9K elevation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2020 at 2:18 PM, aviatoreb said:

F0EDA752-0A93-4C07-9368-1C4129EC7A0D.jpeg

Nice. A couple of nitpicks: Standard practice is to put the circuit protection close to the power source so the fuse should really be at the battery end of the wire to protect the wire from a short circuit. This is confusing because the Engine installation instructions have drawings that look like the picture. But the Airframe installation instruction is clear.

2.7. Power Wire Routing:
a) Route the power wire from the power source to the SIM following the shortest course.
b) Locate the 10A fuse (or other appropriate 10A circuit protection device) as close to the power source as
possible.
c) Secure the wire along its entire route, protect from chafing and provide strain relief across areas of
movement. Guidance for wire routing, chafe protection and strain relief can be found in FAA Advisory
Circular 43.13-1b Chapter 11-137 & 11-138
d) Strip both ends of the power wire and crimp appropriately sized ring terminals onto each end. Do not use
solder terminals.
e) Connect the ring terminals per the circuit diagram in section 2.6.

P-lead shields should ideally be grounded at one end only as a shield should never be able to conduct current. Mooney typically grounds them at the ignition switch (but this may vary by model, so check). However, if there is no radio interference, it should be fine even if grounded at both ends.

Skip

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PT20J said:

Nice. A couple of nitpicks: Standard practice is to put the circuit protection close to the power source so the fuse should really be at the battery end of the wire to protect the wire from a short circuit. This is confusing because the Engine installation instructions have drawings that look like the picture. But the Airframe installation instruction is clear.

2.7. Power Wire Routing:
a) Route the power wire from the power source to the SIM following the shortest course.
b) Locate the 10A fuse (or other appropriate 10A circuit protection device) as close to the power source as
possible.
c) Secure the wire along its entire route, protect from chafing and provide strain relief across areas of
movement. Guidance for wire routing, chafe protection and strain relief can be found in FAA Advisory
Circular 43.13-1b Chapter 11-137 & 11-138
d) Strip both ends of the power wire and crimp appropriately sized ring terminals onto each end. Do not use
solder terminals.
e) Connect the ring terminals per the circuit diagram in section 2.6.

P-lead shields should ideally be grounded at one end only as a shield should never be able to conduct current. Mooney typically grounds them at the ignition switch (but this may vary by model, so check). However, if there is no radio interference, it should be fine even if grounded at both ends.

Skip

Thanks skip!  I will look into improving as you suggest at next cowl off - probably oil change or annual both late may / world current events permitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday, I emailed Surefly about the discrepancy between the fuse location depicted in the engine installation manual and the description in the airframe installation manual and I got this reply back this morning:

 Skip,

Thank you. We are aware of the possibility of confusion there and we are going to change that diagram soon.

Bill
SureFly Electronic Ignition
Technical Support
817-373-5161
www.surefly.aero

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a quick response!

True MSer, Skip! Going direct to the source with a question... and sharing the response here...

Best regards,

-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2020 at 2:58 AM, carusoam said:

That was a quick response!

True MSer, Skip! Going direct to the source with a question... and sharing the response here...

Best regards,

-a-

Anthony I am replying to your question over on another thread - the flight 2020 thread - where you asked how my CHTs are following my remark that I was able to run LOP well for the first time since I owned this plane, now that I have the surefly.  And that I need more testing to see how it performs at higher settings.

So review - I flew Tuesday and I was playing around with LOP.  All temps have been lower, LOP or ROP since we installed the surefly several weeks ago.  EGTS, TIT, CHT, everything, at all settings, ROP or LOP.  And strikingly, I used to get a tad bit of rough LOP and also I was TIT limited to LOP at anything above about 60%.  Tuesday I was running at 65% LOP and I was VERY cool on all settings.  In fact, I consider the CHTs were actually too cool (-4C OAT at around 5500 where I was playing).  See picture where CHTS are ranging from 257-276, EGTs ranging from 1394-1512 and TIT is at 1373 (and that is most striking since otherwise this was typically at 1600+ for this particular setting).  Clearly 257 is just too cool - and too much of a good thing.  I would need to run her harder to keep temps up if this is what is happening in general.   I might well be suspicious of the sensor if this was the one reading that was low but every single reading is cooler from all the various sensors, and low by a lot.  And the airplane was flying smoothly and powerfully at this setting. What's not to like?  Looks like the old bird has a new trick!  Next time I get up I will see how well she goes LOP at a higher setting that this 65%'er.  Maybe I will try 72% and 75%?  Some of the "big boys" over in Bonanza-Beechtalk land use LOP as a way to run 85% cruise settings taking advantage of the slower burn results in lower temps indicating lower ICPs.  So in LOP world - its all about how much fuel you are pushing through.  E.g. if I were able to push through 18.9gph at 13.7 hp/gp= 260hp or 85%.  Imagine how fast I would go if that were attainable as a cruise setting and everything were very cool then maybe I would consider it.  I am not thinking that will work but I bet 75% or 228hp and 16.7gph might be attainable?  Never before - but maybe now?

 

Screenshot 2020-04-11 12.09.25.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erik,

That is awesome news...

We are looking at the effects of the more powerful mag output in other threads...

Is it possible for you to share the savvy data here?

I am most interested in seeing the run-up section and comparing the two different mags...

The more powerful output of the electronic mag makes it look similar to have the timing advanced a tad...

And at the same time... the CHTs are not showing the increase of having a more complete burn in the cylinders...

Wondering where all that heat is going...?

EGTs and TITs have a funny average temperature situation...  lots of sharp peaks and valleys combined...

CHTs are more easy to track...

It looks like the heat is going out the pipe, in a lower more distributed peaky way...

Definitely need more data...

This is getting more mathematically interesting... :)

Best regards,

-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, carusoam said:

Erik,

That is awesome news...

We are looking at the effects of the more powerful mag output in other threads...

Is it possible for you to share the savvy data here?

I am most interested in seeing the run-up section and comparing the two different mags...

The more powerful output of the electronic mag makes it look similar to have the timing advanced a tad...

And at the same time... the CHTs are not showing the increase of having a more complete burn in the cylinders...

Wondering where all that heat is going...?

EGTs and TITs have a funny average temperature situation...  lots of sharp peaks and valleys combined...

CHTs are more easy to track...

It looks like the heat is going out the pipe, in a lower more distributed peaky way...

Definitely need more data...

This is getting more mathematically interesting... :)

Best regards,

-a-

Where is all the heat going?

I don't know.

But I would guess...its not making so much heat in the first place.  Isn't the idea of why LOP is good that the flame front is slowed and so lower ICPs are like a milder hammer hit on your cylinders that don't end up absorbing as much of the energy into the cylinders but allow the pistons to move instead.  So more efficiency.  If that is the case then less waste heat to the engine cylinders.  If an engine were 100% efficient there would be zero loss of energy to heat and the engine would remain at room temp.

Or... second story would be the engine is producing less horsepower if the spark is retarded (or was it advanced?  I can't remember which it would be).  If that's the case, then less of the fuel is being burnt and instead its being thrown out the exhaust.  

I am guessing its the first story.

Can I just cut and paste that flight page?

https://apps.savvyaviation.com/flights/3853708/48446df0-afdd-4388-aed0-c4294ced4d40

I think this is more engineering than math. Its ok - I like em' both.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link to the data works perfectly...

But the run-up was too fast or data rate too slow to see two unique peaks... :)

The thing I was hoping to see... is the height of the electronic mag vs the std mag...

It looks like the first mag tested may be the R mag, left most position on the standard switch... it shows a shorter heigh than the other...

So my best guess is that is your electronic mag...

The second part of the combined hump is slightly taller than the first half...  more similar to a standard mag...

same best guess applies to the inflight mag test... if I’m looking at the right thing...

Call these an initial impression of what the electronic mags are capable of doing...

Of course, this is a benefit for operating on a single mag... and may not represent what actually happens with two working mags... 

If you can... on a future run-up... allow some extra time on each switch position to allow the EGTs to peak, stay, return.... peak, stay, return...  only if able... :)

I can see the beginnings of proof that more fuel is possibly being burned more completely... inside the cylinders...

Any challenges with the electronic mag not firing up quickly enough after being turned off?

Best regards,

-a-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, carusoam said:

The link to the data works perfectly...

But the run-up was too fast or data rate too slow to see two unique peaks... :)

The thing I was hoping to see... is the height of the electronic mag vs the std mag...

It looks like the first mag tested may be the R mag, left most position on the standard switch... it shows a shorter heigh than the other...

So my best guess is that is your electronic mag...

The second part of the combined hump is slightly taller than the first half...  more similar to a standard mag...

Call these an initial impression of what the electronic mags are capable of doing...

Of course, this is a benefit for operating on a single mag... and may not represent what actually happens with two working mags... 

If you can... on a future run-up... allow some extra time on each switch position to allow the EGTs to peak, stay, return.... peak, stay, return...  only if able... :)

I can see the beginnings of proof that more fuel is possibly being burned more completely... inside the cylinders...

Any challenges with the electronic mag not firing up quickly enough after being turned off?

Best regards,

-a-

 

I think my data logging is slow.  I deliberately do a slower than most run-up following advice I read from Deakin I think it was, years ago.  If an mag wants to hiccup you need to give it a chance to show you something is wrong.  So I give like 10 sec maybe 15 on each single mag and watch for each EGT to rise noticeably before I affirm yes, that mag is good.  So its the data logging is too slow for mag check resolution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most older JPIs can be told to collect at a 2 second rate...

They usually come factory pre-set at six...

Newer ones can be boosted to a one second rate... 10-15 data points in the same period of time where you may only be getting 2-3 data points...

I estimate it takes about 15 seconds to stabilize at the next switch position...  important for comparing peak heights...

Kinda feels like an eternity... :)

Best regards,

-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Most older JPIs can be told to collect at a 2 second rate...

They usually come factory pre-set at six...

Newer ones can be boosted to a one second rate... 10-15 data points in the same period of time where you may only be getting 2-3 data points...

I estimate it takes about 15 seconds to stabilize at the next switch position...  important for comparing peak heights...

Kinda feels like an eternity... :)

Best regards,

-a-

Tell me again what you are looking for in the mag check in the data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.