To all Surefly users.

[Will.iam]

I have had my surefly for little over 3 years and had put over 250 hours on it when it quit. 
Not a good reliability record. I had noticed an electrical noise on my radios about 6 months ago that when I did an in flight mag check and turned off the surefly the noise would go away. This got progressively worse to the point on some frequencies I would have to turn off the surefly just to understand ATC. Out of annual my A&P could not find anything wrong with spark plugs or spark plug wires or p-lead or ignition switch. After the surefly failed I sent it in and surefly inspected it and said they found an internal failure of their coil they had not seen before and that even though my surefly was out of warranty, they replaced it free of charge with a refurbished unit. I asked if the failure was heat induced as I put the surefly on the right side mag location as it is much harder to get to as there is the inter cooler next to it and I wondered if the heat from that had any effect, but surefly said they did not see any heat related issues with my unit.  My unit was revision D and my refurbished unit is revision H. I test flew it today and then made a 2 hour trip with no issues except I do hear a faint more static noise on my radios when running on surefly compared to running on just the magneto. Because I had this issue I’m not sure if the slight noise was there on my original surefly when it was first installed as it is very faint but it is enough that I can tell the mag is more quiet on the radio than when running on the surefly. Here is to hoping this one goes for 2000 hours. So if you start getting loud radio noise from your surefly it might be an early indication of the unit is about to fail. As a question to other surefly users, do you hear any noise increase that you can tell when you turn off your surefly compared to when you turn off your mag?

P.s. the electrical check surefly has you do with connecting a 9volt battery to the surefly passed both the timing led and the flash of the led for dip switch settings. They honestly thought it was not an issue with Bos itself and thought more of a power issue or grounding issue as it passed the LED test. They said you can send in the box but if there is nothing wrong with it they would charge a $200 service fee. So it was a risk to send it in but I felt like after verifying the box was getting 24volts at terminal and that the radio noise had stopped when the surefly quit working it was worth the gamble to me to send it in. 

[alextstone]

Thank you for this PIREP!

[ta2too]

Thank-You William. When the surefly is working, do you notice an improvement in performance? 

I'm due for the 500hr IRAN, am considering a surefly

[Marc_B]

4 hours ago, Will.iam said:

As a question to other surefly users, do you hear any noise increase that you can tell when you turn off your surefly compared to when you turn off your mag?

I've never noticed any differential noise or noise increase, but haven't been looking for it.  Haven't noticed any difference with ground mag check or inflight LOP mag check.  About 2 years and a little over 250 hrs on mine; mounted on the right side for the same reasons you did. (revision F, I believe)

[Ragsf15e]

I had the “A” version on my F and it was flawless for ~500 hours that i put on it.  I’ll put one on my 252 when the mags are due for inspection.  My #2 alternator whines just a little now, there’s always something.

Curious, what harness are you using? Did you get a new Maggie one for the SF?  My local shop tried to put one on their SR20 and couldn’t get it to work at all with their old harness even though it tested fine and worked perfectly with the mag.  Eventually they got a new harness and it worked.

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, Ragsf15e said:

I had the “A” version on my F and it was flawless for ~500 hours that i put on it.  I’ll put one on my 252 when the mags are due for inspection.  My #2 alternator whines just a little now, there’s always something.

Curious, what harness are you using? Did you get a new Maggie one for the SF?  My local shop tried to put one on their SR20 and couldn’t get it to work at all with their old harness even though it tested fine and worked perfectly with the mag.  Eventually they got a new harness and it worked.

The fact you are going to buy another one for your new plane tells me you really like the Surefly.  I've been very skeptical of introducing the need for powered electronics into such a critical system for what I view is very little benefit.  So, my question is what are the benefits you have received that outweigh the risk of failure?  Or, is it just you're comfortable flying on one mag should the Surefly fail?

[Marc_B]

33 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

what are the benefits you have received

For me, current pressurized Slick mags are prone to failure and mine had issues around 400 hrs.  You need to do 500 hr IRANs religiously.  So a Surefly that didn't require pressurization/moisture/corrosion, and had a 2400 hr TBO, with no typical timing drift that occurs with mags seems like good pros that offset any cons.  Of course with all new equipment, time will tell if the 2400 hr TBO is problem free for most or not.  That being said, I feel that so far it's been an overall plus, quick starts (wasn't an issue before), deeper LOP smoothly, and mag checks seem similar to previous (my revision is past the boot up lag issues).

(edit: but to qualify the above...I like the idea of one mag and one Surefly...seems best of both worlds...I don't think I'd be ready to have a dual Surefly install.)

[MikeOH]

9 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

For me, current pressurized Slick mags are prone to failure and mine had issues around 400 hrs.  You need to do 500 hr IRANs religiously.  So a Surefly that didn't require pressurization/moisture/corrosion, and had a 2400 hr TBO, with no typical timing drift that occurs with mags seems like good pros that offset any cons.  Of course with all new equipment, time will tell if the 2400 hr TBO is problem free for most or not.  That being said, I feel that so far it's been an overall plus, quick starts (wasn't an issue before), deeper LOP smoothly, and mag checks seem similar to previous (my revision is past the boot up lag issues).

(edit: but to qualify the above...I like the idea of one mag and one Surefly...seems best of both worlds...I don't think I'd be ready to have a dual Surefly install.)

Ah, hadn't considered the pressurized issue as I have an NA engine; but, good point.

I have no trouble running 50 LOP if I wanted (normally I run 25 LOP), so how deep LOP do you run?  Maybe a different 'standard' for turbo?

[donkaye, MCFI]

54 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

The fact you are going to buy another one for your new plane tells me you really like the Surefly.  I've been very skeptical of introducing the need for powered electronics into such a critical system for what I view is very little benefit.  So, my question is what are the benefits you have received that outweigh the risk of failure?  Or, is it just you're comfortable flying on one mag should the Surefly fail?

Pre Surefly, I had had hot start problems that couldn't be resolved after a mag overhaul.  After Surefly, cold starts start like a turbine engine and hot starts are absolutely no issue.  Price of theSurefly was slightly less than a regular mag.  There was an extra cost to run the wire from the battery in the rear of the plane to the Surefly.  All the other benefits that Marc referenced.

[DXB]

250 hours is a rather early failure!   The greatest of multiple benefits of the Surefly in my view has been added reliability over the rather delicate and primitive internals of a magneto.  Since these have been in service for a few years now, it would be great to have aggregate data on failures.  I imagine most must make it to 2000hrs without issue?

[bluehighwayflyer]

I can’t help wondering if SureFly’s 2400 hour lifespan/service interval will prove analogous to very long automotive oil change intervals and “lifetime transmission fluid”.  To your point, time will tell.  It’s not just operating hours, though, it’s also calendar time. TBD.  

I carefully considered installing a SureFly last year when I did my 500 hour IRANs on my Bendix mags.  Ultimately, I decided to stick with the ones who brought me to the dance, as they have served me very well.  If I have to take one of them off every 500 hours, it’s not that much more trouble to also do the other one. And I like the traditional mags’ total independence from the electrical system.  SureFly is a neat and affordable piece of kit though.  I’m glad they are available to us.  

[Ragsf15e]

50 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

For me, current pressurized Slick mags are prone to failure and mine had issues around 400 hrs.  You need to do 500 hr IRANs religiously.  So a Surefly that didn't require pressurization/moisture/corrosion, and had a 2400 hr TBO, with no typical timing drift that occurs with mags seems like good pros that offset any cons.  Of course with all new equipment, time will tell if the 2400 hr TBO is problem free for most or not.  That being said, I feel that so far it's been an overall plus, quick starts (wasn't an issue before), deeper LOP smoothly, and mag checks seem similar to previous (my revision is past the boot up lag issues).

(edit: but to qualify the above...I like the idea of one mag and one Surefly...seems best of both worlds...I don't think I'd be ready to have a dual Surefly install.)

@MikeOH, my answer would have been exactly @Marc_B’s above.  Although I had one on my F, so didn’t even have the pressurized thing.  I like the 2000hr tbo (no more mag maintenace on that side) and never having the timing drift through the year.  I think recovery on one mag would be fine if either one failed.  
As far as worrying about powering it?  I don’t.  Obviously the real mag is a backup, but how many times have you had complete electrical failure?  I don’t mean a dead alternator, but battery completely dead too?  I mean, sure, it can happen, but SF runs on very little power.  I bet the chances of having one traditional mag fail (out of 2) are more than having the SF fail and/or complete electrical failure.

[bluehighwayflyer]

Even with just a fraction of the life expectancy I can totally see why you guys who have had service and/or starting problems with traditional mags and especially with pressurized mags would chose SureFly.  That would have definitely tipped the scales in that direction for me.  

[MikeOH]

6 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

@MikeOH, my answer would have been exactly @Marc_B’s above.  Although I had one on my F, so didn’t even have the pressurized thing.  I like the 2000hr tbo (no more mag maintenace on that side) and never having the timing drift through the year.  I think recovery on one mag would be fine if either one failed.  
As far as worrying about powering it?  I don’t.  Obviously the real mag is a backup, but how many times have you had complete electrical failure?  I don’t mean a dead alternator, but battery completely dead too?  I mean, sure, it can happen, but SF runs on very little power.  I bet the chances of having one traditional mag fail (out of 2) are more than having the SF fail and/or complete electrical failure.

Thanks for the feedback.  I don't really have hot or cold start problems (note: I didn't say ever; just rare and never killed the battery).  Plus, I've never quite understood why the Surefly would be any better at hot starts...I thought that was a fuel issue, more than anything.  Fuel/air ratio needs to be in the proper range for ignition, so why would the Surefly solve that?

Given the number of posts just here on MS over Surefly 'issues' makes me question your last sentence, however.  It seems the data favors the conventional mag is LESS prone to failing.

At this point, I'm with @bluehighwayflyer and am perfectly happy with 'the one(s) that brung me'.  Tractor mags for me!

 

[McMooney]

I"ll have to check, my surefly also installed on the right is going on 400ish hours, no issues.   i'd expect some issues to pop up on a new piece of kit.

Edited yesterday at 12:55 AM by McMooney

[Marc_B]

50 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I've never quite understood why the Surefly would be any better at hot starts.

I always thought this was an immediate electric spark vs impulse coupler difference?  But I’m not sure I’ve read a good description why.

But regarding reporting failures I’d suspect that most/every Surefly failures would be reported if it happened to a MS member, but only the interesting or quirky mag failures would.  At least small Slick pressurized mags are known to fail due to corrosion from moisture in the upper deck pressure line.

[donkaye, MCFI]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

I've never quite understood why the Surefly would be any better at hot starts.

 

A quick Google Search came up with this:

 

[jetdriven]

We are an authorized reseller and installer of Surefly, and we’ve probably done about 12 of them at this point. No failures. We had trouble with one that somebody had installed before we connected with the client, it was a very early version 28 V. It would randomly stumble or shut off after flying for a while and I called them up and Just leveled with them and said send me a new unit so I can get this guy out the door and they did, and that was two years ago. He is still going fine. We had another one where It would not work, it wouldn’t power up to time properly. As it turns out, the surefly grounds to the engine and they powder coat the whole case of it and on this B36TC airplane, we had to run a separate wire from the surefly to the case and then it worked fine. That took a while to understand what was happening, so I would probably sand some of the powder coat off under the magneto clamp so that you have a sure fire ground on an IO550.  He previously had two slick magneto’s and the TSIO520UB would not run lean of peak at all. And he probably spent a few thousand dollars chasing down induction leaks and GAMI injector tuning and everything else you can imagine. But since we installed the Surefly, along with a set of fine wire plugs, he’s been blown away. So they don’t advertise a performance increase, but I think it’s there. 

[MikeOH]

51 minutes ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

A quick Google Search came up with this:

 

None of that answers the part of my question that you did NOT quote, "...I thought it was fuel issue, more than anything".

No question the Surefly provides a hotter/longer spark.  I'm still not following how a hotter spark is going to ignite a mixture that is NOT within a combustible range.  Which, again, I thought was the issue with hot starts (too much, or too little fuel).

[Pinecone]

21 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

As far as worrying about powering it?  I don’t.  Obviously the real mag is a backup, but how many times have you had complete electrical failure?  I don’t mean a dead alternator, but battery completely dead too? 

I have, in a friend's T-34.   Was IMC coming back from an airshow and after popping out of the clouds, at 20 seconds later, POW, NO electrical power.

Master relay failed .   A few minutes before would have been very interested as all the panel is electric, with nothing battery backed up.

[Marc_B]

According to SureFly FAQ:  Compared to a magneto, the SIM provides a more accurately retarded spark and a more consistent, higher energy spark at low engine RPM. Hot-starts are greatly aided by the installation of a SIM, but keep in mind SureFly can’t remedy fuel system shortcomings!

So it's probably a bit of spark and a bit of fuel system.  But start improvement has been routinely described by those who've added a SIM, so I think there IS some merit.

But nothing is failure free, so of course it makes sense for an aircraft owner to review what they feel makes the most sense for their aircraft and the way they fly.  On one hand I have timing drift, corrosion, high altitude missfire...on the other hand I have battery dependent, no drift, no corrosion.  I think the overlap complements each other and work well for me.

@Will.iam I'm glad that SureFly took care of you and would be interested to see what they find (although doesn't sound like they shared much detail).  I think the biggest question for me has always been how long solid state electronics last in an engine compartment and will it routinely make it to 2400 hours/TBO?

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, Marc_B said:

....Hot-starts are greatly aided by the installation of a SIM, but keep in mind SureFly can’t remedy fuel system shortcomings!

So it's probably a bit of spark and a bit of fuel system.  But start improvement has been routinely described by those who've added a SIM, so I think there IS some merit.

If the SureFly can't fix fuel system shortcomings (I agree with that), then we are back to my question of how does a hotter/longer spark improve starting?  The other way to look at it is to conclude the SureFly is making up for deficiencies in the engine system as a whole; i.e. hiding other maintenance issues.

[Marc_B]

@MikeOH I think the gist is that a magneto spark on start up with an impulse coupler isn't the same as a full spark, every spark, same spark every time.  It's not a hiding issues type of thing, but a magneto not optimum spark kinda thing.  If that makes sense.

[Ragsf15e]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

I have, in a friend's T-34.   Was IMC coming back from an airshow and after popping out of the clouds, at 20 seconds later, POW, NO electrical power.

Master relay failed .   A few minutes before would have been very interested as all the panel is electric, with nothing battery backed up.

Oh yeah, as I said, I'm sure it happens.  Mags fail as well.  Either way, the other ignition source is there to get us home.  I just don't think it's an issue.

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

@MikeOH I think the gist is that a magneto spark on start up with an impulse coupler isn't the same as a full spark, every spark, same spark every time.  It's not a hiding issues type of thing, but a magneto not optimum spark kinda thing.  If that makes sense.

Yeah, it kinda does.  Maybe it's that the weak impulse coupling spark won't ignite a mixture on the edge of too rich/lean, but a long hot spark will.