Yeah we explored that back at my last job but it boiled down to the fact that redundancy, to me, in that situation is actually worse. Would I rather have two of something with the same failure modes or two things with different failure modes?
Separate redundant electrical sources for the two electronic ignition modules. Experimental already does it. They do the same thing with EFI and then there's a battery after that.
It's the only problem I've ever had with a piston airplane in flight.
Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. I can tell you what we've had luck with lately and what we haven't, but with OEM quality control that might not be true next week.
SSDs are not actually more reliable than traditional hard disk drives, and have their own limitations.
What is good about magnetos that we need to incorporate?
No need for any external power source.
I know you're trying to be funny, but it doesn't work that way.
I would much rather be sitting at my desk refining my logbook entries or spending my bosses' money on cool stuff like LED pulselites than dealing with AOG panics because 50 year old tech is still failing in the same ways it has for 50 years.
While that's true, that doesn't mean that mechanics enjoy having stuff break that shouldn't break. Even having pilots break stuff we don't mind so much, because you can blame the pilots. What sucks big time is working your ass off to give guys a good safe airplane and getting screwed because of inferior parts.
Efi and electronic ignition.... We could call it an EIEIO-540!
I was a lab instructor for Poelarbear in Advanced Turbines and still did not really understand how it ever worked.
Most of the engine schools I've been to spend about 40% of the time telling you how it's supposed to work and 60% of the time telling you the most probable reasons it won't on any given day. The most important thing they teach is all of the acronyms the pilots and the bosses don't know, that way you can "dazzle them with BS".
