Paul writes:

"Look I have a problem with engineering snobs, especially engineering snobs with no engineering degrees."

So you look down on those without engineering degrees. OK, now I'm confused. Who is the snob here?

In a similar vein, my mother never understood the irony in calling me a "Son of a bitch".

Until now I was ignorant of Paul's considerable education and experience as it was not apparent in his writing.  But I see nothing in that education or experience that makes him any more of an authority on the intimate details of the intermittent internal combustion processes. You wouldn't ask a neurosurgeon about athletes foot nor would you have a podiatrist perform a root canal (unless you are a politician).

Paul's argument is that Electronic Ignition is better because of self evident attributes such as; it is modern, you can muck with the timing, its lighter, the plugs are cheaper, there are no gears and less opportunity for corrosion, and better for anecdotal merits like; faster starting, lower idle speeds, more horsepower at low altitudes and better fuel economy. I say anecdotal because if Joe Pilot puts an EI system in his airplane, flies it and then claims an improvement in performance or economy, it is not proof, it is justification. Paul also seems to believe that magnetos are bad because they are old.

My argument is that while EI has advantages it also has shortcomings (NPI) such as; added complexity, dependency on ships power, lower potential reliability due to design implementation, the ability for the pilot to dynamically adjust timing, greater sensitivity to EMI, lightning and HIRF and a greater susceptibility to accidental damage. I am also of the opinion that magnetos, while old, are well suited to the task and should not be eliminated from consideration due to techno-chauvinism. Magnetos may be the aerospace equivalent of a hammer but when you need to drive a nail.........

My comments regarding the inadvisability of counting batteries as THE standby source or power are based on the fact that there is no accurate way for the pilot to tell how much energy is stored in the battery and the battery is charged by the alternator, the thing it is supposed to replace.  Most alternators have a polyphase bridge rectifier to convert the alternators three phase AC output into a varying DC voltage. Should one of the bridge rectifiers fail, the current  generating capability of the alternator will decrease while the regulator will maintain the output voltage. If the current output capability of the alternator falls to the steady state current demands of the airplane there will be little, if any, power available to charge the battery after start. The pilot's only indication will be a slightly low buss voltage. Should the over stressed remaining alternator components fail then your standby source may already be depleted. True redundancy results in the elimination of single point failures. The above scenario describes how a single component failure (alternator) can fail both primary and standby systems.

Before anyone makes a decision regarding their aircraft that, by its very nature, could be a life or death decision, they need to look beyond the marketing hype and G-whiz factors  so that they can make an informed risk assessment based decision. Hope, faith, fraternity and preconceptions have no place in a logical and reasoned consideration.

As for the name calling, in part I welcome it. When someone has erected their best argumentative defense for a position and finds that defense inadequate and the position flawed they often retreat to one remaining act of desperation. Pull the pin and lob the ad hominem attack, a strategy of increasing popularity in the modern media.  "Don't listen to him, he is a snobbish, phobic, arrogant ass"!  LOL

Call me what you wish, the facts remain. QED

I'll finish with this thought experiment, if Paul is ever so fortunate to fly behind a Chelton Flight Systems EFIS (experimental or certified) he will be staring at hardware designed by that snobbish, phobic, arrogant ass he has a problem with while at the same time, because it is based on modern technology, will be intrinsically superior than antiquated steam gauges. How will he ever resolve the paradox?

Regards
Brent Regan