SureFly Failure

[TomO]

I installed a SureFly in December, 2019, and had approximately 750 hours tach time on the unit. No timing advance was used and other than the well known mag time lag causing a backfire, no significant problems were noted.

When the update for this problem was released, I was told that my unit would not be exchanged although I had reported the problem soon after installation. A work around discovered by me improved the problem.

Recently I had an in flight failure of the SureFly.

On the ground mag check was fine and takeoff uneventful. While in the air the engine began to run slightly rough. Trying several things did not change the roughness. Although I had looked at the engine parameters, I initially did not notice that the EGT’s were approximately 100 degrees higher than usual. This then led me to suspect a mag problem. An in flight mag check confirmed the left mag(SureFly) was dead. Being equal distance to our home airport or return to the departure airport, we flew home on one mag.

On the ground testing confirmed the dead left mag(SureFly).

My mechanic tested various items (p-lead,wiring, fuse, ignition switch, etc.) with nothing found. He also used the troubleshooting guide provided by SureFly.
A call to SureFly had us test some of the same things all pointing to an internal failure.
The unit was out of warranty with a rebuild almost as much as a new unit.
After some consideration I opted to replace the SureFly with a new unit and give it one more try.

Although this may be an isolated incident, I am disappointed that unit failed after only 750 hours, negating it’s claims of reliability, no mag rebuilds, and longer times between overhauls.

[steve_falconer]

Thank you for sharing your experience Tom. Mine has been fine, but I only have about 150 hours on mine. That does give me more pause when considering running only SureFly, especially if they were from anywhere near the same timeframe.

[steve_falconer]

Update on my SureFly situation.

I have 234.2 tach hours with a May 2023 install on the first SureFly SIM installed in my dual SureFly DA40 with iBBS backup battery. This Saturday I had problems during run up where the right SureFly magneto (directly connected to 28v main battery, not iBBS backup battery) was completely non-functional discovered during run up. Mechanics troubleshot the problem and verified ground, power, switch, and timing were correct and isolated it to the SureFly. It’s been 100% great since first installed until it suddenly failed Saturday.

The unusual thing is the magneto passes the LED test showing the correct timing setting. Called Saturday evening and receiving replacement tomorrow (Tuesday) by noon. I returned USPS Priority Mail and they should get it by Wednesday or Thursday to bench check to confirm failure. I’m within the 2 year warranty, and needed to pay in advance for a next day shipping replacement pending results of the bench test.

I give credit to SureFly for good customer service and quick response to my Saturday 5:13 pm PT message left using their AOG phone option and quick return call 23 minutes later by one of their technicians. They also quickly responded to replace the unit without argument, but if it passes the bench test I bought a new one at $2,000 + shipping plus will be expected to pay a $200 bench test fee.

When I told SureFly that the LED codes were still working correctly testing with a 9v, they did ask for more detail about the troubleshooting done to confirm and to talk with my A&P IA. So far 6 hours (2 people for 3 hours) troubleshooting plus additional time expected to reinstall the replacement. I believe this would have been much quicker and less expensive with standard magnetos, which is disappointing because they’ve been really great otherwise.

The model number is SIM4N and the revision is F.

[steve_falconer]

Received replacement SureFly today and it’s working great again. Overall great responsiveness from SureFly on quickly getting a replacement delivered. New right magneto is SIM 4N Revision H. I’ll share update from SureFly after their bench test of the problem part. Return USPS Priority shipping delivers the return to them tomorrow.

[steve_falconer]

SureFly bench tested the returned magneto and said it passes all tests as configured the way it was used on the plane. They also ran testing in the FAA configured manner and it also passed. For customer satisfaction they still will be reimbursing me for the replacement they sent me which I really appreciate, and I think is a testament to the great company they are. I do have some lingering worries in the back of my head about whether a SureFly is more susceptible to issues with power or p-lead connections than a normal magneto, but I have confidence in SufeFly as a company and availability of their support after hours for AOG issues. Overall I’m happy with the choice, but realize that maintenance may be less familiar with troubleshooting effectively and need to be owner supervised more closely.

[dant]

I guess this begs the question: what was wrong?

[steve_falconer]

Agreed. With all the double-check work done by the A&P IA after the SureFly was removed I think (hope) it was the wiring. If it was the SureFly I think their bench test would have picked it up.

Two troubleshooting suggestions SureFly additionally recommends are to remove the P-Lead ground wires effectively making them always hot. And if it still has an issue to troubleshoot using a separate 28V battery power source.

They also said that they’ve never seen a failed SureFly that passes the 9V battery/LED test, so I recommend doing more troubleshooting with SureFly support involved if it seems to have failed but the LED tests work.

SureFly said they do get more wiring challenges with composite airframes like our Diamonds.

Again, I believe SureFly stepped with the replacement refund and they retained my confidence in their company, product, and especially people.