Thinking of replacing engine gauges w/ certified digital

[yvesg]

Thanks Anthony. If they do not have this spec, that probably means they have not tested it. That type of installation would typically be done on travelling machines like Beech or Mooney who typically have airplanes sleeping in hangars right? There is a good chance no-one has really tried it with a cold soaked aircraft coming out of a snow bank.

I would be very surprised if this would behave at minus 20 C. Even my iPAD shuts down at that temperature. 

Yves

[carusoam]

I get the feeling there is an answer, but it wasn't being openly shared. They seem to be afraid of the answer or they didn't want to hurt my feelings by giving me a technical answer that I can't understand... 

Send the same exact question to EI.  See if they respond properly.

Best regards,

-a-

Edited February 7, 2017 by carusoam

[carusoam]

It may be possible that the screens have small heaters in them..?

BK radios from the 90s get awfully hot.

maybe it's just the type of display...

Best regards,

-a-

Edited February 7, 2017 by carusoam

[yvesg]

Andrew, my iPAD mini did shut down because of the cold about a month ago when I was going around the airplane, removing the snow, do this, do that. It was in my winter coat side pocket. It was around -10 C then.

I posted the question on avcanada which is a Canadian pilots forum. A fellow answered that he did not get any issues with the JPI unit as he flew as cold as -15 C. It is not quite as cold as what I sometimes do but it means there is hope it can work most of the time..

Yves

[Ocalafly]

I am in total agreement with gsxrpilot.  The 900 is an A number 1 unit. 

[wombat]

I'm having trouble convincing my partner that getting an engine monitor is a good decision.  We are at right about 2,000 hours now and have had no engine problems at all in the last 3 years I've owned the plane.   We fly it 100-200 hours a year (Depending on how many trips I take to the midwest or east coast)  Does anyone have any advice on why an engine monitor is financially a good decision? Or if you have other thoughts, why it's a bad decision?  I'm thinking about saying something like "For every hour past TBO we fly, we should consider the normal maintenance reserve amount to go to the engine monitor until it's paid off" and at $20/hr, if we reach 2,300 hours then it was a good decision, plus the aircraft is more valuable. This is assuming $6,000 net cost of monitor + install - resale of used avionics.

The way I am thinking about it, the most cost effective device for us might be the EI CGR-30C, which EI lists at $2,952 on their website including the Engine Data Computer (EDC).  Before deciding anything, we can talk to EI in a couple of weeks at the Northwest Aviation Conference to make sure that unit can do what we want and we can get it for the price we want.   We would need a couple of extra pieces like the FT-60 Fuel flow transducer for $130, but those are pretty minor costs I think. 

There are several things we'd be able to replace and sell to help reduce our cost at that point:

• 6-pack of engine instruments  ($700?)
• MP/Fuel Press ($100?)
• EGT ($100?)
• SR-8A ($100?)

What we'd gain is:

• Data logging
• Fuel flow monitoring for more precise power control
• More accurate fuel usage measurements
• Ability to look at all CHTs and EGTs at once for better problem identification if one cylinder is acting up
• No fuel or oil lines in the instrument panel

Assuming the same sort of install effort as the CGR-30P and that the shop rate is $90/hr (I forget what it is, I'm just guessing) that puts our total cost at $3150 for labor plus $3300 for the hardware, minus $1,000 for selling the existing hardware, for a total of $5,450.   This number is estimating high on accessory cost and install cost and low on sale price for our existing hardware. If the install is only 30 hours and we don't need any extra parts and we get $1,500 for our stuff and a 10% discount, that would put us at $3,987.   The real price will probably be somewhere in-between the $3,987 and $5,450
 

[carusoam]

You hit on all the details, wombat....

looking backwards, saying you haven't had any problems... why change anything?  Probably doesn't help your quest.

looking forwards, identifying all the engine issues you can with your monitor probably does help your quest.

There are some partners that don't understand the wealth of data that is immediately available.  Others that don't want to spend the money and not get any value out of it.

i had one valve failure. That I could identify, if I had a monitor... I flew for a decade without one.  A cylinder has failed or the engine is failing, land strait ahead...  becomes it is only one cylinder misbehaving, what's the best course of action now?

get an engine monitor and add fuel flow and totalizer to it.  Small bits of information to help keep engine failure from affecting your flying...

The question becomes how to Best afford getting one...

More data is better in this case.  Sharing downloaded data and asking questions about run-ups and leaning techniques are done here often.

Best regards,

-a-

 

[M20kflyer99]

I'm having trouble convincing my partner that getting an engine monitor is a good decision.  We are at right about 2,000 hours now and have had no engine problems at all in the last 3 years I've owned the plane.   We fly it 100-200 hours a year (Depending on how many trips I take to the midwest or east coast)  Does anyone have any advice on why an engine monitor is financially a good decision? Or if you have other thoughts, why it's a bad decision?  I'm thinking about saying something like "For every hour past TBO we fly, we should consider the normal maintenance reserve amount to go to the engine monitor until it's paid off" and at $20/hr, if we reach 2,300 hours then it was a good decision, plus the aircraft is more valuable. This is assuming $6,000 net cost of monitor + install - resale of used avionics.
The way I am thinking about it, the most cost effective device for us might be the EI CGR-30C, which EI lists at $2,952 on their website including the Engine Data Computer (EDC).  Before deciding anything, we can talk to EI in a couple of weeks at the Northwest Aviation Conference to make sure that unit can do what we want and we can get it for the price we want.   We would need a couple of extra pieces like the FT-60 Fuel flow transducer for $130, but those are pretty minor costs I think. 
There are several things we'd be able to replace and sell to help reduce our cost at that point:

• 6-pack of engine instruments  ($700?)
• MP/Fuel Press ($100?)
• EGT ($100?)
• SR-8A ($100?)

What we'd gain is:

• Data logging
• Fuel flow monitoring for more precise power control
• More accurate fuel usage measurements
• Ability to look at all CHTs and EGTs at once for better problem identification if one cylinder is acting up
• No fuel or oil lines in the instrument panel

Assuming the same sort of install effort as the CGR-30P and that the shop rate is $90/hr (I forget what it is, I'm just guessing) that puts our total cost at $3150 for labor plus $3300 for the hardware, minus $1,000 for selling the existing hardware, for a total of $5,450.   This number is estimating high on accessory cost and install cost and low on sale price for our existing hardware. If the install is only 30 hours and we don't need any extra parts and we get $1,500 for our stuff and a 10% discount, that would put us at $3,987.   The real price will probably be somewhere in-between the $3,987 and $5,450
 

I can tell you that my EI MVP50p was just a bit over 10 AMU's installed. That included some panel work and a lot of wiring.

[wombat]

The shop I generally go to (Advanced Aircraft Services in Troutdale, OR which is a Mooney Service Center) www.advancedaircraftpdx.com gave a guess at the installed cost of the MVP-50p at $9,400.

 

Attached is a hacked up image of the configuration I made for the CGR-30C that would have everything I need/want on the primary page.  It has all 6 of the 'cluster' instruments plus fuel pressure, manifold pressure and EGT.   I'd keep the existing RPM/Tach and replace the rest of the engine instruments. 

Page 2 would have the standard bar graph of CHTs/EGTs and fuel flow, for leaning and fine-grained power adjustments.

[wombat]

And you are right that a lot of the work is not highly technical during the install and even I could drastically reduce the install cost.  The problem is that I have a 9-5 job and the shop is a 3 hour drive away (with no traffic - 4h40m hours with traffic)

Maybe I could take a couple of days of vacation to do this though or go down on a weekend and do 'prep' work that the mechanics don't need to be there to supervise me for.   I can take screws out like nobody's business and get the seats/interior removed.

 

[wombat]

I just sent a message to EI, let's see how they respond:

 

I have three questions, with additional details about the questions further below:
#1: Can the CGR-30C be configured as I would like?
#2: Can you elaborate on the differences between the CGR-30C, CGR-30P and premium CGR-30P?
#3: Can you help me understand the benefits of having this Vs. a SR-8A which is already in my aircraft?

Question #1:Could it be configured with the following as primary instruments on the main page:
CHT
Fuel Pressure
Oil Temperature
Oil Pressure
Fuel level (L tank)
Fuel level (R tank)
EGT
Amps
Manifold pressure (with the arc indicator)

I need all of these things to remove most of the existing engine instruments; this configuration would leave only the vacuum and RPM/Tach gauge.  A faked-up image of the configuration think would work for me can be found here:
https://mooneyspace.com/uploads/monthly_2017_02/30c-Configured.thumb.png.69943e2bfce457144b45e816446cfa66.png

Question #2:
The only difference that I can see between the C and P is that the C has annunciators at the top and the P has room for an extra row of indicators.  At about $600 extra for each step up I'm not sure what exactly I'd be getting.

Question #3:
My co-owner would prefer to overhaul the engine now and not get an engine monitor and my explanation of the benefits is not sufficient for him.  While we both understand that these instruments will allow us to log the engine performance parameters and potentially find some issues prior to significant failure (e.g. A leaking or burned exhaust valve) can you help me understand how else this will allow us to safely extend the life of our engine or run it more efficiently?

[gsxrpilot]

I think you'll find you have to install both a 30P and 30C to be able to legally remove all the required stock instruments.

The most cost effective option that allows you to remove ALL required stock engine instruments, is the EDM-900.  The top of the line option is the MVP-50

But if I was in your position, and cost was the issue, I'd keep the stock instruments and install an Insight G2. It will be Primary for EGT/CHT. It will also give you Fuel Flow, Used, Remaining, Time, etc. all included at no extra charge. The data logging is the best/easiest of ALL the engine monitors on the market. It's just an SD card in the face of the instrument. I logged over 400 hours with it in my Mooney and was only up to 5% usage of the stock card. It's easy to transfer/upload and will store ALL the data for all the flights for the life of the plane. 

[wombat]

I got a response back from EI that I've pasted below.  I also got a very helpful message from gsxrpilot.   

The way I understand it is:

• The CGR-30C can't do the asymmetric instrument I made the picture of.
• Out of the list of things I want to do, none of the CGRs can do what I want on their own and also replace my current engine indicators.
• A CGR-30P and GCR-30C would if I bought them both.
• The JPI EDM-900 or EDM-930 will, as will the MVP-50.
• As gsxrpilot pointed out, the Insight G2 will do the most important things I'm looking for (temp monitoring/logging and fuel flow and calculations)

The EDM-900 series and MVP-50 (or the combination of a CGR-30P and CGR-30C) is out of my budget for this year.  

So I could potentially get the Insight G2 and replace my SR-8A, but at a likely $4,500+ cost installed  and we'll still have the old cruddy fuel gauges I don't think this is in the cards.

 

Thank you very much for your e-mail.  The CGR-30C can monitor up to 16 primary functions, the first 8 being included in the purchase price.  As such, you can easily monitor a single CHT, single EGT, fuel pressure, oil temperature, oil pressure, L & R fuel tanks, amps and manifold pressure on an arc gauge.  One other function will also be display as an arc gauge due to symmetry.  As that totals 9 functions, there will be an additional charge for the ninth function.  Most likely amps at $39.00.
The difference between the 30C and 30P is that the 30C does not make a full fuel compute or engine analyzer available.  Those are only available on the 30P.  The difference between the 30P Basic and the 30P Premium is the Premium version allows you to select the 5 primary functions you would like to monitor in addition to RPM, EGT and CHT (all cylinders), which are always included.  The 30P Basic is always configured identically which includes RPM, EGT, CHT, fuel flow, volts and OAT.  No other functions can be added or substituted.
The largest benefit I can see for you to upgrade to either of the 30Ps and/or 30C is they are both certified primary instruments and can legally replace your factory instrumentation.  While the SR-8A offers monitoring of all 4 cylinders, it does not do so simultaneously, assist in leaning or log data which can aid in viewing engine trends.  Again, the SR-8A does not legally replace any of your aircraft's existing instrumentation.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

[carusoam]

W,

With all your ratings, you must be pulling your hair out on this one...

1) I use my engine monitor each flight to run all cylinders LOP, down low.  Close to peak, up high.

2) this allows me to save approximately 3gph. 12 gph vs 15gph ROP (IO550)

3) each flight the run-up includes testing the EGT rise on each mag testing each spark plug and magneto.

4) downloading data is a function of how easy it is.  My JPI 700 requires me to bring a pc with me, which is getting to be more of a pain.... perfect for problem solving.  Intermittent plug skipping and partially blocked fuel injectors have a hard time hiding from a good engine monitor.

5) the device pays for itself over time in saved fuel, saved maintenance, and saved plane from not running out of gas.

Not all partners have extra cash. Would your partner allow you to get these things installed if you were to pay for it yourself?

All the logic supplied can't get money out of a partner when they don't have it.

Best regards,

-a-

[wombat]

Thanks, carusoam for the additional support for getting a monitor.  That sort of detail will really help.

We have plenty of money in an engine reserve account, he just doesn't want to spend it on an engine monitor and would rather overhaul the engine right now.

He'd be fine if I paid for the whole thing.   I'm thinking about doing some sort of deal where I pay for it all upfront but after 2,000 tach hours on the engine we put the engine reserve money toward the monitor until it's paid off.   What we have in the engine reserve right now is not quite enough to get a good overhaul.  

[gsxrpilot]

To echo what Alan said, I wouldn't own an airplane without an engine monitor. As long as I'm on the hook for an engine, I gotta be able to monitor it. It's peace of mind while flying, saves me money at the fuel pump, and gives me better control (I know the problem up front) when it needs service.

The fuel flow feature built into the G2 has allowed me to make some very long flights where if only relying on the factory fuel gauges, I'd have stopped for fuel. But because I knew exactly what my fuel situation is, I could confidently skip a stop and save 30 min to an hour on the trip.

[gsengle]

Hell just the ability to fly LOP and those fuel savings almost pays for the overhaul over 2k hours for me. And getting early warning of an impending failure in flight is priceless...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guitarmaster]

I'm going to chime in on this because I was in the same boat as your partner is in terms of attitude towards an engine monitor. My thought process was, I can hear the engine and I can detect problems just by changes in the sound. This is especially true the more familiar you are with your airplane.

After constant hounding from friends that had engine monitors and the numerous articles that I have read and digested over the last couple of years finally convinced me to put the money forth to buy one. I don't regret it one little bit!

 

It seems the dilemma is coming because of the high time engine and the need to possibly overhaul it in short order. I will give you this to think about.

 

First, you may not need to overhaul the engine for many more hours. If you follow Mike Busch and his articles you will find that TBO is nothing more than a suggestion and it is downright foolish to overhaul an engine or, to use his terms, euthanize an engine that is perfectly willing to put forth its best effort for many more hours to come.

 

Having an engine monitor will allow you to run that aircraft much more efficiently. People told me that I would pay for itself in just a matter of a few short years depending on how much I flew. I believe it!

 

Although it is true that you can hear problems going on with your motor, especially if you're familiar with it, you don't always know where the problem is coming from. It's nice to have engine data to look at. Personally, I have caught a bad spark plug on the number four cylinder on the bottom. It was just a minor little miss here and there, but it showed up blatantly on the downloaded data. I have a friend who caught a stuck valve. That stuck valve cost him $1000. Had he not caught the problem, it would have cost him $60,000 for a new engine. Seriously, that's how important a monitor is.

 

The fact that you're going to put a new engine on the airplane pretty soon is another strong argument for having an engine monitor installed. The statistics show A vast majority of engine failures occur in the first 500 hours. Also known as, "infant mortality." Catching a problem early can save huge dollars!

 

Finally, I kind of think of it like insurance. There is a member here who had a problem with his number three cylinder I believe. The airplane didn't change in the engine noise or anything, but he did have a slight reduction in power and a massive over temperature on the number three cylinder. I don't remember what caused it, either a bad valve or injector, But he was able to land before the engine Took itself apart.

 

My personal opinion is, having the attitude of, "this worked this way for years and years and so there's no need to put a lot of money into an engine monitor" is kind of faulty thinking. It's a true testament to the durability of these engines, but with Technology available to us now, I think an engine monitor is a no-brainer.

 

Disclaimer: I am not the president, but I am a card carrying member of the cheap bastard club.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

[cnoe]

It sounds like you and your partner have done a great job of managing the engine so far, but could you do better? I'd guess "yes".

You've gotten some great advice from the comments above but I'd like to appeal to your partner's sense of economics a bit more.

You've stashed away $20/hour for the engine fund. That's great! But engines don't unexpectedly die at TBO (as stated above), particularly when you fly them regularly. So first of all please don't do surgery on a healthy patient. Now we all get a little sick now and again, so it's a good idea to get a checkup occasionally. By using an engine monitor it's like you're getting a checkup on EVERY FLIGHT. I, for one, download every flight from my monitor and upload to the Savvy Analysis site for my/their review. After a short time it's pretty easy to spot something out of the ordinary. And then every few months they send me a "report card" comparing my engine and operating parameters to 149 other M20-F/J aircraft (5,388 comparison flights on my last report). If they see something really serious they'll contact me right away.

So, how do you lean your engine? If using only one EGT probe you likely run ROP. But what are the other 3 cylinders doing? One (or more) of them may be running too lean which may eventually cause problems with cylinder temps or valves. Or perhaps they're running much richer than the probed cylinder (which is just pumping expensive fuel out the exhaust pipe). Many here achieve good LOP performance with their IO360s by simply swapping injectors around to find the best balance. You can easily save 2.5-3.0 gph which amounts to more than $10/hour savings with 100LL @ $3.35-$4.00/gallon. Those savings alone amount to $20,000 over the course of your TBO.

But wait; there's more. If you can safely fly the plane another 500 hours (past TBO) then you've contributed another $10,000 to the engine fund and saved another $5,000 in fuel expense. Now your talking some serious savings!

Even if you have to rework a cylinder or two to make it 500 hours beyond TBO you've only spent ~$4,000 to save $15,000. There are a lot of things you could do with that $11,000; maybe even add one of those newfangled AOA indicators that 201er insists we all have.

Anyway, I pulled out an older functional EI monitor to replace with my JPI-830 and I love having it. After having been party to a cylinder departing an aircraft as a teenager I could not imagine flying around without a modern monitor. Lycoming 3-cylinders don't make for a well-balanced engine.

[Glenn]

I have had a JPI 900 in my F for a few years and like it a lot.  I think it has added a few knots to my cruise speed.  Seriously!  My guess is that my old instruments were sufficiently innaccurate that I was flying at am lower power setting that I realized.  

On rare occasion my unit's scan function will freeze, but it is not enough of a problem to motivate me to remove the unit for a trip back to the factory for a software patch.

I would purchase again.

[capthaak]

We purchased the CGR30-P and like it just fine. We removed the oil temp, pressure, MP, RPM, fuel, pressure, CHT, & EGT gauges. Don't figure you're going to be able to sell all your old gauges, at least don't factor it into your decision. If you can sell some, it's a bonus.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[wombat]

After doing yet more research, it looks like I'm going to go with an Insight G2.    

While I won't be able to replace any of the existing gauges other than the EGT, the unit is the cheapest one that does the minimum of what I want.    We are going to put in ADS-B Out this annual and the panel will already be open, so the install cost for this will be minimal.

 

A better picture of the existing panel can be found here:  https://goo.gl/photos/USttYdqsgyKWrfiB9

[kortopates]

35 minutes ago, wombat said:

After doing yet more research, it looks like I'm going to go with an Insight G2.    

While I won't be able to replace any of the existing gauges other than the EGT, the unit is the cheapest one that does the minimum of what I want.    We are going to put in ADS-B Out this annual and the panel will already be open, so the install cost for this will be minimal.

 

A better picture of the existing panel can be found here:  https://goo.gl/photos/USttYdqsgyKWrfiB9

I get why its appealing, but the G2 is so limited probe wise with just EGT, CHT and FF. Soon as you learn how to use it and begin to realize its diagnostic potential you'll be very disappointed when you can't add RPM, MAP, OT and OP to realize its true diagnostic capabilities and really watch after your engine. I'd vote G3 if you have to stick to the tiny  2.25" but an EDM 830 in landscape mode might fit well on the left where you have that open space. But of course if you could go with Q3 or EDM-900 with the accompanying probes you could really clean up your panel.

Edited February 27, 2017 by kortopates

[tigers2007]

I get why its appealing, but the G2 is so limited probe wise with just EGT, CHT and FF. Soon as you learn how to use it and begin to realize its diagnostic potential you'll be very disappointed when you can't add RPM, MAP, OT and OP to realize its true diagnostic capabilities and really watch after your engine.

I totally regretted getting the G1 about five minutes after seeing it's capabilities. I called Insight and they want me to pay the same price to "upgrade" to a G2 as someone with a 20yr old Insight GEM would pay ($1680!). I'm probably going to bite the bullet and order a new G2 and sell the G1 here. I just really want the data logging capabilities. I've been forced to constant snap photos of the screen. Ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jlunseth]

I have the 930 and have for about 8 years.  It is a very good instrument and worth every penny in giving you the ability to monitor everything of importance in the engine.  When I got my 930 the EI was just coming online so not really a choice.  It is established now and their customer service is superior to JPI.  There are a few issues to think about.  Yes, you get a cute useless little Remote Alternate Display with the 930.  It was required for certification.  But from what I can tell the only protection you get from it is a readout in the event the 930 screen goes dark.  If the unit itself quits as opposed to just the screen, I don't think the RAD does anything for you.

You are vulnerable in the event of an electrical system failure.  I had an alternator go out on me once, had to throw the Mster to preserve battery power for landing, and you lose the entire 930 including MP and RPM.  Everything.  There is no backup except your battery.  But then you would lose quite alot of your factory gauges in that event also.  I don't know about the MP or RPM, I haven't had one in so long I don't recall how they are driven.  All of the little strip gauges such as temps, fuel gauge, are electrical so they would go anyway.  What I did was to set power before I shut the Master off, and just left it in a known good setting.

The one weakness of the 930 is the fuel gauges.  It is not the fault of the 930, the gauge readouts are very accurate.  But they rely on the factory senders, and even the best are not very good.  Replacing or rebuilding is not cheap and there are two in each wing.  EI sells a much more accurate resistance based sender.  They would not be cheap, but not more expensive than rebuilding factory senders.  I tried to find out if they work with the JPI and EI can't say.  It would apparently be up to your mechanic.  

Lastly, the one function that does not read out on a JPI is the vacuum.  EI does read vacuum.  

I like my 930, but I would give the MVP50 a good hard look if I were to do it again today.

Edited February 27, 2017 by jlunseth