EI CGR Panel Upgrade Time! Configuration Comments?

[Jeffington]

Howdy all,

Since I like the EI CGR-30P instrument and they're running a $1,000 rebate on their combo package, I've decided to make the move in my '78 J and upgrade to some "glass panel" technology - eeek! I have a couple of questions I wanted to pose to the knowledgeable folks here on MS.

Location
Originally, I intended to get only the 30P. However, I realized that my 40 year old instruments aren't getting newer or more reliable, and then I succumbed to the rebate offer for the 30C as well. Here's my panel now (two images stitched together to get the full view):

With just the 30P, the obvious choice was to replace the Horizon digital tach. With both, I'm not sure about the 30C placement. Ideally, putting it underneath the 30P would be nice, but I'm hesitant to relocate the clock (where?), cut a bigger hole, and figure out placement of the placard under the clock. The next obvious spot seems to be either the MP or RPM over on the right (since they can be removed anyway). But I'm concerned it's too far away and harder to read/use. Another choice would be to place it in the panel area where the transponder is currently located. Thoughts?

Functions
For those familiar with the 30P and 30C, the literature says these two instruments can replace 5 + 16 primary functions. If I select everything my airplane even has, I don't have 21 functions so I guess I'm good:

However, the combo package configuration sheet doesn't give you the option to say where they go. Sounds like they will choose for me? I guess I'd like a little input if I could, but is this all FAA regulated as to where the functions go?

Annunciators
I was filling out the optional annunciators section and had a thought. What if I put the top row of annunciators as almost a "landing verification set"? So, the top three annunciators would be:  GEAR DOWN; RAM AIR OFF; BOOST PUMP ON. I feel like that gives me - at a glance - a quick way to verify that I'm ready to be on the ground. For takeoff and landing, all three lights should be green. For all other flight, all three lights would be off. Is that a crazy idea? (Or even possible?)

The second row of annunciators could be more in line with what they suggest. Since I have three lighting switches, the second row of annunciators would just be:  LANDING LIGHT; STROBES; NAV LIGHTS. 

Obviously, I would shorten the annunciator names to fit within 7 letters.

Units
While filling out the worksheet, I'm sticking to with what the POH states for everything - including units. My understanding is that you can't really vary from the POH anyway. However, I've noticed a few oddities that I wonder how they will work on the gauge. In the POH and in the airplane panel, the CHT is in °F and the EGT is in °C. How will this look on that kickass bar graph on the CGR-30P? Does it matter? I also want to change the fuel units to gallons instead of pounds like they are in the panel, but I'm not sure if that's legal.

Why
I love the simplicity and mostly unmolested nature of my J. I kind of hate to make these kinds of changes. However, this newfangled technology isn't going away and old instruments only get older. With 1,600 original hours on the engine and airframe, I'm getting close enough to TBO that I want more detailed monitoring of the engine. The primary motivator is to get the CHT and EGT readings, while also wanting to watch the fuel flow and oil temperature. When I fly my airplane, nothing moves on the gauges. It's great. Temperatures are just so consistent and reliable. Just a quick little twist of the mixture knob when I change altitudes is all I really ever have to do. These gauges will just give me even more confidence (or alarm!).

Future
This upgrade is part of the larger master plan where I am also purchasing a Lynx NGT-9000. I also have a second KX155 that I'm getting a glideslope module added to. For this phase of the upgrade, the radio stack will be changed to remove the KX170, add the second KX155, and add the NGT-9000 in the center stack. The old transponder on the right panel will just go away. That'll be a lot of empty panel space.

 

For those that read this, thanks! For those that didn't, I don't blame you one bit!

[MIm20c]

Swap the clock to the amp position and make a larger hole. I’d spend the money on a audio panel if changing out the nav/com and transponder. I wouldn’t be concerned about the 1600 hrs but the likely 40 year old engine would be a great reason monitor it more closely. 

[gsxrpilot]

You can do all of this in less panel space and for less money... even after the rebate, with a JPI EDM-900. I love EI as a company and their tech support is supposed to be excellent. But they have to sell two gauges to do what other manufacturers offer in a single gauge.

[ArtVandelay]

Swap the clock to the amp position and make a larger hole.

Looks like the panel holding the key, ammeter , clock isn’t big enough ?

[MIm20c]

47 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

Looks like the panel holding the key, ammeter , clock isn’t big enough ?

I thought the clock would fit in the ammeter slot, hard to tell from the picture but I thought both were 2 and 1/4 inch. 

[ArtVandelay]

I thought the clock would fit in the ammeter slot, hard to tell from the picture but I thought both were 2 and 1/4 inch. 

What I’m saying is when you said “make a larger hole”, I don’t think you have the room to make a 3 1/8 hole.

[MIm20c]

1 hour ago, teejayevans said:

What I’m saying is when you said “make a larger hole”, I don’t think you have the room to make a 3 1/8 hole.

Should be plenty of room in the current clock location. 

[wiguy]

 I have a newly installed CGR-30P with the IO-390 on my Commander 112. The E.I. monitor has been most excellent. I was happy to replace a few older gauges and get more accurate monitoring of the engine.

[Jeffington]

The pic that Mlm20c posted is pretty much exactly what I was planning (minus the iPad). I just need to verify that the ammeter hole is the same as the clock, and also verify that I can move around the placards as needed to make a 3⅛ hole. I should be able to do that tomorrow. Thanks for the validating thoughts.

I mocked up the "ready to land" annunciator idea:

Daytime / Normal Cruise

Ready to Land / Ready for Takeoff

Night Cruise

 

The main thing I don't like about it is that it seems like cognitive dissonance that Ram Air Off is when the light is ON. Otherwise, I kinda like it.

[kris_adams]

Hey Jeff, I had my P and C installed horizontally instead of vertically. There wasn’t enough depth for the C to go beneath the P at least in my 79J. I love having the P as close to the 6 pack as possible.  

I would not recommend putting them all the way to the right (where rpm is today) as there is so much information on these screens you will be watching them a lot. In fact I wouldn’t put them anywhere right of the radio stack. This is why I went with the CGRs over some of the single screen solutions (and I didn’t want to do a complete panel redo yet to get the single screen left of the radios. I’m waiting for more innovation and options on the dynon/aspen/garmin front).

Good luck on your decision!

Kris

[kris_adams]

10 hours ago, MIm20c said:

Should be plenty of room in the current clock location. 

You may want to look under your panel. My avionics shop said the C would not fit there on my 79J-of course what’s behind your panel could be different. 

[Jeffington]

Oh, that’s great to know. Seeing that this is a ‘78, I’d wager I’ll have the same restrictions. 

But isn’t the VOR indicator quite large, too? I guess they’re more narrow and long behind the panel, rather than stubby and wide. 

[kris_adams]

1 hour ago, Jeffington said:

Oh, that’s great to know. Seeing that this is a ‘78, I’d wager I’ll have the same restrictions. 

But isn’t the VOR indicator quite large, too? I guess they’re more narrow and long behind the panel, rather than stubby and wide. 

From what I remember, it was the depth. I didn’t press the avionics shop as he said I’d probably like this arrangement better anyway.  After flying with it for almost 2 years I really like it. 

[M016576]

23 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

You can do all of this in less panel space and for less money... even after the rebate, with a JPI EDM-900. I love EI as a company and their tech support is supposed to be excellent. But they have to sell two gauges to do what other manufacturers offer in a single gauge.

Yeah, but you don’t really need the “C” gauge unless you want the fuel quantity displayed, which I don’t really care about having displayed digitally, since the totalizer works better than the gauges anyway, and I have the stock senders (which aren’t that accurate).  I just went with the 30P alone- cheaper than the 900, and primary certified for all the important functions.  Can’t remove the total gauge cluster, but you can disconnect and placard the fuel P, Oil P, and Oil T (or leave them, if you want).

if the aesthetics are a factor, or maybe if you have those new Ceis senders, than paying up for the 900 or 30C would be a logical choice.

Edited July 15, 2018 by M016576

[gsxrpilot]

6 minutes ago, M016576 said:

Yeah, but you don’t really need the “C” gauge unless you want the fuel quantity displayed, which I don’t really care about having displayed digitally, since the totalizer works better than the gauges anyway, and I have the stock senders (which aren’t that accurate).  I just went with the 30P alone- cheaper than the 900, and primary certified for all the important functions.  Can’t remove the total gauge cluster, but you can disconnect and placard the fuel P, Oil P, and Oil T (or leave them, if you want).

if the aesthetics are a factor, or maybe if you have those new Ceis senders, than paying up for the 900 or 30C would be a logical choice.

I see the fuel gauges being as important as the other components of the engine monitor. I believe the EGT/CHT/Oil temp/pressure, etc. all work to protect the investment in my engine. I see accurate fuel gauges along with accurate senders and accurate totalizer/flow data, as critical to allowing me to fly far with confidence in my fuel situation. Which is a safety factor. We hear regularly of accidents because of fuel miscalculation or misinformation or just carelessness. I'm trying to hedge against that happening to me. But at the same time be able to use the complete range of my airplane.

In my mind, my engine monitor with the fuel gauges, is right up there with the most important safety equipment in my airplane.

Obviously I've invested heavily in my panel. But the only item that for me, was a "must upgrade" when I purchased the plane, was the engine monitor and CiES fuel senders. Everything else was just because I could and wanted it. 

[M016576]

On 7/15/2018 at 4:09 PM, gsxrpilot said:

I see the fuel gauges being as important as the other components of the engine monitor. I believe the EGT/CHT/Oil temp/pressure, etc. all work to protect the investment in my engine. I see accurate fuel gauges along with accurate senders and accurate totalizer/flow data, as critical to allowing me to fly far with confidence in my fuel situation. Which is a safety factor. We hear regularly of accidents because of fuel miscalculation or misinformation or just carelessness. I'm trying to hedge against that happening to me. But at the same time be able to use the complete range of my airplane.

In my mind, my engine monitor with the fuel gauges, is right up there with the most important safety equipment in my airplane.

Obviously I've invested heavily in my panel. But the only item that for me, was a "must upgrade" when I purchased the plane, was the engine monitor and CiES fuel senders. Everything else was just because I could and wanted it. 

100% valid- and totally get where you’re coming from.  With the new senders that are actually accurate- having a gauge that can display that accurate information is exactly what you want.

for those of us without the accurate senders, though... an instrument that displays fuel quantity using the older senders is still displaying inaccurate, analog data... just in a digital format- which might actually be a worse display of the inaccurate data (with a needle- you might get trend info.. with digital- it’s just a bouncing number!). For me, with the wing sight gauges, plus the (somewhat) innacurate original fuel tank senders, plus the (very accurate) totalizer, I’ve found that my fuel numbers are within the safety margin for my purposes.

Their is one place where I’m not fully “protected” though, that @gsxrpilot rocket is certainly better off- and that would be in the event of a fuel leak.  If you have more accurate senders, you’d be able to have a better understanding of the actual fuel state.  If I have a fuel leak in my configuration- I’ll notice it... but I’ll probably have to land as soon as practical to sort it out regardless of my state.