EDM-900 Installation

[Davidv]

I'm looking at changing out my original gauges for an EDM-900 and have a few quick questions for those who have done the same:

1. For those who have a late 80s/early 90s Bravo, were you able to get the EDM-900 to fit where the gauges are currently located next to the gear lever?  I've seen a few pictures and it looks like maybe some minor panel modification but I'm hoping to do this without cutting a new panel or removing it to be cut for now. 

2. I've heard some conflicting information on whether I could use my original analog fuel senders or I would have to buy new.  One shop told me they could send out my senders (ha) for a relatively inexpensive overhaul and they should work fine.  I know digital may be more accurate but at the moment my fuel gauges don't work at all (which I believe are my analog gauges and not senders for a few reasons) so I depend on my own fuel calculations, totalizer, and wing gauges to manage fuel. 

3. Any good experience with shops in FL who have done the install?  I've got one quote from a shop that I know is always high but it's tough to find others who I would trust with correctly attaching the sensors on the engine ect...

Thanks for any help you can provide!

David

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, Davidv said:

I'm looking at changing out my original gauges for an EDM-900 and have a few quick questions for those who have done the same:

1. For those who have a late 80s/early 90s Bravo, were you able to get the EDM-900 to fit where the gauges are currently located next to the gear lever?  I've seen a few pictures and it looks like maybe some minor panel modification but I'm hoping to do this without cutting a new panel or removing it to be cut for now. 

2. I've heard some conflicting information on whether I could use my original analog fuel senders or I would have to buy new.  One shop told me they could send out my senders (ha) for a relatively inexpensive overhaul and they should work fine.  I know digital may be more accurate but at the moment my fuel gauges don't work at all (which I believe are my analog gauges and not senders for a few reasons) so I depend on my own fuel calculations, totalizer, and wing gauges to manage fuel. 

3. Any good experience with shops in FL who have done the install?  I've got one quote from a shop that I know is always high but it's tough to find others who I would trust with correctly attaching the sensors on the engine ect...

Thanks for any help you can provide!

David

I eventually will do the 900 or 930, but all of my gauges are working currently and my Shadin Totalizer is always right on when I fill up. My understanding is that you can make the 900 fit where the gauges were, but in my case since I have a third Aspen right next to it, I might have to mount it vertically. I'll probably just cut a new panel at that point and flush mount everything and place everything exactly where I want it..

On another more important point though, I don't think you're legal according to 91.205 to fly without the ship's gauges operational, even if you have wing gauges, totalizer, calculations, etc.

https://www.m0a.com/required-vfr-day-night-instruments/

 

[Niko182]

I did the 900 in my 99 eagle and i put it right next to the VSI, but it had to be upright. Thats the only downside. It does fit under the gear lever.

[KSMooniac]

It will work with OEM fuel sending units, but I'd highly recommend going with CiES senders instead of throwing good money after bad overhauling what you have. I wish I did that on my J, but they weren't quite ready then.

You'll love the 900.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Davidv]

39 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

I eventually will do the 900 or 930, but all of my gauges are working currently and my Shadin Totalizer is alway right on when I fill up. My understanding is that you can make the 900 fit where the gauges were, but in my case since I have a third Aspen right next to it, I might have to mount it vertically. I'll probably just cut a new panel at that point and flush mount everything and place everything exactly where I want it..

On another more important point though, I don't think you're legal according to 91.205 to fly without the ship's gauges operational, even if you have wing gauges, totalizer, calculations, etc.

https://www.m0a.com/required-vfr-day-night-instruments/

 

Thanks Lance.  This is certainly an interesting question and let me preface it by saying that my fuel gauges intermittent.  When I fill up they will show a larger quantity and then "dance" throughout the flight.  Having said that, it's my understanding that CFR 23 used to say that your fuel gauges only need to be accurate when they read zero and there is zero fuel in the tank.  This is the case for me as my gauges will never show fuel higher than what I believe is in the tank and certainly not when a tank is empty.  However, CFR 23 was updated to say the following:

§23.2430   Fuel systems.

(a) Each fuel system must—

(1) Be designed and arranged to provide independence between multiple fuel storage and supply systems so that failure of any one component in one system will not result in loss of fuel storage or supply of another system;

(2) Be designed and arranged to prevent ignition of the fuel within the system by direct lightning strikes or swept lightning strokes to areas where such occurrences are highly probable, or by corona or streamering at fuel vent outlets;

(3) Provide the fuel necessary to ensure each powerplant and auxiliary power unit functions properly in all likely operating conditions;

(4) Provide the flightcrew with a means to determine the total useable fuel available and provide uninterrupted supply of that fuel when the system is correctly operated, accounting for likely fuel fluctuations;

(5) Provide a means to safely remove or isolate the fuel stored in the system from the airplane;

(6) Be designed to retain fuel under all likely operating conditions and minimize hazards to the occupants during any survivable emergency landing. For level 4 airplanes, failure due to overload of the landing system must be taken into account; and

(7) Prevent hazardous contamination of the fuel supplied to each powerplant and auxiliary power unit.

(b) Each fuel storage system must—

(1) Withstand the loads under likely operating conditions without failure;

(2) Be isolated from personnel compartments and protected from hazards due to unintended temperature influences;

(3) Be designed to prevent significant loss of stored fuel from any vent system due to fuel transfer between fuel storage or supply systems, or under likely operating conditions;

(4) Provide fuel for at least one-half hour of operation at maximum continuous power or thrust; and

(5) Be capable of jettisoning fuel safely if required for landing.

(c) Each fuel storage refilling or recharging system must be designed to—

(1) Prevent improper refilling or recharging;

(2) Prevent contamination of the fuel stored during likely operating conditions; and

(3) Prevent the occurrence of any hazard to the airplane or to persons during refilling or recharging.

Need assistance?

To me, the term "means to determine" is a little less limiting than talking about a fuel gauge which could imply using the totalizer and wing gauges.  Nevertheless, it's a grey area at best, the PHAK says something different, and I'm trying to get my EDM installed ASAP so I can get rid of this issue as well as a TIT gauge that seems to be having some issues (I currently have a JPM-700 so I can at least manage temps).

[Davidv]

13 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

It will work with OEM fuel sending units, but I'd highly recommend going with CiES senders instead of throwing good money after bad overhauling what you have. I wish I did that on my J, but they weren't quite ready then.

You'll love the 900.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

Thanks! I was going to go with the CiES but some friends have said they had a lot of trouble getting them to work right in my model (and they would probably add about $3000 in parts and labor to the install since i need 4).

[carusoam]

Cies is the way to go...

If you want them.  Tech issues arose, but their tech service is pretty sharp as is their sales guy also an engineer...

Any concerns ask @fuellevel 

ask the hard questions...

 

the jpi 900 does everything but vac gauge.

as far as the does it fit in the bravo’s pair of six pack engine instruments...

 

a dimension check may be necessary...  but we have a really good jpi guy that has answered similar questions before...

Ask @Jeev   ^^^^

Best regards,

-a-

[KSMooniac]

If you're planning to overhaul your existing senders, the labor will be the same to install new senders. Either way, there will be labor to connect to the EDM system. I'm just recommending you put the $500-600 in overhaul money towards the $1500? for new senders, and be done with it for the rest of the time you have the plane.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Brian E.]

In my C model I upgraded to the digital Cies fuel senders.  Happy I did but I also find the fuel totalizator to be spot on as well.  You can't go wrong either way and for $3k for the 4 senders I just might contemplate keeping the original senders.  Also, I originally wanted my  EDM installed horizontally but had to go vertical due to panel considerations.  At this point I am very satisfied with the vertical orientation--I wouldn't sweat that decision much either...

Good luck.  Post some pics once done!

[KSMooniac]

I just looked it up... $1740 for a set of 4 non-G1000 senders.  Labor should be the same to install vs. R&R old ones to get sent out for overhaul, so that should be a wash by my calculation.  Figure $150 per sender to overhaul... seems like false economy to me and still have sub-optimal accuracy and reliability.

If you want to save money on any EDM installation, I'd highly recommend owner-assist as most of the labor is tedious, but not technically challenging.  Figure 40-50 hours of labor to install one, and an owner with some mechanical aptitude can do 90% of that him/herself.

Regarding -900 orientation, I installed mine in Portrait as that was the only way I could fit it in my stock panel on the left side.  I'd prefer Landscape, and might do that someday when I do a full makeover, but I've adapted to Portrait just fine.

[Davidv]

24 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

I just looked it up... $1740 for a set of 4 non-G1000 senders.  Labor should be the same to install vs. R&R old ones to get sent out for overhaul, so that should be a wash by my calculation.  Figure $150 per sender to overhaul... seems like false economy to me and still have sub-optimal accuracy and reliability.

If you want to save money on any EDM installation, I'd highly recommend owner-assist as most of the labor is tedious, but not technically challenging.  Figure 40-50 hours of labor to install one, and an owner with some mechanical aptitude can do 90% of that him/herself.

Regarding -900 orientation, I installed mine in Portrait as that was the only way I could fit it in my stock panel on the left side.  I'd prefer Landscape, and might do that someday when I do a full makeover, but I've adapted to Portrait just fine.

Thanks Scott, I was actually all set to get them until a few friends (and the shop that I got a quote from) told me about the bad experiences.  I think I just need to speak with a few other installers to see if they've had the same issues or have successfully installed them in a long body (I'm not sure how it would be different from other bodies, but maybe some particulars involving the larger tank).  I have the Monroy 118 gallons and I realize that even with the CiES I'll only see fuel when it gets below 89 gallons which is perfectly fine by me.

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, Davidv said:

Thanks Lance.  This is certainly an interesting question and let me preface it by saying that my fuel gauges intermittent.  When I fill up they will show a larger quantity and then "dance" throughout the flight.  Having said that, it's my understanding that CFR 23 used to say that your fuel gauges only need to be accurate when they read zero and there is zero fuel in the tank.  This is the case for me as my gauges will never show fuel higher than what I believe is in the tank and certainly not when a tank is empty.  However, CFR 23 was updated to say the following:

§23.2430   Fuel systems.

(a) Each fuel system must—

(1) Be designed and arranged to provide independence between multiple fuel storage and supply systems so that failure of any one component in one system will not result in loss of fuel storage or supply of another system;

(2) Be designed and arranged to prevent ignition of the fuel within the system by direct lightning strikes or swept lightning strokes to areas where such occurrences are highly probable, or by corona or streamering at fuel vent outlets;

(3) Provide the fuel necessary to ensure each powerplant and auxiliary power unit functions properly in all likely operating conditions;

(4) Provide the flightcrew with a means to determine the total useable fuel available and provide uninterrupted supply of that fuel when the system is correctly operated, accounting for likely fuel fluctuations;

(5) Provide a means to safely remove or isolate the fuel stored in the system from the airplane;

(6) Be designed to retain fuel under all likely operating conditions and minimize hazards to the occupants during any survivable emergency landing. For level 4 airplanes, failure due to overload of the landing system must be taken into account; and

(7) Prevent hazardous contamination of the fuel supplied to each powerplant and auxiliary power unit.

(b) Each fuel storage system must—

(1) Withstand the loads under likely operating conditions without failure;

(2) Be isolated from personnel compartments and protected from hazards due to unintended temperature influences;

(3) Be designed to prevent significant loss of stored fuel from any vent system due to fuel transfer between fuel storage or supply systems, or under likely operating conditions;

(4) Provide fuel for at least one-half hour of operation at maximum continuous power or thrust; and

(5) Be capable of jettisoning fuel safely if required for landing.

(c) Each fuel storage refilling or recharging system must be designed to—

(1) Prevent improper refilling or recharging;

(2) Prevent contamination of the fuel stored during likely operating conditions; and

(3) Prevent the occurrence of any hazard to the airplane or to persons during refilling or recharging.

Need assistance?

To me, the term "means to determine" is a little less limiting than talking about a fuel gauge which could imply using the totalizer and wing gauges.  Nevertheless, it's a grey area at best, the PHAK says something different, and I'm trying to get my EDM installed ASAP so I can get rid of this issue as well as a TIT gauge that seems to be having some issues (I currently have a JPM-700 so I can at least manage temps).

Here's what the POH says:

[KSMooniac]

David, the creator of the CiES senders sometimes participates here and especially Beechtalk. He's very good about answering questions and tech support...you might just send him an email with your concerns and see what he says. It might end up saving you shop time if you get pointers in advance, especially for a shop that hasn't installed them before.

Even if you stick with the OEM units, you'll have to do a tedious calibration with the EDM...and you might end up less than satisfied like me. Then when you put in the good senders, you'll have to repeat that exercise, which if done right, takes some effort. (Plane empty and leveled, fuel pumped in 5 or 10 gallons at a time, take a data point, repeat) IMO this is a buy once-cry once decision.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[MIm20c]

Even the stock senders can read above 89. Not 118 but in the high 90’s. 

You might want to do some troubleshooting to which part is failing. If you need a different gauge to try Alan might have a set you can buy .

In the vertical orientation the 900 does not show egt values on 6 cylinder engines. 

[Marauder]

11 hours ago, Davidv said:

Thanks Scott, I was actually all set to get them until a few friends (and the shop that I got a quote from) told me about the bad experiences.  I think I just need to speak with a few other installers to see if they've had the same issues or have successfully installed them in a long body (I'm not sure how it would be different from other bodies, but maybe some particulars involving the larger tank).  I have the Monroy 118 gallons and I realize that even with the CiES I'll only see fuel when it gets below 89 gallons which is perfectly fine by me.

When Scot Philbin first introduced the CiES for the Mooney platform, there were a number of issues. As an early adopter, I lived through most of them. This included everything from him claiming that the JPI units were factory ready to accept frequency data (I heard an earful on this from JPI at Oshkosh), installation manual that was incorrect (he blamed the FAA for limiting modifications), wrong senders sent (he blamed his staff) and generally a lousy bedside manner from Scott. I think Scott has gotten a lot better at working with customers and I believe the majority of the issues have been resolved for Mooneys. Although I believe certain configurations (like the G1000 systems) are problematic.

I installed the senders in September 2017 and they have been rock solid. No more "Fuel Quantity Mismatch" error messages. I have been able to tweak the JPI 900's fuel totalizer to within 0.5 gallons on every flight. The tank readings are reported in whole numbers. So, it may look like you are a gallon off but it is a rounding thing. Bob Belville was the one who clued me in to look at the raw data from the JPI to see that what you are seeing on the display is being rounded up or down. Still, within 1 gallon accuracy? Crazy... 

[philiplane]

15 hours ago, Davidv said:

I'm looking at changing out my original gauges for an EDM-900 and have a few quick questions for those who have done the same:

1. For those who have a late 80s/early 90s Bravo, were you able to get the EDM-900 to fit where the gauges are currently located next to the gear lever?  I've seen a few pictures and it looks like maybe some minor panel modification but I'm hoping to do this without cutting a new panel or removing it to be cut for now. 

2. I've heard some conflicting information on whether I could use my original analog fuel senders or I would have to buy new.  One shop told me they could send out my senders (ha) for a relatively inexpensive overhaul and they should work fine.  I know digital may be more accurate but at the moment my fuel gauges don't work at all (which I believe are my analog gauges and not senders for a few reasons) so I depend on my own fuel calculations, totalizer, and wing gauges to manage fuel. 

3. Any good experience with shops in FL who have done the install?  I've got one quote from a shop that I know is always high but it's tough to find others who I would trust with correctly attaching the sensors on the engine ect...

Thanks for any help you can provide!

David

It is difficult to get the large format EDM900 to fit on the left side of the panel. You end up moving something. It's easy to do above the copilot yoke though. A big part of the mounting limitations is due to the mass of wires connecting into the back of the display. 

For the $1400 in additional hardware cost, I would go with the EDM930 and ditch the factory engine & fuel gauges. It frees up a lot of panel space and you take out several pounds of wire. The installation is actually no worse than the EDM900, and in some cases it is simpler. The display is shallow, and because the sensors are wired to a convertor box, only a few wires connect to the display. 

[LANCECASPER]

I've been thinking about this - it's very unlikely that both of your fuel gauges would go out at the same time. Have you checked the round plug that goes in the back of your top gauges to see that it is seated and twisted to lock? Eventually you probably want a 900 or 930 like I do, but in the meantime it might be something simple to get your fuel gauges back to "working".

[DXB]

41 minutes ago, Marauder said:

When Scot Philbin first introduced the CiES for the Mooney platform, there were a number of issues. As an early adopter, I lived through most of them. This included everything from him claiming that the JPI units were factory ready to accept frequency data (I heard an earful on this from JPI at Oshkosh), installation manual that was incorrect (he blamed the FAA for limiting modifications), wrong senders sent (he blamed his staff) and generally a lousy bedside manner from Scott. I think Scott has gotten a lot better at working with customers and I believe the majority of the issues have been resolved for Mooneys. Although I believe certain configurations (like the G1000 systems) are problematic.

I installed the senders in September 2017 and they have been rock solid. No more "Fuel Quantity Mismatch" error messages. I have been able to tweak the JPI 900's fuel totalizer to within 0.5 gallons on every flight. The tank readings are reported in whole numbers. So, it may look like you are a gallon off but it is a rounding thing. Bob Belville was the one who clued me in to look at the raw data from the JPI to see that what you are seeing on the display is being rounded up or down. Still, within 1 gallon accuracy? Crazy... 

Yeah I remember Scott's lousy communication style plus the early experiences with the install did not inspire confidence, and so I'm glad I delayed.  I did finally buy some senders from Oshkosh this year and will have the same guy who installed yours (I'm guessing) put mine in this January to make sure I benefit from the tough learning curve with yours.  It's a little annoying that the JPI900 has to go back to JPI for the firmware upgrade, but I think they dropped the price from 300 to 100 recently to do so.

[Davidv]

33 minutes ago, philiplane said:

It is difficult to get the large format EDM900 to fit on the left side of the panel. You end up moving something. It's easy to do above the copilot yoke though. A big part of the mounting limitations is due to the mass of wires connecting into the back of the display. 

For the $1400 in additional hardware cost, I would go with the EDM930 and ditch the factory engine & fuel gauges. It frees up a lot of panel space and you take out several pounds of wire. The installation is actually no worse than the EDM900, and in some cases it is simpler. The display is shallow, and because the sensors are wired to a convertor box, only a few wires connect to the display. 

Thanks, I was told by JPI and my avionics shop that the EDM-900 would be the primary engine gauge replacement?  I believe the 930 just provides a larger screen?

[Davidv]

25 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

I've been thinking about this - it's very unlikely that both of your fuel gauges would go out at the same time. Have you checked the round plug that goes in the back of your top gauges to see that it is seated and twisted to lock? Eventually you probably want a 900 or 930 like I do, but in the meantime it might be something simple to get your fuel gauges back to "working".

That's a good point, it's probably something related to that, I'm doing some minor panel work in 2-3 weeks to fix an A/P issue so I'll check that as well.

[LANCECASPER]

5 minutes ago, Davidv said:

That's a good point, it's probably something related to that, I'm doing some minor panel work in 2-3 weeks to fix an A/P issue so I'll check that as well.

If you just take off the glare shield it's the top gauge cluster - very easy to reach in from the top and check the connection.

As an example, my flap/trim indicator recently stopped displaying and I had been through this before and had to have a small fuse inside replaced.  A week ago I pulled the glare shield and took out the gauge clusters to get to the trim/flap indicator and noticed that the plug to the trim/flap was barely attached. I plugged it in tightly and now I have trim/flap indication.

[LANCECASPER]

14 minutes ago, Davidv said:

Thanks, I was told by JPI and my avionics shop that the EDM-900 would be the primary engine gauge replacement?  I believe the 930 just provides a larger screen?

The 930 is larger but a much nicer display and more modern design. As mentioned it's very slim in depth and connects to a box where the other connections terminate. When I do the replacement, 99% sure I'll go with the 930. My avionics shop likes putting in 930's much more than 900's - a lot more room to work behind it.

[ArtVandelay]

My avionics shop likes putting in 930's much more than 900's - a lot more room to work behind it.

Not sure why they care, it’s just a bunch of D shell connectors, which can be done out in the open and then plugged into the back.


Tom

[tls pilot]

Davidv

Your gauges are most likely Sigma Tek

A family operated place in Lock Haven PA Keystone Instruments 570- 748-7083has the test equipment and can calibrate

They come out of the panel very easily w one phillips screw

IF your senders are good, it usually is the POT on the Sigma Tek. Sometimes it is just an adjustment

others may require a new pot. 

[Marauder]

40 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

Not sure why they care, it’s just a bunch of D shell connectors, which can be done out in the open and then plugged into the back.


Tom

Probably because the 930s typically end up on the avionics stack side. When the 900s are stuck on the left side, the area behind gets pretty congested. My 900 sits on top of the center stack, but it is pretty tight there to get the D connectors on/off.