Engine Analyzer Question/Lean vs Rich of Peak/Engine Longevity - Page 4

Walter Atkinson · #46 03-09-05, 02:04 PM

Larry:

These are my thoughts on the issues of deciding which engine monitor to buy.

You need single digit reads on EGT and CHT for good trouble shooting and lean tests, and the ability to download the data. In my opinion, all other features pale in importance to those two.

That leads one toward the UGB-16 by EI and the EDM 700/800 series by JPI. The GEM is improving and if it now satisfies those requirements, I'd throw it into the mix. The 1000 has one big problem. It has only a 5 degree resolution which is quite limiting in many ways. I can't for the life of me figure out why they did that. As soon as they address that deficiency, I would recommend them as well.

Single digit resolution and download capability, then after that, which ever one you like for whatever reason you like it. Oh, also, it's VERY helpful to have FF info in them. Not necessary, but being able to add it later (if you decided not to get it now) would be an important feature that may make life easier and cheaper later on.

Guy Paris · #47 03-09-05, 02:34 PM

Larry,
I had one of the early JPI's. If I remember correctly it had only a digital read out of (1) cylinder at a time and would go thru all (12) cylinders ONE at a time. I really needed a flight engineer to observe it. When JPI went to bar grafts, lean find, oil pressure, TIT, etc. and then to the 760, both engines in one guage I bought a 760 being familar with the company and being able to talk to them if needed plus I had the Tanis cylinder heaters and they worked well with the JPI CHT probes. Mr. Riley used (2) indicators in his 337 Rockets I believe because the 760 was not available at that time. I know of guy's that have GEM, Insight, etc and are happy with there choice...
guy, the old 72 driver...

WebMaster · #48 03-09-05, 02:36 PM

Thanks, Walter. I looked at the cost of these units, (avionix.com) and said, heck, no steam gages, VM1000 looks cool. It certainly can be primary instruments, because it is in some factory aircraft, and it just looks cool, too. Has all the stuff in one tight layout. I don't know about download, though.
to bad the JPI 900/930 can't be certified.

Walter Atkinson · #49 03-09-05, 05:48 PM

Larry:

** to bad the JPI 900/930 can't be certified. **

I think it's being certified now and may be available as such buy SnF. I could be mistaken on that, but I do think that's the plan. It might be worth checking on that.

CO_Skymaster · #50 02-07-11, 02:11 AM

I will revive this thread with a question. The last entry was in 2005. I am considering in the future of replacing my instrument clusters with either a JPI 830 or an Ultra Twin engine system. From what I can tell the JPI fits into a 3.5 inch hole and there would be one for each engine. It is capable of replacing every engine instrument on my panel. It said it uses a JPI harness which I'm assuming is every engine sensor bundle through the firewall to the instrument itself. The Ultra is like the Garmin 1000 system, square in shape and requiring a cut in the instrument panel. However, I like the fact that a single data wire goes through the firewall to a box on the firewall. The box is connected to a harness that reads all the engine sensors. I'm leaning toward the Ultra. I'm getting tire of chasing one instrument after another trying to fix or calibrate them. It may be time to look at replacing the system instead of each component. I wanted to know if anyone has these systems and if they have had any problem. I would like your opinion on which one you like. (No LOP questions).

Karl

Walter Atkinson · #51 02-07-11, 11:11 AM

Karl:

IMO, there is no comparison. I have flown behind both and find the Ultra system the best on the market, by far. It is much easier to read and has a much better pilot user interface. I prefer the method that Ultra uses for the alarms functions. I much prefer the installation advantages.

CO_Skymaster · #52 02-07-11, 11:33 PM

Thanks for your replay Walter,

Even though it might be more expensive, I'm leaning toward the Ultra system also.

Karl

Walter Atkinson · #53 02-08-11, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CO_Skymaster

Thanks for your replay Walter,

Even though it might be more expensive, I'm leaning toward the Ultra system also.

Karl

Karl:

I have been a big fan of JPI's hardware and have sold many, many units for them and recommended them for more than 15 years. They build very good hardware.

With disclosure, I was deeply involved with the design and certification of the Ultra system. My A36 was used as the test aircraft and I have a LOT of time working with the designers and the FAA during the cert process. I have a LOT of time behind the instrument. I got to help tweak it for pilot interface and engine management issues and how that should display. I am biased.

BUT, IMO educated opinion the Ultra unit is without a doubt the leader in ergonomics and the readability of the data display. It's a breeze to download the data.

CO_Skymaster · #54 02-08-11, 09:07 PM

Thanks Walter,

Thanks for being honest about your involvement with the Ultra system. You may be the perfect person to ask this question. I plan to install an Ultra or JPI system. I am also looking at FADEC when TCM brings it to market, but I might look at a diesel conversion/FADEC power plant. If I did go from a 6 cylinder IO-360 to a 4 cylinder TD300, would changing the Ultra configuration be as simple as installing a new wiring harness to the firewall box and a display software upgrade? Are there plans to have the Ultra system and FADEC systems talk to each other since there are a lot of duplicate sensors? You might not have an answer to these questions, but I figured I'd give it a try. Thanks,

Karl

Walter Atkinson · #55 02-09-11, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CO_Skymaster

Thanks Walter,

Thanks for being honest about your involvement with the Ultra system. You may be the perfect person to ask this question. I plan to install an Ultra or JPI system. I am also looking at FADEC when TCM brings it to market, but I might look at a diesel conversion/FADEC power plant. If I did go from a 6 cylinder IO-360 to a 4 cylinder TD300, would changing the Ultra configuration be as simple as installing a new wiring harness to the firewall box and a display software upgrade? Are there plans to have the Ultra system and FADEC systems talk to each other since there are a lot of duplicate sensors? You might not have an answer to these questions, but I figured I'd give it a try. Thanks,

Karl

Karl:

I am not at all impressed with TCM's FADEC as it currently exists. There are some show-stoppper problems with it and it has been a dismal failure in the market place so far. I only know of one private owner who put the TCM FADEC system in their aircraft. They had it removed after about a year. That's a big statement.

If I understand the Ultra system as it stands, changing the configuration from an installed six cylinder to a four cylinder application is very simple. I would check with them directly for a specific answer.

I know that when I was involved with it, there were a lot of things built in for future use. Many things. Many, really cool things. I would suspect that having it talk with a FADEC system (when there is a FADEC system that really works) is not that big of a deal.