Snoopy wrote:
I would also throw the EI CGR30* into the ring
Very expensive. CGR-30P-4-P $4,617
So is the G3.
INSIGHT GEM G3 4 CYLINDER 2.25" $3029.00
Snoopy wrote:
The G2 doesn’t do RPM… pointless.
As I am not going for primary replacement not an issue. The G2 costs around $1800. That is about as high as I want to go.
Snoopy wrote:
FAA STC only so EASA one off required.
For all the Insight ones? Ok, that kills that variant. This means major change and therefore paper cost of a multitude of the purchase price.
Thanks for the feedback on JP. So they are not an option either.
Looks like I will have to remain with my legacy gauges and maybe find a place for a carb heat gauge someplace.
tmo wrote:
Why not a EDM900, which is a certified primary replacement for the legacy gauges?
monetary reasons. I got the EDM830 a while ago as part of a very special deal with an avionic shop in the US as we bought it as part of a huge GPS deal.
EDM900 + would be a lot more expensive.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
As I am not going for primary replacement not an issue. The G2 costs around $1800. That is about as high as I want to go.
According to this table on the insight website, the G2 doesn’t do RPM at all. I don’t see any point in logging engine data such as EGT or CHT if there is no corresponding RPM data?!
Mooney_Driver wrote:
For all the Insight ones? Ok, that kills that variant. This means major change and therefore paper cost of a multitude of the purchase price.
The cost of EASA STC validation is around 300 Euro. Why “multitude of purchase price”?
I also heard from an avionics tech that it’s possible to fit TSO’d engine monitors without any STC. Not enough time to dig through EASA website for this so I never verified it.
Peter wrote on 04-Jan-15 14:03 03:
Under FAA there is a general principle that providing you do not remove an existing instrument which is required as per the Type Certificate, you can fit a TSOd instrument which duplicates it. It has to be an indicator only i.e. no autopilot connection, etc.I would be surprised if EASA did not have a similar concession.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Which aircraft has a primary instrument for EGT/CHT? I know some types that have a primary TIT, but have not seen a primary EGT/CHT yet…
I don’t know how viable it is, however that’s what InsightAv offers for the STC of their Gx series of monitors.
Snoopy wrote:
I also heard from an avionics tech that it’s possible to fit TSO’d engine monitors without any STC. Not enough time to dig through EASA website for this so I never verified it.
Multifunction engine displays will be covered by a coming addition to CS-STAN which is expected in the first quarter of 2022.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Multifunction engine displays will be covered by a coming addition to CS-STAN which is expected in the first quarter of 2022.
Apart from this future improvement, is it possible – currently – to install TSO engine monitors (only as additional info and not to replace primary indications) without STC?
Snoopy wrote:
Apart from this future improvement, is it possible – currently – to install TSO engine monitors (only as additional info and not to replace primary indications) without STC?
When it comes to JPI they already have EASA STCs available. So it should not be any issue installing a JPI monitor without the updated CS STAN
Snoopy wrote:
I don’t see any point in logging engine data such as EGT or CHT if there is no corresponding RPM data?!
ok, now I get it. And yes, of course you have a point.
Snoopy wrote:
The cost of EASA STC validation is around 300 Euro. Why “multitude of purchase price”?
Oh ok, that is different then. I thought you have to run through your own STC certification. Which would be prohibitive.
Snoopy wrote:
I also heard from an avionics tech that it’s possible to fit TSO’d engine monitors without any STC.
Yea but that unfortunately excludes Insight and the others are too expensive.
Well, better not think about such stuff in the first place.
I think the most expensive part of the bigger engine monitor installations is the cost of hacksaw blades needed to hack the holes in the panel 
Nearly all of the installations I have seen are horrible – like somebody threw the thing in. Panel design is an art, to do well.
Which aircraft has a primary instrument for EGT/CHT? I know some types that have a primary TIT, but have not seen a primary EGT/CHT yet…
The TB20 has a primary EGT+CHT analog gauge. The original EDM700 is factory-TC-certified to replace that, but not on the TB21 where the original gauges have to be left in (to be strictly legal). Mine came with the EDM700 so never had the analog gauges.
There is a separate requirement in Part 23 or some such for a CHT instrument, but not for an EGT instrument.
Snoopy wrote:
I don’t see any point in logging engine data such as EGT or CHT if there is no corresponding RPM data?!
Now that’s not necessary, to my opinion, but an interesting addon. For example, you can easily check CHT temperatures on LOP side vs. ROP side and thus elaborate whether your injectors are well balanced or not. Something I am on right now. You don’t need RPM data for this.
Now what additional information do you get if you correlate EGT/CHT with RPM?
