Is there an engine monitor out there which will go into the same hole and have more features, especially more memory?
Ideally it should be plug-compatible on the back 
Most of the newer monitors are huge.
It needs to be STCd as “primary” because this is on a TB20GT which has no EGT/CHT gauges, and Socata certified the EDM700 as “primary” on it.
Will the EDM 730 not fit? It uses the same hole and wiring, but has a bigger front plate. I’m a big fan of mine.
Not without major hacking…
Peter,
This EI gauge is probably the best solution. The screen is great. As it’s primary, you may be able to free up quite a bit of space elsewhere. I would position it just above your current EDM and move the VOR below for maximum visibility. You can put the USB port pretty much anywhere you like.
That’s a nice product. I recall seeing one being installed a year or two ago. There is however quite a bit of work “behind” it (due to the extra functionality) and it puts all your eggs in one basket in that if it packs up, you lose all the engine instruments.
Peter wrote:
There is however quite a bit of work “behind” it (due to the extra functionality) and it puts all your eggs in one basket in that if it packs up, you lose all the engine instruments.
That’s true, but most aircraft only have single engine instrumentation anyway. Even G1000 systems which have double redundancy in displays and processors have a single interface to the engine sensors.
Saying that a device which cannot be touched except by a Garmin G1000 authorised dealer also has a single point of failure, so I should be happy with another one which is no better, is like arguing that if the UK CAA mandated both your legs to be amputated, but EASA published an AMC saying that one legged flight is permitted, EASA is full of really great people
I think my other main objection to the CGR30P is that I have nothing useful to put into the two large holes on the RHS which would be created. It is obviously a great box to install in a basic plane which had minimal instrumentation to start with.
What harm is there in duplicating instrumentation? The CGR30P will record them as well, which is useful – but you don’t need to use them as primary for flight.
What harm is there in duplicating instrumentation?
This will sound like I am trying to make an argument, which I am not, but I wish to point out that duplicating displays is usually not as simple as it may appear, in terms of what installation work needs to be done, and who can do it to the required high standard.
Years ago, with the unreliable Socata oil pressure gauge, I looked at installing a backup one. When I was G-reg this was going to be £ thousands just for the paperwork (I did spend some time on it – it may be easier today). Under N-reg this was a Minor mod (confirmed by various A&P/IAs and a US DER) which is just a logbook entry, and in it went. But still a lot of work was involved, because you need to install a T-piece, and it needs to be done to a very high standard, obviously, because if that breaks, you will be on a downwards trajectory pretty soon…
You need to install a T-piece for fuel flow, which in piston aircraft is taken from the fuel distributor because the fuel pressure at that point is a good proxy for the flow. On a TB20 this tube is a stainless braid protected tube because you don’t want a massive fuel leak into the cockpit. One can’t just put in a plastic splitter like one would use for feeding air to an aquarium, and have it hanging in the air among the wiring, though I have seen it done that way!
So let me list some other items which on a quick and dirty read of the CGR IM are going to be less than trivial to do (correctly):
etc
So IMHO this feature-packed box makes sense for upgrading a simple plane, but much less so for an already well equipped one unless you want to throw out a lot of stuff… presumably working stuff because nobody sensible will be flying a well equipped plane in which a lot of stuff doesn’t work. I can also see it being good for a 30 or 40 year old IFR tourer in which the 1970s avionics is constantly packing up and you want to chuck it out.
One also need to do some due diligence for e.g. the fuel function and data stream compatibility with the latest GPS box (to get the Landing FOB). Everybody tests with Garmin products but much less so with Avidyne products.
That’s a fair set of points. Going feature by feature is definitely sensible.
On your G vs N reg point, i added oil pressure and temperature to my EDM730 recently. Not a big paperwork exercise at all. While it certainly used to be true that N reg saved a lot on paperwork, a lot has changed in EASAland in the last few years. Of course the FAA system is still simpler, but a lot of progress has been made.
