Engine analyzers

[pgbnh[_1_]]

Any recommendations (positive or negative) for engine analyzers. To be
installed in a Beech Sierra, IO360-A1B6 engine. What features are most
useful, which less so. Is fuel flow per cylinder important?
My mechanic likes the JPI. Any specific feedback on them would be helpful.

We would install the analyzer for a few reasons:
1. Desire for early problem detection in an engine that is already beyond
TBO (the engine was rebuilt, but not overhauled, as a result of a prop
strike about 800 houir ago). If things are beginning to go bad, I am hoping
that the analyzer will find them first
2. Desire to 'pamper' a 'senior-citizen' engine that, other than age and
hours, runs great, great compression, consistent oil use
3. Maybe even save some fuel dollars thru more effective leaning (only have
egt now)

Thanks in advance for your thoughts

[Robert M. Gary]

I'm very happy with my JPI. I originally got it for the reasons you
did, however, what I really like about it now is that when I have a 30
year old factory instrument it isn't working as well as I'd like, I can
just plug a sensor into the JPI and have a digital gauge for the same.

I've added fuel flow (LOVE IT!!, couldn't live without it), OAT, oil
temp.

At one point I was tracking down a strange, intermitant electrical
issue. Being able to read the exact voltage off the JPI really made it
easier to dignose the problem in flight (low charge vs. no charge).

The only complaint I have with the JPI and GEM systems is that you are
doing a LOT with a couple of buttons. It gets to be quiet a dance
trying to figure out all the combinations of things you can do with two
buttons, especially once you add more features like fuel flow.

Also, I often fly with students who hate their JPI and can't figure out
how to make it show peak EGT. The problem is almost always that they
have a really old version of the software. Upgrading the unit addresses
the problem.

Also, at one point JPI tried to make the output of the unit (you can
download everything to your PC) propietary. That is now long since
history but people will often bring it up as a grip. I don't have as
much time behind the GEM system.

-Robert


pgbnh wrote:
> Any recommendations (positive or negative) for engine analyzers. To be
> installed in a Beech Sierra, IO360-A1B6 engine. What features are most
> useful, which less so. Is fuel flow per cylinder important?
> My mechanic likes the JPI. Any specific feedback on them would be helpful.
>
> We would install the analyzer for a few reasons:
> 1. Desire for early problem detection in an engine that is already beyond
> TBO (the engine was rebuilt, but not overhauled, as a result of a prop
> strike about 800 houir ago). If things are beginning to go bad, I am hoping
> that the analyzer will find them first
> 2. Desire to 'pamper' a 'senior-citizen' engine that, other than age and
> hours, runs great, great compression, consistent oil use
> 3. Maybe even save some fuel dollars thru more effective leaning (only have
> egt now)
>
> Thanks in advance for your thoughts

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
> Also, at one point JPI tried to make the output of the unit (you can
> download everything to your PC) propietary. That is now long since
> history but people will often bring it up as a grip.


JPI's problem is a fundamental way of thinking of customers as idiots.
They know better so shut the hell up. My avionics shop wanted to sell
me a JPI analyzer. I said anyopdy but JPI, never, ever JPI. They
readily acknoweledge they don't like JPI's attitude either and
especially can't stand their president but they make good stuff. They
do make good stuff but I'll never buy it.

[Robert M. Gary]

I spoke to their president once and complained about the fact that
their individual fuel flow unit was less expensive than adding it to my
EDM. The company line is that integrating the two is of value, but
unless you are running a full 800 with HP it really doesn't buy you
much other than to graph them together. However, he took out a business
card and wrote on the back that I could purchase the fuel flow addition
to my EDM for the cost of the independent unit.

-robert
Newps wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> JPI's problem is a fundamental way of thinking of customers as idiots.
> They know better so shut the hell up. My avionics shop wanted to sell
> me a JPI analyzer. I said anyopdy but JPI, never, ever JPI. They
> readily acknoweledge they don't like JPI's attitude either and
> especially can't stand their president but they make good stuff. They
> do make good stuff but I'll never buy it.

[Paul kgyy]

I have the JPI EDM700 with fuel flow and consider it an excellent
instrument. It's been extremely valuable in both pinpointing and
isolating abnormalities in cylinder performance.

The fuel totalizer is really great on long trips. I have it linked to
my Garmin 430 for "fuel at arrival" estimates en route. I also like
the "mpg" readout for tuning mixture and headwinds.

[Guy Byars]

> The fuel totalizer is really great on long trips. I have it linked to
> my Garmin 430 for "fuel at arrival" estimates en route. I also like
> the "mpg" readout for tuning mixture and headwinds.

I agree. I especially like the feature that shows the number of gallons of
reserve you will have at your destination. Once on a long trip with strong
headwinds (5 hours!), It was very reassuring to know that after adjusting my
cruising altitude, I would have a 20 gallon reserve.

[Newps]

One of the employees of JPI got on the Cessna Pilots Assoc message
board, CPA provides free aceess to any vendor who wants it, last winter
I think and basically told the whole community they were idiots, this
went on for weeks. Quit bitchin' about our new proprietary software and
by the way EI and everybody else sucks. It was a textbook case of how
not to treat customers. There is absolutely nothing JPI can ever do to
get my business. Nothing. If I had their **** in my plane I would
immediately remove it.



Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I spoke to their president once and complained about the fact that
> their individual fuel flow unit was less expensive than adding it to my
> EDM. The company line is that integrating the two is of value, but
> unless you are running a full 800 with HP it really doesn't buy you
> much other than to graph them together. However, he took out a business
> card and wrote on the back that I could purchase the fuel flow addition
> to my EDM for the cost of the independent unit.
>
> -robert
> Newps wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>JPI's problem is a fundamental way of thinking of customers as idiots.
>>They know better so shut the hell up. My avionics shop wanted to sell
>>me a JPI analyzer. I said anyopdy but JPI, never, ever JPI. They
>>readily acknoweledge they don't like JPI's attitude either and
>>especially can't stand their president but they make good stuff. They
>>do make good stuff but I'll never buy it.
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

I remember that. I don't recall if it was in USNET or in one of the
owner's mailing lists but someone shared some quotes from the JPI rep.
The guy was surely rude. I guess I can see why someone would not be
happy with JPI. However, I'd not had much reason to talk to the JPI
guys and I'm happy with the product, but I'm not buying gas at CITCO ;)

-Robert


Newps wrote:
> One of the employees of JPI got on the Cessna Pilots Assoc message
> board, CPA provides free aceess to any vendor who wants it, last winter
> I think and basically told the whole community they were idiots, this
> went on for weeks. Quit bitchin' about our new proprietary software and
> by the way EI and everybody else sucks. It was a textbook case of how
> not to treat customers. There is absolutely nothing JPI can ever do to
> get my business. Nothing. If I had their **** in my plane I would
> immediately remove it.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> JPI's problem is a fundamental way of thinking of customers as idiots.
> They know better so shut the hell up. My avionics shop wanted to sell me
> a JPI analyzer. I said anyopdy but JPI, never, ever JPI. They readily
> acknoweledge they don't like JPI's attitude either and especially can't
> stand their president but they make good stuff. They do make good stuff
> but I'll never buy it.

I notice Advanced Pilot Seminars used to "endorse" JPI, but their page now
carries the links to EI and Insight, but not JPI.

http://www.advancedpilot.com/index.html

[Frank Stutzman]

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> I notice Advanced Pilot Seminars used to "endorse" JPI, but their page now
> carries the links to EI and Insight, but not JPI.

I know the principles behind APS, GAMI and Tornado Alley are very much
excited about a new player in the market: Xerion. See
http://www.xerionavionix.com/auracle1.html

Its shipping now for non-certified installations and STCs are supposed to
be comming Real Soon Now.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" (mostly happy with my EDM-800)
Hood River, OR

[Peter R.]

Frank Stutzman > wrote:

> I know the principles behind APS, GAMI and Tornado Alley are very much
> excited about a new player in the market: Xerion. See
> http://www.xerionavionix.com/auracle1.html

At first glance, I have to admit that I am not too impressed with the data
presentation when comparing it to the JPI EDM-930.

http://www.jpinstruments.com/edm_930.html

From the pictures on their site the data on the Xerion unit appear too
crowded within the confines of that display. Must be more there under the
surface to excite that crowd?

--
Peter

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Frank Stutzman > wrote:
>
>> I know the principles behind APS, GAMI and Tornado Alley are very much
>> excited about a new player in the market: Xerion. See
>> http://www.xerionavionix.com/auracle1.html
>
> At first glance, I have to admit that I am not too impressed with the data
> presentation when comparing it to the JPI EDM-930.
>
> http://www.jpinstruments.com/edm_930.html
>
> From the pictures on their site the data on the Xerion unit appear too
> crowded within the confines of that display. Must be more there under the
> surface to excite that crowd?

How about this one?
http://www.buy-ei.com/EI_MVP-50_Glass_Panel_Engine_Monitor_Display.htm

[Jay Honeck]

> My mechanic likes the JPI. Any specific feedback on them would be helpful.

We have flown with the EDM-700 since having our engine rebuilt (at the
same time we bought the plane, a '74 Cherokee Pathfinder) in 2002.
We've now used it for 500+ hours, and know it very well.

1. The engine monitor is irreplaceable in the diagnostic role. When we
are on the take-off roll, the co-pilot (my wife and are both pilots,
and we have some pretty rigorous CRM) calls out "6 good bars" --
meaning that we have all six cylinders firing, and that the bars are
straight across, meaning that they're all about the same temperature.
If they're not, we'll abort.

We invented this procedure after losing our #2 cylinder on takeoff from
Titusville, FL, back in '04. The JPI made diagnosing the problem
nearly instantaneous -- but it probably would have been noticeable
before rotation if we had used this procedure back then. As it worked
out, we flew the pattern on 5 cylinders, and landed without incident.

2. The add-on digital oil temperature is excellent, as opposed to the
very inaccurate, hard to read Piper gauge.

3. The "lean-find" feature is something you use about 10 times, and
then you forget about it.

4. The "shock-cooling alarm" (it blinks when your EGTs drop more than
50 degrees in a prescribed amount of time) is nice to raise awareness
of the problem. You can use the JPI to slowly retard your throttle on
descents, and keep your EGTs within a very narrow temperature range.
(The jury is still out on "shock cooling", IMHO -- but the engine is so
expensive, I pretend it really exists and fly accordingly, under the
"this can't hurt anything" rule of engine management)

We have not added the fuel flow option, as our plane came equipped with
the JPI FS-450 digital fuel flow meter.

It's a great tool, and I would not fly without it by choice anymore.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[randall g]

On 4 Oct 2006 15:36:27 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>It's a great tool, and I would not fly without it by choice anymore.


I agree, and I shudder when I think of how blind I was flying all those
rental airplanes...




randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:36:27 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> 3. The "lean-find" feature is something you use about 10 times, and then
> you forget about it.

I assume you mean that you cease using it. Why?

- Andrew

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:36:27 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>>3. The "lean-find" feature is something you use about 10 times, and then
>>you forget about it.
>
>
> I assume you mean that you cease using it. Why?

I assume he means that the TLAR method works just as well.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:04:42 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:

> I assume he means that the TLAR method works just as well.

I might have assumed the same thing. Had I known what the "TLAR method"
is. Or maybe not.

<Laugh>

What's the TLAR method?

- Andrew

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:04:42 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:
>
>
>>I assume he means that the TLAR method works just as well.
>
>
> I might have assumed the same thing. Had I known what the "TLAR method"
> is. Or maybe not.
>
> <Laugh>
>
> What's the TLAR method?

Thought you'd never ask. ;-) "That Looks About Right".

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:25:36 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:

>> What's the TLAR method?
>
> Thought you'd never ask. ;-) "That Looks About Right".

Please hand back my leg when you're done with it.

<Laugh>

- Andrew

P.S. I still want to know the answer to my original
question: why does one cease using "lean find"?

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Because all the experienced LOP users do the BRP, and then enrichen to
desired max CHT.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:25:36 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:
>
>>> What's the TLAR method?
>>
>> Thought you'd never ask. ;-) "That Looks About Right".
>
> Please hand back my leg when you're done with it.
>
> <Laugh>
>
> - Andrew
>
> P.S. I still want to know the answer to my original
> question: why does one cease using "lean find"?
>

[Peter R.]

karl gruber > wrote:

> Because all the experienced LOP users do the BRP, and then enrichen to
> desired max CHT.

Karl, what about Tornado Alley's recommendation to use turbo inlet
temperature, which is enrichen to peak TIT, then lean back to 50-100
degrees lean of peak TIT?

Would that not be considered an alternate method used by experienced LOP
operators?

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> P.S. I still want to know the answer to my original
> question: why does one cease using "lean find"?

In the case of my JPI EDM-800, the unit does not have the firmware update
that includes a lean-find for lean of peak operations. Its lean-find
feature is only for rich of peak operations.

To answer your question, if I had a lean find I could see myself not using
it after awhile since I have come to know what temperatures and fuel flow
result in 65 to 75% horsepower, or optimal lean of peak operations.

Thus, it is faster for me to simply pull the mixture to a safe lean of peak
turbo inlet temperature, let the airspeed and fuel flow stabilize for a few
minutes, then adjust the mixture to the optimal TIT. Optimal TIT plus fuel
flow results in cooler CHTs in my aircraft.


--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> How about this one?
> http://www.buy-ei.com/EI_MVP-50_Glass_Panel_Engine_Monitor_Display.htm

IMO, the JPI's EDM930 display seems cleaner and easier to spot crucial
information.

--
Peter

[karl gruber[_1_]]

On a turbo engine

Karl


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> karl gruber > wrote:
>
>> Because all the experienced LOP users do the BRP, and then enrichen to
>> desired max CHT.
>
> Karl, what about Tornado Alley's recommendation to use turbo inlet
> temperature, which is enrichen to peak TIT, then lean back to 50-100
> degrees lean of peak TIT?
>
> Would that not be considered an alternate method used by experienced LOP
> operators?
>
> --
> Peter

[Peter R.]

karl gruber > wrote:

> On a turbo engine

My mistake. I didn't see that this thread was limited to normally
aspirated engines.

--
Peter

[Jay Honeck]

> To answer your question, if I had a lean find I could see myself not using
> it after awhile since I have come to know what temperatures and fuel flow
> result in 65 to 75% horsepower, or optimal lean of peak operations.

This is exactly correct. After you've used the engine analyzer for a
while, you learn to lean to specific EGT/CHT and fuel flow. Then you
can fine-tune things until you reach the Holy Grail, which (in our
normally-aspirated O-540) is to get the EGTs within 70 degrees of each
other.

The bar graph is a wonderful display for engine management, BTW,
enabling you to instantly assess things at a glance. If all the bars
ain't lined up, you know it's time to fiddle with something.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:10:52 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

> In the case of my JPI EDM-800, the unit does not have the firmware update
> that includes a lean-find for lean of peak operations. Its lean-find
> feature is only for rich of peak operations.

I fly behind carbs; not injectors. So ROP operations are pretty much all
I have available to me.

> To answer your question, if I had a lean find I could see myself not
> using it after awhile since I have come to know what temperatures and
> fuel flow result in 65 to 75% horsepower, or optimal lean of peak
> operations.

If I understand this correctly: Lean Find helps a pilot learn the
temperatures. Once they're known, it doesn't really serve a purpose.

Is that correct?

We just repaired some broken probes in the one multi-cylinder monitor in
our partnership's fleet (although it's a poor monitor: displaying only one
temperature at a time, and no obvious graphics for a rapid visual "scan").
I'm eager to see what can be done with all six cylinders' data showing.

- Andrew

[Frank Stutzman]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> I fly behind carbs; not injectors. So ROP operations are pretty much all
> I have available to me.

Having a carb does not explicitly mean you can't do LOP operations.

I fly behind a carb as well. I can do LOP operations, but it takes a bit
more fiddling to make it smooth. Dinking with the carb heat was one thing
I found that tended to smooth things out. I also can't quite get as far
LOP as some people running the larger FI big bore engines. 15-20 degrees
LOP is about as far as I can get it. How successful you are depends on
your particular plane, not wether or not it is carbed.

Ya gotta remember the first LOP operations were in the large radials and
they were all carbed.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Peter R.]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> If I understand this correctly: Lean Find helps a pilot learn the
> temperatures. Once they're known, it doesn't really serve a purpose.
>
> Is that correct?

As I don't use the LF feature, I can only speculate. But Jay's comments
seem to imply this is indeed true.

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

Frank Stutzman wrote:
snip

> Ya gotta remember the first LOP operations were in the large radials and
> they were all carbed.
sig snip

Yup, but most of them also had a big impeller between the carb and the
jugs that tended to stir up/even out the mix before it went bang...

TC

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
>> How about this one?
>> http://www.buy-ei.com/EI_MVP-50_Glass_Panel_Engine_Monitor_Display.htm
>
> IMO, the JPI's EDM930 display seems cleaner and easier to spot crucial
> information.

Hmmm...IMO, the EI is more clear, plus all the sub-pages are mighty helpful!
:~)

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Frank Stutzman wrote:
> snip
>
>> Ya gotta remember the first LOP operations were in the large radials and
>> they were all carbed.
> sig snip
>
> Yup, but most of them also had a big impeller between the carb and the
> jugs that tended to stir up/even out the mix before it went bang...
>
Many also had a single carb for each piston (IIRC) ...or the radial
naturally provide better distribution, so the fuel/air distribution was more
even than with an inline four or six.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:38:21 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> Frank Stutzman wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>> Ya gotta remember the first LOP operations were in the large radials and
>>> they were all carbed.
>> sig snip
>>
>> Yup, but most of them also had a big impeller between the carb and the
>> jugs that tended to stir up/even out the mix before it went bang...
>>
>Many also had a single carb for each piston (IIRC) ...or the radial
>naturally provide better distribution, so the fuel/air distribution was more
>even than with an inline four or six.

Usually only one carb (big stinking carb), but the induction system
was typically a lot "cleaner" with all the intake pipes from the
blower case being same length/bends. In a lot of cases, the exhaust
was much better balanced also.

The big difference was the integral supercharger located in the center
of the induction system (typically with the intake pipes fanning out
from it), stirring everything up and throwing it out evenly...

TC

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:38:21 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>>>
>>Many also had a single carb for each piston (IIRC) ...or the radial
>>naturally provide better distribution, so the fuel/air distribution was
>>more
>>even than with an inline four or six.
>
> Usually only one carb (big stinking carb), but the induction system
> was typically a lot "cleaner" with all the intake pipes from the
> blower case being same length/bends. In a lot of cases, the exhaust
> was much better balanced also.
>
> The big difference was the integral supercharger located in the center
> of the induction system (typically with the intake pipes fanning out
> from it), stirring everything up and throwing it out evenly...
>
Yeah, okay, that rings a bell! I still recall multiple carburetors
(Lindbergh's plane had three), but however many, and superchargers as well,
they were centrally located such that the paths were all the same length.

Check this: http://www.radialengines.com/fuel_injection/index.htm


---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)