---------------------------------------------------------- Engines-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 09/15/06: 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 11:39 AM - Re: CHT question....... (Mike) 2. 12:56 PM - Re: CHT question....... (teamgrumman@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 11:39:34 AM PST US From: "Mike" Subject: RE: Engines-List: CHT question....... --> Engines-List message posted by: "Mike" Jim, Without getting into the finer points and to keep this a simple as possible from an A&Ps point of view this is the way I would go about handling this situation. First, if the unit in question is on the Type Certificate (TC) o the ai9rcraft in question when manufactured and not listed as an option then you must have it. That being said, if you find a unit like a JPI that has an STC for you aircraft then you May be able to replace the original equipment per the STC. The final alternative is to do a Form 337 modification / alteration with the local FSDO. My experience with similar types of changes are easy to do on a 337 with you local A&P. To more directly answer you question "what regulation prevents me from replacing the factory bayonnet with a JPI bayonnet instead of leaving the factory sensor in place and doing a plug gasket as most have done? In order to install the JPI you would have to follow the STC that comes with the unit. If the unit does not have an STC for you application then you would be forced to do an alteration through Form 337. With the 337 you can do what ever you want as long as you get approval. Viva La Experimental Airplanes Mike Larkin ----Original Message----- From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Baker Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:48 PM Subject: Engines-List: CHT question....... --> Engines-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" FARs...... A CHT is required for acft with cowl flaps.... FAR Part 23, Sec. 23.1305 b(3)i If the aircraft doesn't have cowl flaps but the CHT was installed anyway by the factory, could one consider this a mandatory item to be left in place should a JPI, or like engine monitor, be installed? That is, what regulation prevents me from replacing the factory bayonnet with a JPI bayonnet instead of leaving the factory sensor in place and doing a plug gasket as most have done? I already know about the dual bayonnet adaptor...the question still remains....why not disable the factory installed unit. Thanks. Jim Baker 580.788.2779 Elmore City, OK -- -- ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 12:56:29 PM PST US Subject: Re: Engines-List: CHT question....... From: teamgrumman@aol.com --> Engines-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com I believe JPI has a version of the 700 that does replace the factory unit. -----Original Message----- From: jlbaker@msbit.net Sent: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 6:48 PM Subject: Engines-List: CHT question....... --> Engines-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" FARs...... A CHT is required for acft with cowl flaps.... FAR Part 23, Sec. 23.1305 b(3)i If the aircraft doesn't have cowl flaps but the CHT was installed anyway by the factory, could one consider this a mandatory item to be left in place should a JPI, or like engine monitor, be installed? That is, what regulation prevents me from replacing the factory bayonnet with a JPI bayonnet instead of leaving the factory sensor in place and doing a plug gasket as most have done? I already know about the dual bayonnet adaptor...the question still remains....why not disable the factory installed unit. Thanks. Jim Baker 580.788.2779 Elmore City, OK ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.