Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:47 AM - Re: JPI v EI (James Courtney)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thought you did N72T in 2003?
:)
Jamey
From: Gary L Vogt <teamgrumman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: JPI v EI
Not quite sure what you mean Bruce. But, in case you don't know my
experience with the JPI . . .
My experience with JPIs displaying higher temps than EIs goes back to 1999.
I had replaced an EI in a Comanche with a EDM-700. He got a good deal on
one at Sun-n-Fun and liked the display.
He took off on the maiden flight and immediately returned to the ramp saying
I'd done something to his engine because now the CHTs were over 450 on
climb-out. I took everything apart and inspected the entire installation.
Nothing wrong.
Not long after that, I installed an EDM-700 in Tiger N72T. I was amazed at
the temps. 15 years ago I didn't have that much experience with either
analyzer so I didn't really know what to think.
In about 2001, I asked Ken Tunnell at LyCon if he could do a side-by-side
test of both systems because I suspected the JPI might show much different
temps. That never happened. Sometime later that year, Ken called and told
me about an engine on which he'd been dealing with high CHTs when installed
in the owners plane.
The plane was a Husky and located in Wyoming. The owner had installed a new
EDM-700 along with the new engine. Long story short, Ken found nothing,
sent the engine back, the owner found high temps, sent the engine back,
engine torn down and inspected, nothing found, engine sent back. That was
when I was called. I talked to the guy in WY and told him my experiences.
I had removed an EI from a plane that got a new engine around 2005/2006 and
installed an EDM-700. That EI sat in my shop for a while when I decided to
install it in N28747; that was about 2007. I installed it exactly parallel
to the EDM-800; i.e., both attached to the main buss with a dedicated CB,
both connected to the engine mount ground using their own ground wires. I
ran the #3 CHT probe to my #3 cylinder.
Over the next year plus I recorded temps on every flight. The results of
that testing was published in March/April 2008 STAR. I saw temps on the #3
cylinder magically up to 80 degrees lower than I'd seen before. Personally,
I think the JPIs temps are more realistic.
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:29 AM, L. Bruce Smith <haveblue1@mac.com>
wrote:
Gary,
I guess that that applies to those of us with the JPI 700 as well, right?
Bruce
On Jan 31, 2014, at 11:47 PM, Gary L Vogt <teamgrumman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I tried having a civil conversation with Jim Starkey about my year plus worth
of side-by-side in flight test comparison of both a JPI 800 and an EI (something
comparable, I forget the model).
>
> I was informed that it's impossible for there to be more than a couple of
degrees difference in temps between the two units and that my installation was
wrong or the complete wiring harness on the JPI was bad. I didn't ask why it
wasn't the EI harness that might be bad.
>
> So, all of those JPI owners out there with high CHTs and want to know why give
Jim a call or email him directly. He has all the answers and anyone else's
explanations are wrong.
>
> Gary
> Sent frop://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List"
target="_blank">http://he Web -Matt Dralle, List Admin.======
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|