User Panel
Posted: 9/27/2016 11:05:28 AM EDT
For example, this JPI EDM-900 thing.
Link That thing is awesome, it reminds me of the telemetry displays I used to see with offshore boats I ran. Life Goals..... I am starting to slowly put together a list of things that I want in my XC plane when I have enough experience to buy one. If I am lucky I can find a plane with most of the stuff already in there. |
|
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes?
|
|
Quoted:
<a href="http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/beech18/media/KC-97J%20Stratofreighter%20FE_zpsapaayhkj.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a552/beech18/KC-97J%20Stratofreighter%20FE_zpsapaayhkj.jpg</a> View Quote good god......and here I am thinking landing gear and a C/S prop are complex. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? View Quote Yep there is a STC for a lot of planes for the 900 STC document It looks like it covers all the popular models, even my dream plane the Comanche. |
|
Quoted:
I see that it is now that I read to the bottom of the page. Cool. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? Yep, I also hope that the FAA is going to continue to stream line the STC process so we can get more tech into the older air frames. I think that would be a win win for everyone. |
|
View Quote Are you talking about AirVenture? |
|
Quoted:
Are you talking about AirVenture? Yes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are you talking about AirVenture? Yes. I want to go to see all the cool tech you can get now. I just heard it's eipc as to how many people go. I wonder if sun n fun would have a good amount of vendors also. |
|
Quoted:
I see that it is now that I read to the bottom of the page. Cool. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? I'm a bit surprised about how much stuff isn't STC'd but gets installed with field approvals. Of course, going the field approval route may have worked last week, but might not work next week, even though the installations are both for the same model and going through the same office. |
|
Quoted:
I'm a bit surprised about how much stuff isn't STC'd but gets installed with field approvals. Of course, going the field approval route may have worked last week, but might not work next week, even though the installations are both for the same model and going through the same office. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? I'm a bit surprised about how much stuff isn't STC'd but gets installed with field approvals. Of course, going the field approval route may have worked last week, but might not work next week, even though the installations are both for the same model and going through the same office. How does field approval work? You submit a proposal to the local FSDO and see what they think and then if it's ok, they give you a Field approval letter? |
|
I have that same engine monitor. And, since I'm a lazy ass, I wrote software that takes the data download and converts it into a logbook for me since I'm the only one who flies my plane. Only thing I have to track on my own is actual IMC and IFR approaches.
You guys are getting too predictable. I saw the topic and knew it was midcap. I saw the post and went to respond with "In before ElSupremo with a picture of a vintage multi-engine engineer's panel," but he already made it in. |
|
Quoted:
I have that same engine monitor. And, since I'm a lazy ass, I wrote software that takes the data download and converts it into a logbook for me since I'm the only one who flies my plane. Only thing I have to track on my own is actual IMC and IFR approaches. You guys are getting too predictable. I saw the topic and knew it was midcap. I saw the post and went to respond with "In before ElSupremo with a picture of a vintage multi-engine engineer's panel," but he already made it in. View Quote man that;s awesome.... How do you like that unit? |
|
Quoted:
How does field approval work? You submit a proposal to the local FSDO and see what they think and then if it's ok, they give you a Field approval letter? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? I'm a bit surprised about how much stuff isn't STC'd but gets installed with field approvals. Of course, going the field approval route may have worked last week, but might not work next week, even though the installations are both for the same model and going through the same office. How does field approval work? You submit a proposal to the local FSDO and see what they think and then if it's ok, they give you a Field approval letter? There can be some variation from FSDO to FSDO and from one individual fed to another, but if you have already done a few field approvals with one of your local feds, you can gather the necessary data to support the installation you are wanting to do, fill out a form 337 for the installation, and mail it to them. Then you wait for the fed to contact you. They may want additional information, and may want to look at the plane and equipment you want to install and get a better idea of what you are wanting to do. They may then OK the 337 and you can do the installation, or they may reject the 337 and you won't be doing the installation. If you haven't done a field approval with a local fed, you start off by contacting them, giving them a summary of what you want to do, and asking them what they want you to provide with/on the form 337. As for how things can vary, I have encountered two feds that would bust out laughing, not at what you were wanting to do, but at the idea that you thought they would approve anything without an STC. I've done light installations (a few screws and nuts to attach them, and a few wires to hook up), and getting the field approval involved bringing in a DER (engineer) to draw up a CNC'd doubler plate for each light. But I've been told that our local FSDO is one of the more difficult to deal with, when getting field approvals, and I've seen evidence of this when doing annual inspections on aircraft that had been based in other parts of the country when they had installations done on a field approval. For the last few years, I've been working in a shop where I have much more opportunities to assist avionics techs with their installations (usually doing some sheet metal work that they need). That is where I started being surprised at seeing field approvals. Same FSDO that wanted a DER to draw up plans for doublers to mount lights, and they are doing field approvals on avionics installations without much hassle. |
|
Quoted:
There can be some variation from FSDO to FSDO and from one individual fed to another, but if you have already done a few field approvals with one of your local feds, you can gather the necessary data to support the installation you are wanting to do, fill out a form 337 for the installation, and mail it to them. Then you wait for the fed to contact you. They may want additional information, and may want to look at the plane and equipment you want to install and get a better idea of what you are wanting to do. They may then OK the 337 and you can do the installation, or they may reject the 337 and you won't be doing the installation. If you haven't done a field approval with a local fed, you start off by contacting them, giving them a summary of what you want to do, and asking them what they want you to provide with/on the form 337. As for how things can vary, I have encountered two feds that would bust out laughing, not at what you were wanting to do, but at the idea that you thought they would approve anything without an STC. I've done light installations (a few screws and nuts to attach them, and a few wires to hook up), and getting the field approval involved bringing in a DER (engineer) to draw up a CNC'd doubler plate for each light. But I've been told that our local FSDO is one of the more difficult to deal with, when getting field approvals, and I've seen evidence of this when doing annual inspections on aircraft that had been based in other parts of the country when they had installations done on a field approval. For the last few years, I've been working in a shop where I have much more opportunities to assist avionics techs with their installations (usually doing some sheet metal work that they need). That is where I started being surprised at seeing field approvals. Same FSDO that wanted a DER to draw up plans for doublers to mount lights, and they are doing field approvals on avionics installations without much hassle. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? I'm a bit surprised about how much stuff isn't STC'd but gets installed with field approvals. Of course, going the field approval route may have worked last week, but might not work next week, even though the installations are both for the same model and going through the same office. How does field approval work? You submit a proposal to the local FSDO and see what they think and then if it's ok, they give you a Field approval letter? There can be some variation from FSDO to FSDO and from one individual fed to another, but if you have already done a few field approvals with one of your local feds, you can gather the necessary data to support the installation you are wanting to do, fill out a form 337 for the installation, and mail it to them. Then you wait for the fed to contact you. They may want additional information, and may want to look at the plane and equipment you want to install and get a better idea of what you are wanting to do. They may then OK the 337 and you can do the installation, or they may reject the 337 and you won't be doing the installation. If you haven't done a field approval with a local fed, you start off by contacting them, giving them a summary of what you want to do, and asking them what they want you to provide with/on the form 337. As for how things can vary, I have encountered two feds that would bust out laughing, not at what you were wanting to do, but at the idea that you thought they would approve anything without an STC. I've done light installations (a few screws and nuts to attach them, and a few wires to hook up), and getting the field approval involved bringing in a DER (engineer) to draw up a CNC'd doubler plate for each light. But I've been told that our local FSDO is one of the more difficult to deal with, when getting field approvals, and I've seen evidence of this when doing annual inspections on aircraft that had been based in other parts of the country when they had installations done on a field approval. For the last few years, I've been working in a shop where I have much more opportunities to assist avionics techs with their installations (usually doing some sheet metal work that they need). That is where I started being surprised at seeing field approvals. Same FSDO that wanted a DER to draw up plans for doublers to mount lights, and they are doing field approvals on avionics installations without much hassle. that's interesting I didn't know how that happened. |
|
I got it because I had some fretting on the oil pressure sensor line, the 45 year old oil temperature gauge read erroneously high once, grounding me until I solved the issue, and I nearly took off into IMC with a bad alternator because the analog voltage gauge didn't give good enough indication. A bad GPS fix that took controllers several minutes to straighten out prior to my release allowed my #1 radio to fail which is how I discovered it. It also would've made diagnosing that one time I had a clogged injector much more efficient.
It's a nice unit, the indication and information is way better than the factory instruments (they also found a piece of 45 year old braided fuel line behind my panel that went into the stock gauge. Yes, they would run a pressurized fuel line through the firewall and into the panel back in those days.). It gave me peace of mind after my engine failure that there was no indication that it was about to fail. Had I not had the instrument in there when I lost my engine, I would forever be wondering if I would've had some sort of advanced warning, but nope. Really, the only thing that I really love about the instrument is the logging and the fuel totalizer. On a trips with multiple partial fill-ups and well over 100 gallons burned, it is consistently within 1 gallon, usually about 3/10ths, with the calculation of the fuel that I have remaining. Previously, on long trips, I would go for 3 hours on one tank (unless switching tanks at a particular moment made a lot more sense -- entering IMC or about to cross less forgiving terrain) or until it ran dry and allow myself 2 hours range to ensure I had reserve. Even so, the wing gauges, which I trust way more than the panel gauges, read zero at about 10 gallons (1 hour of fuel), and I still get a bit uneasy not seeing the needle on those bounce. Sometimes if there's a favorable wind way up high, I'll put on the oxygen mask, pull the power back and it affects the fuel burn into conditions that I'm not familiar with and, likewise, if I'm tooling around at low altitude shooting approaches, it's possible to burn 60% more fuel per hour that you're used to. |
|
Quoted:
I got it because I had some fretting on the oil pressure sensor line, the 45 year old oil temperature gauge read erroneously high once, grounding me until I solved the issue, and I nearly took off into IMC with a bad alternator because the analog voltage gauge didn't give good enough indication. A bad GPS fix that took controllers several minutes to straighten out prior to my release allowed my #1 radio to fail which is how I discovered it. It also would've made diagnosing that one time I had a clogged injector much more efficient. It's a nice unit, the indication and information is way better than the factory instruments (they also found a piece of 45 year old braided fuel line behind my panel that went into the stock gauge. Yes, they would run a pressurized fuel line through the firewall and into the panel back in those days.). It gave me peace of mind after my engine failure that there was no indication that it was about to fail. Had I not had the instrument in there when I lost my engine, I would forever be wondering if I would've had some sort of advanced warning, but nope. Really, the only thing that I really love about the instrument is the logging and the fuel totalizer. On a trips with multiple partial fill-ups and well over 100 gallons burned, it is consistently within 1 gallon, usually about 3/10ths, with the calculation of the fuel that I have remaining. Previously, on long trips, I would go for 3 hours on one tank (unless switching tanks at a particular moment made a lot more sense -- entering IMC or about to cross less forgiving terrain) or until it ran dry and allow myself 2 hours range to ensure I had reserve. Even so, the wing gauges, which I trust way more than the panel gauges, read zero at about 10 gallons (1 hour of fuel), and I still get a bit uneasy not seeing the needle on those bounce. Sometimes if there's a favorable wind way up high, I'll put on the oxygen mask, pull the power back and it affects the fuel burn into conditions that I'm not familiar with and, likewise, if I'm tooling around at low altitude shooting approaches, it's possible to burn 60% more fuel per hour that you're used to. View Quote thanks....it seems like money well spent getting a unit like that. The fuel burn part is really impressive.Nothing like having a better idea of how much fuel you are burning than depending on paper tables and semi accurate gauges. |
|
Quoted:
(they also found a piece of 45 year old braided fuel line behind my panel that went into the stock gauge. Yes, they would run a pressurized fuel line through the firewall and into the panel back in those days.). View Quote Fuel lines to the instrument panel. Oil lines to the instrument panel. When installing the new JPI systems on an older twin, you get the opportunity to rip out a lot of plumbing. |
|
Quoted:
Yep there is a STC for a lot of planes for the 900 STC document It looks like it covers all the popular models, even my dream plane the Comanche. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? Yep there is a STC for a lot of planes for the 900 STC document It looks like it covers all the popular models, even my dream plane the Comanche. My grandpa had a Comanche when I was growing up. I spent a lot of time in the right seat of that airplane. I loved it. |
|
Quoted:
My grandpa had a Comanche when I was growing up. I spent a lot of time in the right seat of that airplane. I loved it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? Yep there is a STC for a lot of planes for the 900 STC document It looks like it covers all the popular models, even my dream plane the Comanche. My grandpa had a Comanche when I was growing up. I spent a lot of time in the right seat of that airplane. I loved it. that's awesome....one day I plan on owning one, I just need to get my skills and experience up to par. |
|
Quoted:
Yep there is a STC for a lot of planes for the 900 STC document It looks like it covers all the popular models, even my dream plane the Comanche. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? Yep there is a STC for a lot of planes for the 900 STC document It looks like it covers all the popular models, even my dream plane the Comanche. No 7AC. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? Yep there is a STC for a lot of planes for the 900 STC document It looks like it covers all the popular models, even my dream plane the Comanche. No 7AC. do those even have an electrical system? |
|
Quoted:
that's awesome....one day I plan on owning one, I just need to get my skills and experience up to par. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? Yep there is a STC for a lot of planes for the 900 STC document It looks like it covers all the popular models, even my dream plane the Comanche. My grandpa had a Comanche when I was growing up. I spent a lot of time in the right seat of that airplane. I loved it. that's awesome....one day I plan on owning one, I just need to get my skills and experience up to par. Wow. I still remembered the number on his plane. It's a PA-24-250 and it's currently the FAA shows it in Rapid City South Dakota. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? Yep there is a STC for a lot of planes for the 900 STC document It looks like it covers all the popular models, even my dream plane the Comanche. No 7AC. There's always the field approval option. Have you considered a Garmin glass cockpit? I've heard positive comments on the Garmin G1000. |
|
Quoted:
do those even have an electrical system? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? Yep there is a STC for a lot of planes for the 900 STC document It looks like it covers all the popular models, even my dream plane the Comanche. No 7AC. do those even have an electrical system? In a manner of speaking, yes. |
|
Quoted:
There's always the field approval option. Have you considered a Garmin glass cockpit? I've heard positive comments on the Garmin G1000. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? Yep there is a STC for a lot of planes for the 900 STC document It looks like it covers all the popular models, even my dream plane the Comanche. No 7AC. There's always the field approval option. Have you considered a Garmin glass cockpit? I've heard positive comments on the Garmin G1000. Someone will do it someday. This is an IFR '46 Champ, built two days after mine... |
|
Quoted:
Someone will do it someday. This is an IFR '46 Champ, built two days after mine... http://i.imgur.com/K1GWNdk.jpg?1 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that display STC approved for installation into any certificated airframes? Yep there is a STC for a lot of planes for the 900 STC document It looks like it covers all the popular models, even my dream plane the Comanche. No 7AC. There's always the field approval option. Have you considered a Garmin glass cockpit? I've heard positive comments on the Garmin G1000. Someone will do it someday. This is an IFR '46 Champ, built two days after mine... http://i.imgur.com/K1GWNdk.jpg?1 That looks even more odd than the A36 Bonanza that had acres of available space on the panel, because it had a Garmin G500 upgrade. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.