Engine Analyzers

Brian Dilse

Brian Dilse

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
42
Location
Grand Forks, ND
Display Name
Display name:
Brian Dilse
First of all, I'm in 100% agreement that a 4-6 probe CHT/EGT JPM 730 engine analyzer is a "NEED" for hard/night/mtn IFR.

Anybody have some stories how their 4-6 probe CHT "predicted" the future and either saved them a lot of money or catastrophic failure?

I've heard a ton of hypotheticals, any real stories?

Some old school guys say checking the oil change filters for analysis is just as good every 25 hours

Catastrophic failures are quite rare for properly maintained/inspected engines..You probably have a higher chance of a midair.
 
I've had situations where a cyl started to act up in both vmc and imc, and in both cases it told me very quickly what was the general source of the rough running engine such that in both cases I knew to land asap. It also tremendously helped with the maintenance troubleshooting, starting with knowing which cyl was the issue. In one case it was a clogged injector and in the other a spalled cam lifter.

Didn't save me, the engine roughness told me in both cases, declare and land, but I wouldn't fly without one period...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Brian Dilse said:
First of all, I'm in 100% agreement that a 4-6 probe CHT/EGT JPM 730 engine analyzer is a "NEED" for hard/night/mtn IFR.

Anybody have some stories how their 4-6 probe CHT "predicted" the future and either saved them a lot of money or catastrophic failure?

I've heard a ton of hypotheticals, any real stories?

Some old school guys say checking the oil change filters for analysis is just as good every 25 hours

Catastrophic failures are quite rare for properly maintained/inspected engines..You probably have a higher chance of a midair.
Click to expand...
I had one of those "rare" catastrophic engine failures. When I noticed I was not climbing as well as usual, I looked down at my gauges and saw practically no oil pressure. I turned for the nearest airport, but it was too late and I wound up landing on a busy highway. This was very near where the PA44 recently went down in a fatal accident in the trees in Florida. I was lucky it was daytime and I could see the ground.

I would have paid almost anything to have had that FLASHING RED ALERT on the engine analyzer to catch my attention a minute or two earlier. I was less than a mile from the airport when I touched down on the highway.
 
I have no anecdotal evidence for you, but I agree.

I currently have EGT/CHT on only one cylinder for my RV. Going full EMS is on my 2018 budget. BEFORE (if you can imagine) ADS-B compliance.

The club planes both have all cylinders monitored.
 
JOhnH said:
I had one of those "rare" catastrophic engine failures. When I noticed I was not climbing as well as usual, I looked down at my gauges and saw practically no oil pressure. I turned for the nearest airport, but it was too late and I wound up landing on a busy highway. This was very near where the PA44 recently went down in a fatal accident in the trees in Florida. I was lucky it was daytime and I could see the ground.

I would have paid almost anything to have had that FLASHING RED ALERT on the engine analyzer to catch my attention a minute or two earlier. I was less than a mile from the airport when I touched down on the highway.
Click to expand...
May I ask what was wrong with the engine? How did it lose oil? Did the engine have history and what was the TSOH/TNEW?
 
Brian Dilse said:
May I ask what was wrong with the engine? How did it lose oil? Did the engine have history and what was the TSOH/TNEW?
Click to expand...
The engine had about 250 hours on it. The FAA said the reason for the failure was lack of oil. But I had checked it 20 minutes earlier and it had 5.5 qts (out of 8). So I added 1 qt for or short flight. My wife was PIC. When we got it on the ground to look at it, it had a lot of oil; all over the cowling, engine compartment and belly. And there was a hole in the number 4 cylinder. 10 minutes after take-off we noticed the loss of power and turned toward KFIN (about 4 miles away) but we wer only at 1,000 ft, (below the Charlie shelf). As soon as we turned, the engine started making horrendous noises but was still flying. Then the engine slammed to an instant stop and everything got quiet. So Leslie saved the day by landing it on the highway.

But as I said, if I had an engine monitor, I am sure we would have noticed that big red flashing alert sooner and may have had the extra minute or two we would have needed to make the runway. At the time, Leslie had less than 100 hours under her belt.
 
I've had two instances of partially clogged injectors that resulted in CHT's climbing through the roof on climb out. Would not have been detected without an engine monitor and probably would've destroyed the cylinders.

The most important function of an engine monitor is to help you run the engine properly, particularly if you want to run LOP.
 
For me CHTs climbing on two cylinders with only a slightly reduced oil pressure was the give away.
Ended up a crack in the case was leaking just enough oil away from last two cylinders. Eventually the engine would have seized, before oil pressure dropped. Had to replace the case due to the crack location.

Tim
 
James_Dean said:
I've had two instances of partially clogged injectors that resulted in CHT's climbing through the roof on climb out. Would not have been detected without an engine monitor and probably would've destroyed the cylinders.

The most important function of an engine monitor is to help you run the engine properly, particularly if you want to run LOP.
Click to expand...
So I'm seeing a trend that the multi probe CHT is great for fuel injection…

For carbureted ….the equation changes a bit?
 
In flight LOP mag checks will tell you a whole bunch about how your ignition system is performing. It is also really nice to be able to tell your mechanic exactly which spark plug is problematic.
 
My CFI tells me I should have a monitor on my engine. I'd love one, but there's no where on the panel to put it. That, and I'm running a plan Jane Lycosaur 0360. Haven't seen too many Cherokees or Skyhawks with engine monitors. Besides, ignorance is bliss.
 
Brian Dilse said:
So I'm seeing a trend that the multi probe CHT is great for fuel injection…

For carbureted ….the equation changes a bit?
Click to expand...
It's great for fuel injection, IF you have GAMI injectors and IF you want to run LOP. (Some other injectors MAY be able to run LOP, but I wouldn't bet my money on it).

Other than LOP with GAMIs, multi-probe analyzers can be life savers for any engine.
 
steingar said:
My CFI tells me I should have a monitor on my engine. I'd love one, but there's no where on the panel to put it. That, and I'm running a plan Jane Lycosaur 0360. Haven't seen too many Cherokees or Skyhawks with engine monitors. Besides, ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right up until the time it isn't.
 
Brian Dilse said:
So I'm seeing a trend that the multi probe CHT is great for fuel injection…

For carbureted ….the equation changes a bit?
Click to expand...

Carburetor here... I did a missed approach a few months ago (climb straight out to 1800, then turn to the VOR). Right after starting the turn I got an engine monitor warning in my headset because one of my CHTs was crossing the 400 degree threshold and it and the other three were climbing fast. I pushed the mixture in and that took care of that problem. I guess I should have pushed it in when I did the missed :).

Without the engine monitor, I am pretty sure I would not have noticed the small Cessna CHT gauge climbing up, and somewhere around 500 degrees, my engine would have turned to scrap metal. A perfect pilot would not have needed the monitor or audio alert, but most of us will admit to the possibility of getting distracted.
 
steingar said:
My CFI tells me I should have a monitor on my engine. I'd love one, but there's no where on the panel to put it. That, and I'm running a plan Jane Lycosaur 0360. Haven't seen too many Cherokees or Skyhawks with engine monitors. Besides, ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...

Remove your tach (and a whole bunch of other primary instruments) and install an EI CGR-30P.

10-05428.jpg

url
 
steingar said:
Haven't seen too many Cherokees or Skyhawks with engine monitors
Click to expand...
Both the '77 Skyhawk and similar vintage Archer we fly at the club have JPIs on them... and WOW, I can't imagine flying without it to be honest. Even in the non injection O360 it gives good insight to temps and helps finding the lean / rich sweet spot climbing out on hot days. Frankly, with Foreflight and some mental navigational competence I'd take a JPI over GTN. It's amazing that one of the most critical pieces of equipment on the plane gets such little attention by so many owners (not attacking you personally, to your point actually I see a ton of planes at clubs and for sale that have fancy nav equipment and brand new paint and interior but only a tach and oil temp for the engine)

To think back on all the planes I rented that basically just flew on "if the oil temp is in the green and the tach is below red line you are fine" it horrifies me how hot those poor cylinder heads must have been!
 
Prepare for some opinions….helmet on….I will try not to offend the easily offended

Anyway, I've been on a mission to learn more about engine monitors. Here are my results after talking to some interesting folks, I wanted to get some real data. Some non-biased non-pilot data (no "this one time" war stories) Where did I go? I work at a research university with a lot of big heavy hitters in the aircraft insurance/risk assessment industry. I wanted to see what the results are when you follow the money/risk/accident data. More specifically, I wanted to know if my insurance premium could be negotiated down if I had an engine monitor.

Anyway, engine monitors, specifically, multi probe CHT/EGT's

Do they help identify trends and save on fuel and diagnosis mx costs…YES

Are they the sole and only source to predict a dying engine….NO

Will they give you a 1-2 minute "prediction of a catastrophic failure with no other clues…Maybe, but its all luck. Will an extra 90 seconds help? Maybe. Your engine is quitting anyway..Airmanship prevails

Are they a safety feature and a must NEED for single engine IFR/MTNS….WELL, insurance risk assessment say no, there is no correlation between engine monitoring and hull loss/loss of life/liability. In fact, perhaps the reverse might be true. If you had an engine monitor, would you more likely fly in thick soup/night/mtn/IFR? If no engine monitor, perhaps wait until morning? What is more risky?

So what does this say? If you install an engine monitor, your risk doesn't go down, neither will your premium.

You need to decide why do I need an engine monitor? Ask yourself, to save your life or perhaps give you the "confidence" to fly in night/IFR/MTNs in a single engine….wait, false confidence perhaps…again an engine "monitor" does just that…monitors

I'm not bashing on engine monitors…they are cool and it is on my wish list someday…They do tell you info about the health of your engine. But all too often, if your engine is sick, you should know through other sources of info…and may save you money…save money yes, reduce risk, no.

In the end, airmanship always prevails…always looking for a place to land even when she's purring like a kitten and giving yourself some altitude and options…
 
Last edited:
I think you're really missing the point. It has nothing to do with risk reduction and everything to do with cost reduction.
 
I"m not exactly sure what your point is?
Are they a single bullet, "your gonna die if you don't have one", device? Of course not.

I can't imagine saying I am going to fly in IMC in the mountains because I have an engine monitor that will tell me a minute or two in advance that I am going to die.
But neither can I imagine flying an airplane in blind faith that all systems in my plane are functioning properly.

Over it's lifetime, an engine monitor is going to save me much more on fuel and maintenance costs than the cost of the device. To me, that makes good sense.
Plus, it looks cool.

Brian Dilse said:
Prepare for some opinions….helmet on….I will try not to offend the easily offended

Anyway, I've been on a mission to learn more about engine monitors. Here are my results after talking to some interesting folks, I wanted to get some real data. Some non-biased non-pilot data (no "this one time" war stories) Where did I go? I work at a research university with a lot of big heavy hitters in the aircraft insurance/risk assessment industry. I wanted to see what the results are when you follow the money/risk/accident data. More specifically, I wanted to know if my insurance premium could be negotiated down if I had an engine monitor.

Anyway, engine monitors, specifically, multi probe CHT/EGT's

Do they help identify trends and save on fuel and diagnosis mx costs…YES

Are they the sole and only source to predict a dying engine….NO

Will they give you a 1-2 minute "prediction of a catastrophic failure with no other clues…Maybe, but its all luck. Will an extra 90 seconds help? Maybe. Your engine is quitting anyway..Airmanship prevails

Are they a safety feature and a must NEED for single engine IFR/MTNS….WELL, insurance risk assessment say no, there is no correlation between engine monitoring and hull loss/loss of life/liability? In fact, perhaps the reverse might be true. If you had an engine monitor, would you more likely fly in thick soup/night/mtn/IFR? If no engine monitor, perhaps wait until morning? What is more risky?

So what does this say? If you install an engine monitor, your risk doesn't go down, neither will your premium.

You need to decide why do I need an engine monitor? Ask yourself, to save your life or perhaps give you the "confidence" to fly in night/IFR/MTNs in a single engine….wait, false confidence perhaps…again an engine "monitor" does just that…monitors

I'm not bashing on engine monitors…they are cool and it is on my wish list someday…They do tell you info about the health of your engine. But all too often, if your engine is sick, you should know through other sources of info…and may save you money…save money yes, reduce risk, no.

In the end, airmanship always prevails…always looking for a place to land even when she's purring like a kitten and giving yourself some altitude and options…
Click to expand...
 
James_Dean said:
I think you're really missing the point. It has nothing to do with risk reduction and everything to do with cost reduction.
Click to expand...
Well, it has a little to do with risk reduction.
The OP asked for any "real stories" and I gave one where I think an engine monitor would very likely have given me the extra few minutes I would have needed to reach a paved airport rather than a busy highway.

But even with that story, for me it mostly a matter of overall cost reduction and peace of mind.
 
JOhnH said:
I"m not exactly sure what your point is?
Are they a single bullet, "your gonna die if you don't have one", device? Of course not.

I can't imagine saying I am going to fly in IMC in the mountains because I have an engine monitor that will tell me a minute or two in advance that I am going to die.
But neither can I imagine flying an airplane in blind faith that all systems in my plane are functioning properly.

Over it's lifetime, an engine monitor is going to save me much more on fuel and maintenance costs than the cost of the device. To me, that makes good sense.
Plus, it looks cool.
Click to expand...
I should refer back another thread I started about Need vs. Want in my Skyhawk upgrade panel. Many colleagues said I NEEDED an engine monitor for a carbureted O-360. I would define, 'need' as in the safety category. 'want' is in the save money/look cool category.

I argue the engine monitor is in the WANT category. Fair enough?
 
Timbeck2 said:
I listened to the audio in your news interview John and you came >< close to saying "it came from together" didn't you? ;)
Click to expand...
Heck, I didn't even know there was an audio portion to that article. I just had to install flash-player to listen to us.
 
Brian Dilse said:
I should refer back another thread I started about Need vs. Want in my Skyhawk upgrade panel. Many colleagues said I NEEDED an engine monitor for a carbureted O-360. I would define, 'need' as in the safety category. 'want' is in the save money category.

I argue the engine monitor is in the WANT category. Fair enough?
Click to expand...
I guess that is your call. I need to save as much money as I can, and I need as much peace of mind as I can get.

I have flown planes without engine monitors and lived. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss. Until it isn't.
 
I would argue need column for risk reduction / big failure sneaking up on you. Cost column of course too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So what are the most popular engine analyzers for something like a Cherokee 140?
 
I plan on getting the one John linked to above and get rid of my tach in the process.
 
JOhnH said:
I guess that is your call. I need to save as much money as I can, and I need as much peace of mind as I can get.

I have flown planes without engine monitors and lived. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss. Until it isn't.
Click to expand...
Brian Dilse said:
I should refer back another thread I started about Need vs. Want in my Skyhawk upgrade panel. Many colleagues said I NEEDED an engine monitor for a carbureted O-360. I would define, 'need' as in the safety category. 'want' is in the save money/look cool category.

I argue the engine monitor is in the WANT category. Fair enough?
Click to expand...
Fair enough!

I have been thinking, and I am going to switch my position on this.

NEED is such a nebulous and personal thing, I can't tell anyone what they need. There are people in my town who's only need is to get in out of the rain and to ingest a few more calories each day. They might stab me if I told them they needed an engine monitor in their airplane.

I remember one of the first planes I ever flew was a Piper Cub. It had the most basic instrument panel imaginable. The fuel gauge was a coat hangar on a cork and it doubled as a backup air-speed indicator. The only un-needed luxury was a radio. I loved that plane. I remember thinking the only thing more that I needed was a headset. Even then I had hearing difficulty, and today I am basically deaf without the most powerful hearing aids.

So, if you don't feel you need an engine monitor, then you don't need an engine monitor. But I still feel they have a lot in common with security alarms. The most adamant about needing one are the people that have been robbed.
 
If it ever saves even one cylinder won't it pay for itself? (I don't know, as I have 0 experience, just asking)
But if it can also replace a tach and other instruments that may need replacing, then the cost effectiveness comes even more into play.
And, if it can serve as a backup to those devices, then it has a tiny bit of safety value.
Anything that monitors and provides information (if correct) should have at least some safety value...especially critical temps of oil, CHT, etc.
Just my opinion. I think I'd love to have one.
 
Skyrys62 said:
If it ever saves even one cylinder won't it pay for itself? (I don't know, as I have 0 experience, just asking)
But if it can also replace a tach and other instruments that may need replacing, then the cost effectiveness comes even more into play.
And, if it can serve as a backup to those devices, then it has a tiny bit of safety value.
Anything that monitors and provides information (if correct) should have at least some safety value...especially critical temps of oil, CHT, etc.
Just my opinion. I think I'd love to have one.
Click to expand...
I'm mostly waiting for something else to break (analog engine instruments). I can't justify the costs now with everything else working A+

With my luck, if I do install an engine monitor, I'll be pouring more money into replacing probes, etc. without a single engine malfunction

If I don't, well, then I'll run one cylinder super hot and do uber damage and never know it until the next annual
 
Brian Dilse said:
Prepare for some opinions….helmet on….I will try not to offend the easily offended

Anyway, I've been on a mission to learn more about engine monitors. Here are my results after talking to some interesting folks, I wanted to get some real data. Some non-biased non-pilot data (no "this one time" war stories) Where did I go? I work at a research university with a lot of big heavy hitters in the aircraft insurance/risk assessment industry. I wanted to see what the results are when you follow the money/risk/accident data. More specifically, I wanted to know if my insurance premium could be negotiated down if I had an engine monitor.

Anyway, engine monitors, specifically, multi probe CHT/EGT's

Do they help identify trends and save on fuel and diagnosis mx costs…YES

Are they the sole and only source to predict a dying engine….NO

Will they give you a 1-2 minute "prediction of a catastrophic failure with no other clues…Maybe, but its all luck. Will an extra 90 seconds help? Maybe. Your engine is quitting anyway..Airmanship prevails

Are they a safety feature and a must NEED for single engine IFR/MTNS….WELL, insurance risk assessment say no, there is no correlation between engine monitoring and hull loss/loss of life/liability. In fact, perhaps the reverse might be true. If you had an engine monitor, would you more likely fly in thick soup/night/mtn/IFR? If no engine monitor, perhaps wait until morning? What is more risky?

So what does this say? If you install an engine monitor, your risk doesn't go down, neither will your premium.

You need to decide why do I need an engine monitor? Ask yourself, to save your life or perhaps give you the "confidence" to fly in night/IFR/MTNs in a single engine….wait, false confidence perhaps…again an engine "monitor" does just that…monitors

I'm not bashing on engine monitors…they are cool and it is on my wish list someday…They do tell you info about the health of your engine. But all too often, if your engine is sick, you should know through other sources of info…and may save you money…save money yes, reduce risk, no.

In the end, airmanship always prevails…always looking for a place to land even when she's purring like a kitten and giving yourself some altitude and options…
Click to expand...

Good analysis, and only you can determine need vs. want. I fly purely for pleasure and fly grandkids fairly often. There's a few things we can do to stay off the stupid list, and specifically for me, I:

1. Only fly when I am at 100%, and that includes a good night's sleep.
2. Only fly in weather that is predictable and stable.
3. Ensure there is fuel in the plane. I installed a top dollar fuel quantity system, and I dip the tanks manually before the first flight of the day.
4. Ensure the airframe and engine are operationally sound and have no known issues that might jeopardize the flight. For the engine, I do the leak down every year of course, but I also borescope. I change oil every 25 hours and send a sample to Blackstone. I pull the engine data after most long flights and monitor all the trends and EGT patterns. EGT specifically has the ability to tell you a LOT about the engine.

To comply with #4 requires an engine monitor that records data. Of course I could fly without the monitor and Blackstone analysis, but if I have the time and means and I elect to not do #4, I couldn't live with my self if something bad were to happen. So to me it is a need.
 
A good question to ask..what about piston commercial operators? If anyone should know if it saves money on the bottom line, it is someone like CapeAir and their 402's.

Does CapeAir have engine monitors?
 
For me the thing is single engine IMC requires an engine monitor. But if I ran any expensive engine like on a 402 I'd have em.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My favorite thing about my EDM is how after I hear or feel something, whether real or imagined, I can look at totally normal temperture values. Especially in stressful conditions. That's been worth the price of the instrument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top