The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Since I can't post pictures to a PM, I was asked to post pictures of how the four original 2" instruments below the upper instrument panel were replaced with 2-1/4" EI digital instruments. There is a mounting panel which holds the original four small instruments and instrument lights behind the main instrument panel which must be replaced when EI instruments are used.

It is a simple mount to fabricate, flat .040" aluminum with a small flange bent on the bottom to stiffen it enought not to flex under the weight of the instruments. It was tough to get a good picture of the whole installation but it should be good enough to give an idea how it was built. In the picture, the new mount is zinc chromated and looks green.

The new panel is flush against the back side of the main instrument panel and does not have a stand-off like the original mount since the EI instruments are internally lighted. There are three nutplates for the mounting screws which attach the mounting panel to the back of the instrument panel. The instrument panel bevels were carefully enlarged to expose the digital instrument faces but not so far as to totally remove the bevels.

Click on picture to enlarge then click on the picture again to enlarge further.

Aryana and Richard,

Why did you choose the EI engine monitor instead of the JPI? I want to install a monitor in my 170 and am looking at the EDM-700 and the UBG16. I had an EDM-700 in another airplane and really liked it. The UBG has an extra box that has to be mounted somewhere, which I don't like, but it's a little less expensive than the JPI, and has more data capture options.

Also, I can't decide if there's any merit to the claims that the JPI probes respond faster. I currently have an EI SR-8A scanner, and the response time of the EGT probes is so slow that the unit is useless for anything except basic mixture setting and troubleshooting. It takes about 30 seconds for EGT to settle after each mixture adjustment. I wouldn't want to install a UBG and find it has the same problem.


Dave

For accurate and rapid results, I highly recommend the K&S Avionics Hexad 2 instrument. I like being able to read all six CHTs and naving the potentiometers to align all six EGT indicators so that any change will be noticed immediately.

Aryana,
Being an old time flight engineer from waaaayyyy back, I don't understand a lot of the new stuff. I just like all the needles and pointers to line up when the wick is turned all the way up on high and everyone is hopeing like hell the damn thing will fly.

DaveF wrote:Aryana and Richard,
Why did you choose the EI engine monitor instead of the JPI?
Dave

Dave, several reasons, I like the EI Instrument, size, function, and display. I like EI product support which is beyond good. I do not like a vendor bad-mouthing their competition like JPI does toward EI. The last reason was actually the only reason I had when I started buying EI products. At the Alaska Aviation Trade Show years ago before I had bought any digital stuff, I was discussing the JPI products at their booth. The JPI rep was openly condemning EI products. I reminded him he should try to sell his JPI on their merits and not denigrate his competition, that that tactic was working against JPI with me, and I would never buy a JPI product because of it. My comment didn't seem to phase him at all. I never have bought a JPI product and have been completely satisfied with EI products.

Also, not being quite as "old school" as BL, I don't need needles, but I do like separate instruments for different functions, instead of combining too many functions into one instrument.