Had planned to add an Electronics Int'l single channel CHT/EGT but found out the STC seems to cover everything but the 182. Does anyone have any recommendations for an STC'd gauge?
Don't want the full engine monitor, just the simple EC-1 equivalent, and it has to be STC'd for my model.
I haven't heard very good reviews on the Alcor.

SteveCanyon59 wrote:Had planned to add an Electronics Int'l single channel CHT/EGT but found out the STC seems to cover everything but the 182. Does anyone have any recommendations for an STC'd gauge?
Don't want the full engine monitor, just the simple EC-1 equivalent, and it has to be STC'd for my model.
I haven't heard very good reviews on the Alcor.

Maybe just not for primary but you could leave your factory CHT in?
I removed an EI single channel CHT/EGT with a 6 position switch from a 182B and replaced it with a JPI.
I would sell it with a complete wiring harness and all probes.

Thanks Terry, hadn't considered that angle.
My mechanic is very prickly about paperwork, and these days with lawyers on the loose, I can hardly blame him. I'll check, but I *think* I need an STC for anything permanently attached to panel.

How much are you asking for your EI?

I don't know 1/2 of new? Make me an offer.
I can gets some pics of what I have.

Lots of relevant information in this thread: http://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/cht-gauge-12368

I use this unit: http://www.insightavionics.com/g1.htm

I know that you said you don't want an engine monitor, but this unit is unbelievably light, reasonably priced and it just sits there in the panel and tells me the temperatures in my engine. The carburetor temp add on is very nice too. The probes are high quality and the installation is STCd for primary CHT in my 67 180. The paperwork is super clean as well. I would consider lifting the engine monitor restriction from your quest unless there is some compelling reason to go with a single point switching unit.

Thanks for the links scolopax, that G1 is a good looking unit.

Naturally I WANT a full engine monitor. There are 2 reasons for the restriction; I just put in $30K to make the aircraft a nice IFR trainer. Now I have to dump more money into getting the wife and I IFR certified. I need to cut somewhere until the bank account has time to recover.
Also, the O-470 is carbureted, and 3 old Masters of the Sky have told me with that older workhorse engine a full monitor is a waste of money and I shouldn't even worry about even a 1 cylinder EGT. They suggested that leaning by feel and sound would be a better option.
I'll agree in advance with all that tell me that the engine monitor is only 200% more parts expense over an Alcor unit and that it's a better idea to go for it now, but the spend rate is at redline, and the bucks need to stop here for now.

I understand perfectly well the need to draw the line on cash outflow on airplane projects. There is truth to the inability to lean a carbureted engine precisely enough to take advantage of a six point EGT/CHT gauge. What an engine monitor also does do for you, is help you to detect an anomaly in a particular cylinder before it becomes a more serious issue.

Scolopax wrote:I understand perfectly well the need to draw the line on cash outflow on airplane projects. There is truth to the inability to lean a carbureted engine precisely enough to take advantage of a six point EGT/CHT gauge. What an engine monitor also does do for you, is help you to detect an anomaly in a particular cylinder before it becomes a more serious issue.

It nonetheless makes it easier to lean, and if you can save 1 gph by doing that at $5.65/gal, it pays for itself in a couple years if you fly as much as 125 hours/year. For high elevation airports, it makes it easier to lean for best power on the ground. Lotsa bennies--I'm sure I'll think of more, but I sure like my G1.

Cary