What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Rant on engine monitors

Radioflyer

Well Known Member
My firm belief is that an electronic engine monitor is the most important instrument to have in an aircraft, especially in homebuilts. Even more important than an EFIS. Nevertheless, I don't have one yet. Primary reason is cost and secondary reason is installation logistics with too many wires for too long a run.
(It would be ideal to have an engine compartment box blue-toothing to a dedicated display on the panel.)

I was briefly excited seeing recent ads for the EDM-350 for $798. Wow, great! But that is just for CHT&EGT. Come on, one needs rpm, oil pressure & temp also as a legal minimum. Everyone already has sensors for oil and tach and the software to include this as standard in the instrument would be negligible. If you opt for those "extra" 3 functions, adding several hundreds of dollars, the price no longer seems that great.

For the price of the EDM-350 with 3 basic options, there are are several other vendors, that offer more standard features or at least a better value proposition. Nevertheless, you wind up with either a more antiquated design (e.g., lcd dot display), and Product costing almost $2k and up.

In short, my rant is not only that I find these devices overly expensive, which I know is subjective. My rant is also that if the aviation industry really wants to enhance safety, we would all benefit from less expensive engine monitoring offerings. We all know that a well monitored engine can save disaster and warn of engine operation and installation problems.
 
cheaper

Aviation at lower costs? Not in my 47 years flying. A different hobby, like hiking might increase the size of my piggy bank.
BTW, I like the data I get on my Grand Rapids display. It was worth every penny I paid for it. Note: I just test flew a JPI installation yesterday in a Cessna 210 Turbo to Flagstaff. I think the bill was just under $8K when finished. So, I feel better about my RV now. (I don't own the C210)
 
Yeah the Extreme looks nice, but to my point it comes to about $2k. What I like about that device is that it has the remote analog to digital converter which facilitates thermocouple wiring runs. Actually, the MGL Velocity singles E1 device looks pretty good for less than $500, but it doesn't record.

Yeah, aviation is expensive. One reason pilot population is diminishing. This is bad for the industry. All I'm saying is that ex industry should wake up and make,more,affordable products, especially when the products contributes to safety.
 
Aviation is expensive, but one look at aviation ads from 30/40 years ago would show some shockingly expensive electronics with laughable capability. By comparison we are getting FAR more value today, especially in the competitive world of EXP products.
 
Yeah the Extreme looks nice, but to my point it comes to about $2k. What I like about that device is that it has the remote analog to digital converter which facilitates thermocouple wiring runs. Actually, the MGL Velocity singles E1 device looks pretty good for less than $500, but it doesn't record.

Yeah, aviation is expensive. One reason pilot population is diminishing. This is bad for the industry. All I'm saying is that ex industry should wake up and make,more,affordable products, especially when the products contributes to safety.


What you?re looking for can be found at BeLite Aircraft - their Radiant series of instruments were designed specifically be low priced:

http://www.beliteaircraftstore.com/radiant-engine-monitor/

I havent used one of their engine monitors, but have tested some of their other instruments, and they work as advertised.
 
Aviation is expensive, but one look at aviation ads from 30/40 years ago would show some shockingly expensive electronics with laughable capability. By comparison we are getting FAR more value today, especially in the competitive world of EXP products.

+1

I remember seeing the UPS adds stating "You can get all of this capability for only $68,000"
MGL is the best value. Their prices are very fair. If you want better technology or refinement then you are moving into the "want" realm and should be willing to pay for it.
 
Business opportunity!

If you think it can be done better and/or cheaper, you'll make "tons" of money! :D

Whenever I think something is done wrong, I usually take an hour and write up a biz plan, and then that brings me back to reality - I've done this probably a dozen times with aviation-related products, and each time, I discover that the guys that are doing it now either are really amazing, or are not making much money. The aviation market is very small for low cost products of any kind.

I agree with you about the wiring runs - the device should sit in the engine compartment and have a couple of wires going to the panel. That said, I just installed my GRT EIS 4000 with all the wires needed, and it all fit easily in one of those stainless steel firewall penetrations.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/firewall_penetration_kit.php

I thought it would be painful, but it was no big deal. Don't let the small wiring hassle keep you from reaping the benefits of these amazing devices.
 
We have it better than ever before

All I'm saying is that ex industry should wake up and make,more,affordable products, especially when the products contributes to safety.

That is a curious statement to make as vendors in the experimental community are in the process of turning the certificated avionics market on its collective head. The migration of TruTrak, Trio and especially Dynon products from the experimental realm to the certificated side of the market is presenting highly advanced features at price points that were never even considered possible a few years ago.

Never has avionics offered as many feature for the $$$ as what we have available today. The fact that these options are supported by companies with a solid economic track record is an even bigger bonus.
 
Last edited:
Interesting items, but I'm surprised they don't make a 4 cylinder combined CHT-EGT instrument.

At the rate I get press releases from them on new products, call him up and ask - it will probably ready next month! :rolleyes:
 
Better than ever

...Never has avionics offered as many feature for the $$$ as what we have available today. The fact that these options are supported by companies with a solid economic track record is an even bigger bonus.
Could not agree more! Our situation reminds me of Tom Friedman's book The World Is Flat, Despite what you hear, the world is getting better in many (most?) ways, and so are the products that are available in the aviation world.
 
You're talking $35-50k just for a set of crates with a whole bunch of metal bits in them, then an engine, then additional parts not in the kit, tools, then your valuable time. People spend $100k, $200k and more on these things before a working instrument has been installed.

And a couple of thousand dollars for your single most important instrument (which does the monitoring job of about 10 others, plus many additional functions) is just too much?:confused:
 
There is a concept, I don't know what to call it, but let me for now say that it is a variation of the "normalization of aberrant behavior" idea. This is a trap that many of us aviators fall into. Thus, because an aviation engine is expensive, easily upwards of $25k, then spending $200+ on spark plugs is normal, right? Many would say yes, even though there exists a $2-5 automobile spark plug that equals or betters the performance of an aviation plug. Hey, a new instrument replaces ten, so it must automatically cost as much as those instruments combined, right? No, shouldn't there be some economy of scale? Some of us like to question the value proposition of something instead of unconditionally accepting the high prices of components in our hobby.

I will suggest that the MGL E1 instrument is testament to the fact that these specific engine instruments can be designed, manufactured, and marketed for very low prices. It costs $345, all by itself vs the $1k base price of slightly better competitors. It is germane to point out that these engine monitors are not rocket science devices. The sensors, ADC chips, uProc's, level conversion circuitry, and display components all have been around for over 50 years and have achieved tremendous reduction in size and cost. These devices are electronically much less sophisticated than the EFIS units, GPS navigators, and radios of today and yet look at how much improvement in price and performance these latter devices have demonstrated in comparison.

I just don't think that engine monitors have kept pace compared to other avionics. And this is a shame especially because it is such a safety promoting device. As another data point, here is an example of a fairly capable, amateur built, engine monitor project.

http://experimentalavionics.com/engine-management-system/

The device is all built and undergoing testing by an amateur on limited "fun" time. The components (in quantity one!) are about $100. From electronics marketing experience, I feel confident a company can commercialize a similar or better design for about $500. But, nooooo, aircraft electronics MUST be expensive and the market will feel happy about it.

PS-I did warn this was a rant! I do appreciate all your discussion.
 
In some cases you are right - after all, you can buy a blueray player for well under $100. BUT, we also have to give a nod to low volume. And lets not forget that this is a business proposition. The "market" will support this pricing, so what possible incentive is there for manufacturers to have a race to the bottom?
 
To me it's mostly about low volume/lack of demand for such a bare bones system. given your example that EMS from the link trying to build costing $100 in parts and your proposed selling price of $500 sounds like a win-win. but lets do a quick business plan as someone else suggested:

first problem being how many do you sell a year? Keep in mind this thread has shown most people would rather spend the money it currently costs to get a full featured EFIS, some of the remainder are happy with the current options and cost, so there is very limited demand for this. 25? 50? That's only 10-20 grand per year gross profit, not going to interest the big players at all. Maybe he could do it as a hobby I mean 20 grand on a side gig he enjoys is great!

But wait, these are amateur builders trying to install this, so now he's getting a bunch of calls/emails how to install/program/how come it smoked when I hooked it up backwards, so that's taking time and energy to deal with; not to mention decreasing the enjoyment he's getting out of it.

So to put this all together: He spends 200 hours designing and building the prototype. it takes him 5 hours to build each one, not enough volume to have someone else do it cost effectively. He spends an average of 3 hours a week supporting it. the first year he sells 50 units for 20,000 gross profit. He spent 600 hours on those units so he made $33/hr, the second year it goes up to $50/hr since he's not designing it again. Not bad but he's making something like $72/hr at his day job as an electrical engineer, not so sure he's going to find it worth it.

And that's if everything goes smoothly...
 
Last edited:
Many would say yes, even though there exists a $2-5 automobile spark plug that equals or betters the performance of an aviation plug. Hey, a new instrument replaces ten, so it must automatically cost as much as those instruments combined, right?
No of course not. But it's not really valid to equate the cost factors of a modern engine monitor with a spark plug either. As has been pointed out, the functionality, programming and design complexity, provision of support, etc all have to be considered. Their capability these days is astonishing. In the course of my normal work it takes a black box weighing probably 50lb sitting on an avionics rack in an area the size of a small bedroom to do only half the job of the current experimental engine monitor offerings. I don't even want to imagine what that box costs.

Move to the experimental world: I had a JPI installed on my plane. It was more on the expensive side than most, and the company can be a PITA, but it worked flawlessly and saved me a massive amount of money in a dispute over engine problems when a certain component company alleged that the issues were caused by the pilot (me) mishandling the engine. I said that wasn't true, and I have every minute of data from every sensor on the engine recorded since it was first started to prove it, all viewable on SavvyAnalysis. That ended the argument and an overhaul under warranty followed.

So no they're not a "cheap" instrument. But I still reckon most of them are value for money, all things being considered. ;)
PS-I did warn this was a rant! I do appreciate all your discussion.
Rant acknowledged. :D
 
Last edited:
There is a concept, I don't know what to call it, but let me for now say that it is a variation of the "normalization of aberrant behavior" idea. This is a trap that many of us aviators fall into. Thus, because an aviation engine is expensive, easily upwards of $25k, then spending $200+ on spark plugs is normal, right? Many would say yes, even though there exists a $2-5 automobile spark plug that equals or betters the performance of an aviation plug. Hey, a new instrument replaces ten, so it must automatically cost as much as those instruments combined, right? No, shouldn't there be some economy of scale? Some of us like to question the value proposition of something instead of unconditionally accepting the high prices of components in our hobby.

I will suggest that the MGL E1 instrument is testament to the fact that these specific engine instruments can be designed, manufactured, and marketed for very low prices. It costs $345, all by itself vs the $1k base price of slightly better competitors. It is germane to point out that these engine monitors are not rocket science devices. The sensors, ADC chips, uProc's, level conversion circuitry, and display components all have been around for over 50 years and have achieved tremendous reduction in size and cost. These devices are electronically much less sophisticated than the EFIS units, GPS navigators, and radios of today and yet look at how much improvement in price and performance these latter devices have demonstrated in comparison.

I just don't think that engine monitors have kept pace compared to other avionics. And this is a shame especially because it is such a safety promoting device. As another data point, here is an example of a fairly capable, amateur built, engine monitor project.

http://experimentalavionics.com/engine-management-system/

The device is all built and undergoing testing by an amateur on limited "fun" time. The components (in quantity one!) are about $100. From electronics marketing experience, I feel confident a company can commercialize a similar or better design for about $500. But, nooooo, aircraft electronics MUST be expensive and the market will feel happy about it.

PS-I did warn this was a rant! I do appreciate all your discussion.

There is a lot more influencing the cost of bringing a product to market than the cost of the components........

Particularly in the experimental market, technical support is a HUGE part of it. Ask any vendor. They spend a huge amount of time working with amateur builders, helping them resolve problems that they induced themself during the installation.
If everything was excessively over priced as you imply, there would be far more signs that vendors were getting wealthy with their business. I work closely with many of them, and I don?t see that.
 
There is a concept, I don't know what to call it, but let me for now say that it is a variation of the "normalization of aberrant behavior" idea. This is a trap that many of us aviators fall into. Thus, because an aviation engine is expensive, easily upwards of $25k, then spending $200+ on spark plugs is normal, right? Many would say yes, even though there exists a $2-5 automobile spark plug that equals or betters the performance of an aviation plug.

If you look at the cost for plugs, most folks recommend replacing auto plugs every 100 hrs, the average massive electrode aviation plug lasts 500 hrs.
So if use $5 auto plugs thats $25 every 500 hrs, about the same as an aviation plug which costs $25.
 
I just posted this elsewhere but thought maybe one of you might know... After looking at the install and op manual, I thought many of the sensors I already have in my RV6A would be compatible. I was thinking I could by the basic kit with the CHT/EGT X 4 and add other sensors later using the sensor already installed in the plane and making a wiring harness, etc. HOWEVER, the JPI sales lady and Aircraft Spruce (dealer) told me any option you do not buy at the time of initial purchase necessitate the EDM 350 to be returned to the factory for reprogramming to enable. Obviously, this means your plane is down and it also locks you in to buying all the options from them, even if you have compatible sensors. Has anyone bought one to know if this is true?
 
Don't know, but given JPI's business practices, I'd bet it's almost certainly correct.

FWIW, I ran into the same problem with GRT's EIS a number of years ago. Bought a used one, and I already had a fuel flow sensor, so I figured I'd just hook it up & go. Nope. They wanted something like $200 to turn on the option in the device's firmware (not including the flow sensor).

Charlie
 
Yeah look I'm not entirely convinced you can throw JPI under the bus with that one.

Different engine monitor and EFIS vendors have different levels of flexibility in their probe/sender/monitoring compatibility and when I changed from a JPI EDM 740 (which was an excellent piece of kit, by the way - it was removed for an EFIS upgrade and they don't make an EFIS) to a different but increasingly popular brand of engine monitoring/EFIS renowned for being super flexible, several of my senders were incompatible and I had to buy new ones from that company.

They normally have multiple product lines and providing infinite cross-compatibility with other vendor products user-customisable out of the box would be a firmware/software/hardware development nightmare in some cases. They're not running a charity.
 
I remember years ago flying my cessna 152 from Gulf Shores, Alabama to Norfolk, Virginia to visit my son in the navy. All I had was a GPS 3 pilot with a screen about the size of a box of matches. The only engine monitoring available was the oil pressure and temperature!

I have the Dynon D100/D120 in the 7A... Not to mention the GPS with ADSB traffic and weather. Can't imagine going on a X country without this level of information!

The trip to Norfolk, Virginia in the cessna almost seems fool hearty now!
Ignorance was bliss. :)
 
Last edited:
Expermentalavionics.com EMS Project

It appears that this project from Australia, as many well intended amateur product developments efforts do, has gone cold. Looks like the developer got a job that has made it difficult for him to continue. It was an interesting start to a low cost experimental and the website still shows circuit boards and related components for sale but no sign of any firmware and appears to be no activity since mid 2017.

Probably an affirmation that low cost avionics development is not as easy as it looks.

-larosta



There is a concept, I don't know what to call it, but let me for now say that it is a variation of the "normalization of aberrant behavior" idea. This is a trap that many of us aviators fall into. Thus, because an aviation engine is expensive, easily upwards of $25k, then spending $200+ on spark plugs is normal, right? Many would say yes, even though there exists a $2-5 automobile spark plug that equals or betters the performance of an aviation plug. Hey, a new instrument replaces ten, so it must automatically cost as much as those instruments combined, right? No, shouldn't there be some economy of scale? Some of us like to question the value proposition of something instead of unconditionally accepting the high prices of components in our hobby.

I will suggest that the MGL E1 instrument is testament to the fact that these specific engine instruments can be designed, manufactured, and marketed for very low prices. It costs $345, all by itself vs the $1k base price of slightly better competitors. It is germane to point out that these engine monitors are not rocket science devices. The sensors, ADC chips, uProc's, level conversion circuitry, and display components all have been around for over 50 years and have achieved tremendous reduction in size and cost. These devices are electronically much less sophisticated than the EFIS units, GPS navigators, and radios of today and yet look at how much improvement in price and performance these latter devices have demonstrated in comparison.

I just don't think that engine monitors have kept pace compared to other avionics. And this is a shame especially because it is such a safety promoting device. As another data point, here is an example of a fairly capable, amateur built, engine monitor project.

http://experimentalavionics.com/engine-management-system/

The device is all built and undergoing testing by an amateur on limited "fun" time. The components (in quantity one!) are about $100. From electronics marketing experience, I feel confident a company can commercialize a similar or better design for about $500. But, nooooo, aircraft electronics MUST be expensive and the market will feel happy about it.

PS-I did warn this was a rant! I do appreciate all your discussion.
 
Back
Top