The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Today was a small banner day, I pulled the airplane out of the hangar and started it. I had not set the fuel pump pressure of the electric fuel pump and needed to run and set the throttle to 21 inches manifold pressure. With that I can set the part throttle fuel pump resistor correctly.
It started on the first start engagement and it sputtered out. On the second start I turned the start pump on until the engine stabilized. Then switched the pump off.
Running smoothly I then took it down the runway for a short takeoff run with out taking off. (I have not gotten my medical back yet) This is the first time it has been on a runway in a year and a half and two months.
I almost went unintentionally flying. I expected the airplane to roll several hundred feet before it got light on the gear and I would have to reduce the throttle. It was more like a launch partially because I set the trim a little to far forward. The CG is a little further forward now and I expected that but not enough. Once the throttle was advanced the tail came up the airplane accelerated and I was about to go airborne in about 50 ft. I pulled the throttle and had a few PIO's around the gear as the tail was still up and I did not want to pull the nose high by pulling back on the yoke. The tail came down and I high speed taxied the rest of the length of the runway and put it back in the hangar.
I have a few squawks now.
the alternator is not charging
the throttle micro switch needs setting
I need to get another circuit breaker installed to power my I fly 700
Then I need to fly the airplane on a two hour break in flight.
And surprise! surprise! when I got home the STC for my 180 landing gear was in the mail from the Cessna 170 association.
Thank you Jan

Congratulations!

Good Day ladies and gentleman.
The Cessna 170A/210 TCM IO 360 has flown for the first time since I took it down for the IO-360 install in June 2014. I had Tom Imrich a friend colleague CFI and retired Boeing Flight Test pilot fly the airplane with me as my Medical has not come through as yet. However I would probably have - schedule aside - had Tom fly with me anyway. The preflight brief was over an hour and a half long going over all of the paper work and aircraft changes and then briefing Tom on the equipment and operators’ manual updates. I am privileged to have such great friends and support.
I do not have many pictures from the first flights as it seems very few showed up to the Airport on Sunday today. However I had friends take pictures of many of the rejected take off and taxi tests performed on Saturday. Here is a link to the “cloud” the pictures reside in I hope you can view them they are beautiful to me.
I will try to give a more detailed report when I come down from the clouds. What a performer!
Regards,
Jim
https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21A ... 65EEBBD48E

Congrats Jim! Thanks again for sharing your progress throughout this project. I will probably never do this upgrade to mine but it sure is fun to think about.

Congrats Jim! Thanks again for sharing your progress throughout this project. I will probably never do this upgrade to mine but it sure is fun to think about.

Congratulations! Knowing how well my 180hp performs at 5000 feet, I bet the 210hp at sea level is fantastic.

Thanks All for the congratulations,
Edits for better clarity and Additions by Tom Imrich
“STC Modified Cessna 170A “First Flight”
STCs; Installation of TCM IO-360C; 80” Constant Speed Prop; Modified C180 Landing Gear
Flight Test Report #1

Flight Date: April 3, 2016
Flight Duration 1.3 hours Hobbs/1.5 Hours Block Time
Report Date: April 4, 2016

Summary
Yesterday 3 April, 2016, Cessna 170A N1208D (informally called a “Cessna 179.5”) made its first flight with the an STC installed (and new to this aircraft) TCM IO-360C fuel injected engine, with matching 80” constant speed propeller. The flight was very successful, with all test conditions completed, and performance and handling qualities as expected.
Considerations and constraints set for this “first flight”Considerations and constraints set for this first flight, and for subsequent initial test flights were as follows:
• No use of “full take off power” of full throttle with 2800 RPM will be planned for any initial takeoffs or Climbs. Initially engine power will be limited to use of high partial power, or full throttle power at altitude, but using no higher than 2600 RPM. This yields a maximum of 195 HP available. This represents more than adequate power for initial test flights.
• Several High speed taxi runs will be used to ascertain controllability as well as engine function as a function of airspeed, prior to any actual take off and climb out of ground effect.
• Several takeoffs and “land back” cycles will be accomplished on the runway, exploring engine operability, S&C, initial handling, acceptable attitudes and stall speed margins, and landing gear response, ...considering both two point (wheel landings), as well as three point landings, with using both “no flaps”, and with partial flaps (up to 2 notches) configurations.
• Several takeoffs would also be made with 20 degrees Flaps, to confirm landing characteristics during a land back on the runway. This would be to confirm “2 notch” flap attitudes and speed margins, while using both two point and three point landings attitudes, with 20 degree flaps selected.
• The first full take off climbing out of ground effect would be performed at high power setting, but not full throttle, using 2600 RP. The flight path would enter the left down wind departure transition keeping emergency landing fields available, to then transition east of the field. In multiple circuits around the field, but well above the traffic pattern, engine checks would be completed, all within safe emergency landing glide distance from the Auburn runway.
 
• Both initial in-flight engine checks, and initial S&C controllability checks were to be completed on the “first Flight”, as well as opening up a limited speed envelope for subsequent testing. Initial thrust response, as well as a full range throttle response and prop control were to be confirmed. Power idle to full power at 2600 RPM were to be assessed, with gliding steady heading sideslips, high L and R roll rate response, and g-effects to .5g and +2g assessed. A simulated high power go-around from a landing approach was to be simulated. No full stalls would be performed on this flight (Note: the engine has brand new bearings and rings, and use of low power operations was to be minimized.
• Initially the climb will be to about 1800 AGL near Auburn airport’s runway, until engine operability confirmation is completed, allowing leaving the immediate vicinity of the airport, and climb to a higher altitude (but still below Class B).
• After Initial flight circling the Auburn airport at 1500 to 1800 ft MSL, the flight path could transition east to the Enumclaw area, and a higher altitude used under the Class Bravo airspace, keeping an airport or landable fields within safe gliding distance.
• In the area of Enumclaw the flight envelope could be opened up to about 4500 ft MSL, with speeds to ~135 MPH. Control harmony, aircraft rig in flight, trim, and leaning of mixture and fuel flows, could be assessed. Low speed characteristics to about 5 to 10 mph above stall could be assessed, in level flight, with partial power. Perform moderate slow speed maneuvering was to be accomplished to a safe low speed (with warning) but still well above the actual expected stall speed.
• Tom Imrich would fly the aircraft from the right seat, sequence all test maneuvers, conduct the takeoffs and landings, and complete all the initial engine and control oriented tests, as well as flight maneuver tests to be performed, and assess handling qualities (Tom would serve as Pilot Flying (PF) - flying from the Right Seat)
• Whereas Jim Musgrove would generally serve as the monitoring pilot, observing systems and confirming all configuration changes and instrument indications, and parameters. For relevant maneuvers, Jim would read and note airspeeds, power settings, and RPM values, particularly during takeoff and landback tests. Jim would also monitor Oil pressure, Oil Temps, CHT’s, , and note any EGT’s anomalies, if any. Jim would also generally monitor the radio, and communications, as well as be primary to search for nearby aircraft traffic. He would monitor electrical system behavior. After initial flight envelope expansion, Jim would also fly some of the test maneuvers, to additionally confirm handling, trim, and engine response (Jim would generally serve as the Pilot Monitoring (PM) for the flight - from the Left Seat).

 
Preflight review and First Flight Aircraft Parameters
A Pre-flight brief was completed addressing and confirming Operator manual supplements, engine limits operation and aircraft and engine systems as Modified by the multiple STC’s installed. These included the engine STC, C180 Landing gear STC, and the Field approved Horizon Electronic Tach installation. The Modifications included changes to the fuel delivery system fuel tank venting, fuel shut off, electric boost pump operation during engine driven fuel pump failures were discussed. Instrument layout along with Aircraft center of gravity as loaded prior to flight and CG shift as fuel is burn was demonstrated graphically. Log entries were observed and noted and an open cowl brief was given showing system installations.
MTOGW for this aircraft: 2200 lbs.
TOGW for this “first Flight”: 2125 lbs
FOB: 40 gal (full fuel tanks)
Fwd Limit CG: 37 in. aft of datum
TO. CG for this flight: 39.75 in.
Landing CG for this flight: 39.10 in.
Aft CG Limit: 45.4 in. (Normal Category)
Ballast Aft: 60 lbs.
“First Flight” Flight Crew: 2 pilot/mechanic (required crew)

“First Flight” Commentary
The aircraft was pushed outside and the hangar doors closed. An aircraft walk around was completed, fuel was sumped and a positive control check was made ensuring all controls functioned in the correct direction, with full travel. A control load survey was completed to assure all surfaces could handle flight air-loads, including varying the load on the flaps, as they were deployed. All pre-flight items were checked and crew was belted in. A fire extinguisher and FA kit were confirmed aboard.
The engine was started by Jim who confirmed positive oil pressure and acceptable RPM. Initial taxi was to the center of the north south taxi way. Tom assumed control of the aircraft and performed both taxi and braking checks near the North end hangars at Auburn S50. The wind was favoring a takeoff from 34 to the north. Tom taxied the aircraft to the south additionally exploring thrust response, rudder control, braking action, steering action, and the effect of unloading the elevator at initial low speed, and then slightly faster taxi speeds.
At the south end parking area, with adequate space available behind the aircraft for a run up, comprehensive pre-takeoff checks were performed: including a mag check, propeller control, and fuel flow changes with throttle. All operations including temperatures, and oil pressure, charging, and vacuum, were nominal. Oil temperature initially at the start of taxi tests was in the range of 180F. After the final landback and before the actual takeoff and climb to pattern altitude, pre-takeoff Oil Temperature increased to about 210F, still well below limit value.
Before taking the runway, a 360 degree turn was accomplished to fully clear the pattern. Trim was set previously and through the full range, as well as being re-set and checked to be slightly aft of the normal take off position, expecting a somewhat nose heavy condition after becoming airborne, due the “first flight” CG calculations.
Proceeding to runway 34, and clearing landing traffic, we taxied into position. A power check static run up was completed to high power setting, but not to full power. Tom then initiated the planned sequence of high speed taxi tests, and landbacks.
The taxi and landback tests were accomplished by first bringing the power up to near the intended value to be used, while Jim noted the RPM as it increased toward ~2600 RPM. Brakes were released and the airplane was accelerated to the target high speed, but still well below flying speed. For subsequent landback test points, the aircraft was accelerated to values above a known take off speed, to provide ample stall margin, with Jim noting Airspeeds and RPM values.
For the RTO portion of the tests, first slight braking, then moderate braking, and then full brake application was assessed, to brake torque limits without tire skid, as low speed decelerations any symmetry were assessed and confirmed. Back elevator was applied as speed decayed to a stop. After several short duration accelerate and stop tests on the runway for early taxi tests, the runway was exited, to use full length for the landbacks.
A similar procedure was used for the landbacks. However, the runway was always exited at the second to last available taxiway, to leave ample contingency runway remaining after each landback test. For the landback tests, the maximum height attained in ground effect was approximately 15’ AGL, and maximum speed was about 70 mph.
The third takeoff run was to be an actual “No flaps” Takeoff, with a subsequent progressive Throttle reduction after liftoff, to initiate a tail low wheel landing, with a moderate deceleration to slow speed, to exit the runway. All was nominal with the planned mid-range CG.
The fourth take off run was to allow the tail come up, and the aircraft to lift off in a level flight overspeed wheels on runway attitude, with the airplane accelerating to well above stall margin, with a throttle chop to idle power in flight, after liftoff to level flight at about 10’ AGL, prior to gradual deceleration and flare rotation to a land back in a three point attitude. This confirmed acceptable engine inoperative handling and flare characteristics, followed by heavy braking, as might be needed for landing following an engine failure. In this landback event, as Tom brought the aircraft down to a few feet above the runway, the stall warning sounded just at touch down. The momentary “chirp” of the stall warning activation got Tom’s attention, until he realized the noise was just the stall horn activating. His comment at the time was something to the effect that “...this is sure not your normal 170, 180, or 185 airplane!”.
 
The next series of takeoffs and landbacks was performed using 20 degrees of flap, to confirm subsequent landing elevator power, effectiveness, trim, and idle thrust pitching moment characteristics. Essentially the same procedure was followed as before, except on one of the land backs Tom landed three point and firm, which set up a tail wheel shimmy that did not stop until the aircraft was stopped. Pitch control was completely adequate, and steady to Touchdown, with no pitch attitude change at all noted either at or after TD, confirming a 3-point touchdown. We exited the runway and inspected the tailwheel to be sure the shimmy cased no damage. Jim exited the aircraft to ensure the tail wheel was not damaged in any way by the shimmy. No defects in the tailwheel were noted. No other issues were noted to prevent a subsequent takeoff and climb out of ground effect, with flight initially staying in or near the Auburn the pattern.
After taxi back to runway 34, a normal take off and climbout was made using about 7/8 throttle at 2600 RPM. Takeoff was made on runway 34 with about 5 knots of variable headwind. At about 500’ AGL and ¾ of the way down Rwy 34, an early left turn out was made, to optimize emergency landing field access as a contingency. As a safe altitude was reached for a contingency landing (about 800’ AGL) power was slightly reduced to about ¾ throttle and 2500 RPM.
A turn to left downwind departure was initiated, to the west side of Auburn, and then a cross over to the east side of the airport for continued testing. In general, the aircraft showed the capability to climb at around 1,000 foot per minute at between 60 and 80 mph. Later this climb performance was also achieved up to about 1,800 ft. AGL, when operating east of Auburn. This 1,800 ft. altitude cap was used to safely stay below the Class Bravo airspace nearby. Initial engine and control checks were spent primarily slightly east of Auburn, to stay well within easy landing distance, in case of any engine or prop problems in the early life of the newly installed IO360 and prop.
The planned engine and control checks were all confirmed to each be acceptable or normal. After about 20 minutes we departed eastbound and climbed initially to about 2,800 ft. performing additional S&C maneuvers, including dutch roll damping, short period pitch and phugoid assessment, steady heading side slips, speed/elevator trades, and additional trim checks.
After sufficient travel eastbound under the next layer of the class Bravo airspace, allowing a climb to 4,500 ft. MSL, the next series of tests were completed. There, we expanded the speed envelop to 135 MPH, mixture adjustments, power settings, IAS, GPS Groundspeeds, and observed fuel flow, manifold pressure, and rpm settings to check performance.
Steep turns were performed to check g-loading effects. Additionally, roller-coasters were done to confirm low-g (.5 g) to positive g ( ~2.0 g) engine, prop, fuel, and S&C operability.

Next we confirmed acceptability of slow speed flight remaining well above expected actual stall speed. We were able to assess partial power low speed handling down to ~40MPH, with steady stall warning indication on at those speeds. The engine was operated at various approximate cruise power settings for about forty minutes, to both assess engine and temperature reliability, and aid the engine “break in” process.
After confirming both engine function and reliability, initial performance and engine cooling values, S&C, and allowing a sufficient time for engine break-in, we returned to Auburn (S50) for landing. The Auburn traffic pattern was entered for a “power approach” to a landing, but with a momentary check of idle power glide decent angle and rate. Runway winds were an approximate 5 to 10 knot quartering headwind-crosswind, from 310 deg.
On downwind and just before turning base leg, flaps were sequentially selected, for a planned 20 deg flap landing. Forces were not fully trimmed out for flare, so as to preserve additional contingency elevator power. Flare showed some heavy elevator forces but were in a normal range, flaring to an initial tail low touchdown wheel landing.
The spring steel gear response was tested with about a .5 to 1 fps TD, leading to a slight (6”) skip/bounce, and then recovery to a full aft column 3-point secondary TD, and landing rollout. Stop was easily made prior to the first Auburn Rwy 34 taxiway exit, indicating likely good future short field performance capability retention. Taxi back to the hangar was normal.
A post flight de-brief was completed at the hangar, noting a successful flight, aircraft behavior and performance as expected, with all test objective accomplished.
The engine and aircraft performed great. We had no significant flight squawks. The airplane is now considered ready for more flight envelope expansion, performance testing, and remaining engine break-in flights.


 

Minor Issues Identified during the “First Flight”
Some minor issues were noted as a result of the “first flight”.
There were some very minor oil spatters inside the cowl, and on the engine mount near the #1 cylinder,.. to be investigated.
The tailwheel shimmy needs to be monitored.
The oil temperatures got a bit warm for ground ops, up to about 210F, after prolonged taxi tests. Then in-flight, the Oil Temp increased in the low speed, high power climb regime, initially up to ~230F. However Oil Temp, did respond to positively decrease after remedial action was taken, by initiating a power reduction, and a speed increase, with the Oil temperature then decreasing to about 180F. This was the result of reducing power to use about 21”MP/2300RPM, and speeding up to about 100 MPH to increase engine cooling air flow. An oil temperature reduction responded well, after about 5 minutes of running at that reduced power and higher airspeed. The results of subsequent “hot day” engine “cooling climb” tests to altitude, will be key. Accordingly, the airplane eventually may benefit from, or even perhaps require using cowl flaps, in order to achieve some levels of extended hot day climb capability.
These recollections are the best that we can recall at this point, not having taken more comprehensive notes. It was a long but productive day !

Jim Musgrove
Tom Imrich Other Post Flight Note or Lessons:
• Be sure to have an emergency kit on board (e.g., at least a fire extinguisher and FA kit)
• A seat cushion can help improve over the nose visibility
• Remember to take a noise-cancelling headset

Thanks for the update on your new installation. A lot of us are interested in your project. Hopefully after you have the engine broken in and put some more time on it you will consider submitting an article on the project for the 170 NEWS. There are a lot of members whom I think would be interested in your project that may not access the forum.

You mentioned 2600 RPM's and 195 hp. That is, if I remember my time in a Hawk XP, is the RPM & hp for that plane. I know that that engine is capable of 210 hp in some configurations. That may be for a limited time (5 minutes ?) with 195 continuous. Is that 195 hp on your plane due to the engine not being broken in yet or does your STC limit it to that? As for the minor oil leaks, its a Continental
Frank

170C wrote:Thanks for the update on your new installation. A lot of us are interested in your project. Hopefully after you have the engine broken in and put some more time on it you will consider submitting an article on the project for the 170 NEWS. There are a lot of members whom I think would be interested in your project that may not access the forum.

You mentioned 2600 RPM's and 195 hp. That is, if I remember my time in a Hawk XP, is the RPM & hp for that plane. I know that that engine is capable of 210 hp in some configurations. That may be for a limited time (5 minutes ?) with 195 continuous. Is that 195 hp on your plane due to the engine not being broken in yet or does your STC limit it to that? As for the minor oil leaks, its a Continental
Frank

You are right about the Hawk XP in it's original form it is limited to 195 HP and 2600 rpm. There is an STC to upgrade it to 2800 RPM and 210 HP it involves changing the prop settings, Governor settings and a new dial to installed on the fuel flow manifold gauge. And then reseting the fuel system for the higher fuel flows. There is a 5 minute limit on both the Hawk XP with the 210 HP STC and my IO 360C engine installation. The R172E Miltary T41B and my engine is rated at 2800 RPM 210 HP. We just saw no need to to thrash the engine to 2800 RPM for sea level flight testing. We want to explore the limits by expanding the flight envelope slowly. My plan is to develop a quick reference ops manual with performance charts and limits to help understand the operational characteristics of this airframe engine combination. And we need excuses to fly. We can justify to others close at hand that this is required to be done and allows for social engineering at the airfield without undue duress. I just examined My T-41B (R127E) Flight hand book and it has no such restrictions in the manual in fact it allows over speed up to 3200 RPM without tear down or inspection only a log book entry as to the RPM and overspeed period. Higher RPM requires higher levels of action. Also the T-41B (R127E) Type Certificate data sheet has no yellow arc or 5 minute limit on the rpm and lists 2800 RPM/ 210 HP as the only engine limit. Just to be clear my engine installation does have a 5 minute limit at 2800 RPM.
Jim

Very impressive approach, congratulations Jim.

I flew the airplane again Friday afternoon in the rain with a respectable 10 Knot cross wind. Take off is way sooner than expected. The airplane in a three point attitude gets light on the gear way before I am ready for it to nor do I think good first flights. I think that next time I will take off with a little more forward trim as I had to dial in quite bit of nose down trim after getting off of the runway to establish an 80 MPH climb. Once breaking ground I pitched over to accelerate in ground affect thus requiring the nose down trim. Climb through Crosswind was quick at 80 MPH. Once turning down wind at about 100 MPH and being abeam the numbers much sooner than expected I started with a power reduction and the first notch of Flaps - 20 degrees. Slowing to 80 I brought in the third notch and 30 Degrees through base and turned a long final to establish a stabilized descent. Stabilized is not what happened as I brought in 40 degrees of flaps, and with 40 degrees of flap and throttle reduction descent is greatly increased with the power of and the braking action of the 80 inch propeller?

I was aware of the braking action the propeller would have but was not thinking about it at this time. So recognizing the prop effect I increased throttle slightly and reduced flaps to 30 degrees the second notch. This finally stabilized the approach and I found I was descending towards the numbers in the way I am accustomed to in the older version of the 170A. Rounding out from 70 to 60 MPH Touchdown was stabilized and light in a three point attitude just the way I like. I had to power up slightly to make it to the first intersection south of the numbers on 16. Again no tail wheel shimmy what so ever.
Post flight I removed the spark plugs and performed a compression check just for an early health check of the engine. The lowest compression was on the #1cylinder at 68 all other cylinders were 72 and above with 75 over 80 being the highest.

Well I am just getting over the nervousness of flying this new model of airplane. It is a different kind of airplane but the Old 170A is still in there. We just need to get used to each other again like breaking in a new pair of hiking boots.

Looking at the plugs during the compression check they are showing with this type of operation the power setting is running a little rich. I noticed at least a 100 or more rise in RPM by dialing the mixture out to increase temperature at 1,000 RPM during the run-up prior to take off. I will check this some more. It takes several minutes for the oil pressure to come down into the green arc and the temp to rise up to about 130 to 140 Degrees. I set and checked the Fuel flows to TCM SID 97-3 and all is set about perfect. Post flight during shut down I checked the RPM rise to be about 40 RPM. Higher than I would normally set it but within the acceptable range per the SID. I checked it several times as the engine easily picks back up once the mixture is pulled and then pushed back in. 40 RPM in each case.

I am ready to start flying this airplane on some trips locally at first but expanding my knowledge and comfort with the airplane. I love this airplane it is probably a little like a sacred cow but there is little else I like to do quite so much. As I start getting more fuel flow and range and power setting knowledge and fine tune this thing I am expecting some great numbers. I am finding I like the Horizon Tachometer just fine, none of the jumpiness in the numbers that Blue Leader has noted in the one he installed in his airplane. I have decided to forgo the Electronics International Engine Monitoring instrument and am instead going to install an Insight G2 6 probe EGT/CHT with Oil temp and Oil pressure. I have been cleared to spend the $$ from the management. I received the STC for moving the Battery to aft of the Baggage compartment from Chris at Del Air this Last Thursday however I am not champing at the bit to get this done as I have other work to do on customer airplanes. The airplane is flyable with Ballast and the battery move will decrease the required ballast. It will actually improve things greatly by my calculations.
Regards,
Jim

Jim, Beautiful work! I'm amazed at how quickly you accomplished this in your "spare time". One question I had was what do you have riveted to the left side of the fuselage between stations 90 and 108? ELT or is that where the parachute flares were?

n2582d wrote:Jim, Beautiful work! I'm amazed at how quickly you accomplished this in your "spare time". One question I had was what do you have riveted to the left side of the fuselage between stations 90 and 108? ELT or is that where the parachute flares were?

That is where the parachute flairs never were. Those patches are Cessna parts. There is no log book entry removing and no evidence the control panel for the flares was ever Installed.
As far as getting this done so fast I am typically dragging butt at the end of 12 hour days building up a lot of the parts in my garage at home saved a lot of time getting back and forth from the airport a trip I really dread. Just for the wasted time. And I am rally fast at fabrication and planning. Having a comprehensive list of things to do and checking off things on the list is my focus. Not the end product. I save my dreaming for going to bed.
Jim

New addition to the Cessna 170A/210 - My TCM IO 360 powered airplane. Looking forward to UPS delivery today as I should be receiving my new Insight Avionics G2 engine analyzer. I will post pictures of the picture of the opened box when I receive the instrument this afternoon. UPS delivery by end of day.
I have about 5.5 hours on the airplane engine combination now and am about ready to do the first oil analysis just to establish initial wear trend parameters. Hoping to see normal for newly overhauled engine metals. We will see.
I will be finishing up the installation of my customers Electronics International CGR-30P engine monitor this week end, hopefully Saturday. I have installed in the past many of the insight graphic engine monitors in multiple Cessna aircraft although not the current production G series of instruments. I had hoped to be able to swing purchasing the Electronics International CGR-30P for the 170A but the $$ were not in the cards. The G2 while it is only STC’d as a primary replacement for the CHT, EGT and TIT instruments I think it is s good compromise for me as I have already spent $$ on obtaining and having overhauled the Cessna combination analog/fuel flow instrument required in the STC instructions of the STC for the IO-360 installation. Obviously my instrument will not have the TIT option. It will also have OAT voltage and electronic Fuel Flow.
After installing the Electronics International CGR-30P in the Cessna Cardinal I had just finished installing a factory Overhauled O-360-A1F6 in, I am glad I did not get the Electronics International instrument. How happy I will be of my purchase is yet to be seen. However in reading extensively about both instruments and having had much experience these last few years with three different versions of JPI engine monitors and there operation I really like the SD card capability of the Insight Avionics download capability as opposed to JPI’s need to have special programs running on my lap top to view data. I consider the TCM IO-360 engine installation to be kind of an experimental engine installation even though it is STC’d. What I hope to be able to see by having a multiple probe EGT, CHT system are the effects of my engine baffle sealing and also the fuel flow spread at leaned engine conditions and nozzle (Fuel injector) Balance.
TCM motors now sells a balance Fuel nozzle set for their IO series engine. However GAMI has documentation on their web site showing the Rich of peak EGT and Lean of peak EGT’s of even these TCM injectors show a wider than optimum (greater than .5 Gals/HR fuel flow spread at 65% and 75% power. We were able to get less than .5 Gals/Hr “GAMI” spread on the TSIO-520 installed in the Cessna P-210 that I have maintained since 1991. I had 3 P-210’s that I maintained and numerous T-210’s with different engine monitors installed. Lean of peak operations in the P-210’s definitely showed less cylinder wear issues after the owner got educated in the proper operation of lean cruise settings.
Additionally Clif Orcutt of Aircraft Magneto service now of Missoula Montana (they have moved from Seattle) was able to get one of his customers’ aircraft a T-210 with a TSIO 520 used in aerial surveying to a narrow fuel flow spread simply by juggling the original Nozzles from cylinder to cylinder. Although I do not think Al used lean of peak practices, all of his engines in the airplanes he operated made it to TBO.
So what I hope to be able to and will attempt to accomplish with my new instrumentation are exactly what I described in the last two paragraphs. In a hope to realize longer range on the given fuel load, less stress on the engine and better likely hood of getting to or past TBO should I live so long. Any dollars savings will be minimal I am sure but all of this does give me more reason to fly and my wife supports it for some reason.

Aryana wrote:I have the UBG-16 in mine right now, but the CGR-30P is going to replace it someday!

I don't have the heart to remove all the steam gauges that it would replace though. I want to keep the vintage look but also have access to the better digital instrumentation. When the CGR-30P is off the small blank display doesn't detract too much from the period look.

This is the route I'm going as well. In fact, I listed it in my 337 for 175 wings as the approved fuel quantity source.
It's a great little instrument but I'll still leave pressure and temp steam gauges as backups to the panel looks right.

Also, I FINALLY took delivery of my IO-360 and prop last week. One step closer!