Intercoms, Sigtronics SCI-S4 vs. PS Engineering PM3000

Bartman

Bartman

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
4,712
Location
New Jersey, USA
Both are stereo, have music inputs, and can transmit from 1st or 2nd pilot positions.

Sigtronics SCI-S4, the individual squelch controls are nice

Sigtronics Corporation SCI Crew Isolate Panel Mount Intercoms

Pilot / crew isolate in a compact panel mount intercom. Four and six place models
www.sigtronics.com www.sigtronics.com

PS Engineering PM3000
www.ps-engineering.com

PS Engineering Inc - PM3000

PS Engineering is the leading innovator in audio control systems for general aviation and special mission aircraft.
www.ps-engineering.com www.ps-engineering.com

Opinions? Would anyone happen to know what a new factory airplane has? The website only says PS Engineering stereo intercom so I'm figuring it's the PM3000.
 
Last edited:
IMO a separate intercom is overkill for a 2 place aircraft. The built-in 2 place intercom on the GTR-225 is excellent, and a much cleaner and simpler install.
 
I don't disagree with you Ed but I'm not really happy with the intercom in my Citabria which is what is built into the Garmin SL40 Comm radio. Using the intercom in the GTR-225 would work but my experience with the SL40 convinced me a separate intercom is better. Having said that, I might save the money and use the intercom in the radio. I wouldn't use the music inputs anyway so it's all overkill for my purposes. :unsure::unsure::unsure:
 
well, maybe I'll skip it for the initial build. there will be plenty of panel space to add it later and, like you said, it will simplify things.
 
Maybe find someone with a GTR-225 or GTR-200 and try it out. I did not think my built-in IC worked very well, until I dug into the radio settings and adjusted the IC volume and squelch. It does not have separate knobs for that; you have to go into the radio menu to adjust the settings, but once you get it set up right, you won't need to fiddle with it.

The 225 and 200 do have an aux jack for music input, BTW. I don't use it for that, but I do sometimes connect my tablet to get the audible traffic warnings.
 
ok, thanks for pointing out the music jack. I've tried fiddling with the intercom controls in the SL40 and I wasn't totally happy with it but it probably just needs further tweaking.

you saved me $500, thanks man! :D
 
Whoa, what the hell is wrong with me, passing up a chance to spend someone else's money? Must be COVID brain fog!
 
Forgot to mention, I have a ball of wires that supposedly is a sigtronix IC yanked out of my plane when I had the Garmin installed. Worked at the time of removal. Yours free if you want it.
 
Things have changed since the SL-40. It is not a good intercom, although it is a superb radio. I absolutely hate the memory feature, and am about a week away from yanking it out of my Cub along with its PM-501 intercom in favor of the GTR-200.

The 225 is about twice the price, so I will let Ed tell you about that. We have the -200 in three Cubs and a Stearman. The avionics shop originally installed a Sigtronics intercom, but I took it out. Now, with 225 hp, open cockpit, and open intercom mic, we have superb communications.

I have never used a better intercom than the internal one in the -200. Ever.

Two downsides to the -200 - 1 - it does not have enough RF squelch, and 2 - it is voltage sensitive. If you run battery only either run 24 volts, or charge your battery when it drops below 12.8 volts.
If anyone gives you grief about "experimental only" let me know. We have "chapter and verse" from the FAA.
The Champs are all closed-cockpit, so if you run the SL-40, any good intercom will do.
 
Bob Turner said:
Things have changed since the SL-40. It is not a good intercom, although it is a superb radio. I absolutely hate the memory feature, and am about a week away from yanking it out of my Cub along with its PM-501 intercom in favor of the GTR-200.

The 225 is about twice the price, so I will let Ed tell you about that. We have the -200 in three Cubs and a Stearman. The avionics shop originally installed a Sigtronics intercom, but I took it out. Now, with 225 hp, open cockpit, and open intercom mic, we have superb communications.

I have never used a better intercom than the internal one in the -200. Ever.

Two downsides to the -200 - 1 - it does not have enough RF squelch, and 2 - it is voltage sensitive. If you run battery only either run 24 volts, or charge your battery when it drops below 12.8 volts.
If anyone gives you grief about "experimental only" let me know. We have "chapter and verse" from the FAA.
The Champs are all closed-cockpit, so if you run the SL-40, any good intercom will do.
Click to expand...

I would wager the 200 and 225 are 99% the same. I would further bet the intercom circuitry is identical.

I have only one complaint. Storing and recalling frequencies from the database is completely non-intuitive. I gave up and just manually enter everything.

OTOH standby monitoring is great.
 
Oh, you are kidding! Wait until you figure it out - we have all the airports in San Diego programmed and easily accessible. May not be the same sequence - I will look it up and publish an easy guide for the -200.
The memory circuit is the best I have ever seen. The SL-40 is the worst.
 
I have the GTR-200 in my 7GCBC and it works perfectly. And I do use the music input for music, and it too works perfect. I have flown the SL30 and other brands with built in intercom and they did not work well at all. But, I feel that Garmin got the GTR intercom right. I have flown 2 other planes with the GTR and they also worked well. They do need some tweaking, but I remember it being a rather easy task. Havent had to mess with it since install.
 
The setup is in the maintenance area, but just normal volume and squelch can be set in flight with the menu button.

The SL-30/40 has only one mic input. So if your passenger is yakking and you push the transmit button the tower gets to hear your passenger. With the GTR, all those things sre separable and programmable.

The 225 setup is slightly different. I have zero experience with that, but can always reproduce my -200 maintenance inputs.
 
Maybe I've got it confused but it seems with the SL40 if the intercom level is set higher and the mic circuit is open, a radio transmission will come in at that level which is very disruptive. I can see how it would be maybe desirable from an engineer's perspective to prioritize radio transmissions in a controlled environment but with a passenger and a local unicom frequency tuned in it's fugly and is why I was looking for a separate intercom in the first place.
 
Bob Turner said:
If anyone gives you grief about "experimental only" let me know. We have "chapter and verse" from the FAA.
Click to expand...

Bob,

I can see how you might be willing to tangle with a local FSDO over this since you've done your own research but I'm not sure our local A&P/IA types would be ready to fight that fight. Would you mind maybe starting a new thread and hashing out the details as to what your argument is that justifies using non-TSO avionics in a certified airframe? I'd be curious to read it and if my IA doesn't disagree I might give it a try. Thanks.
 
Sure. I can just give you the regulations and orders/advisory circulars, and you can make up your own mind.
Where should I put it? Maintenance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top