• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

94 Excellent

About fuellevel

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 07/17/1961

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Bend, OR
  • Reg #
  • Model

Recent Profile Visitors

1,096 profile views
  1. fuellevel

    Fuel Tank Float Gauges

    So in the interest of education and sharing what we know. We extensively tested resistive senders alongside ours when we were going through development and certification. Actually the performance of the float, led us back to using this device to find the fuel surface as it isn't easy to mess that up. Yes you can pull the senders and ultrasonically clean them and they will perform better for a while. Or you can get the resistance wire rewound, but there are issues . Trouble is that most new senders are printed ink resistance grids and they simply wear out. Avgas is an especially good solvent and what is designed for autogas is not exactly compatible with avgas, in regards to printed ink composition. Here is the critical issue and - Mooneys will perform better in this regard due to sender placement. Unlike the heavy equipment the senders are normally applied to - fuel movement in aircraft is particularly aggressive due to the length of the tank this motion takes the float out of plane with the normal arc movement. Pretty good if the motion is up and down with the rising of fuel in the tank - bad if it is fore and aft like on on climb, descend and taxi. Always filling to full mitigates this effect as the floats can't move. This motion tends to wear the pivot on a resistance sender - Resistance senders rely on a precise contact pressure on the grid to minimize wear of the grid or wire and provide a good electrical connection. The longer the arm on the float - the greater the issue. I doubt that this issue is addressed in a rebuilt sender - I have a few that have been donated Basically clean repair or replace the printed grid or wire test and return. Uniform contact pressure is the key to accurate readings - anything less or more causes issues. The float sender reads fuel by slowly, very slowly dropping to be in contact with the fuel surface - too much friction will hold the sender suspended in air until vibration brings it back into contact with the fuel surface (corrosion and corruption assist or in better words don't assist here). To little friction allows free motion with interrupts in contact with the grid (the windshield wiper fuel gauge). Aircraft have quite a bit of vibration so the floats will get shaken down eventually. Electronic instruments are susceptible to this loss of signal - far greater than the analog gauge they replace - we have lots of AOG requests on new installs of JPI, EI, And Garmin systems as what the owner thought were working fuel senders now become exposed. So with how we measure and how we build - this above is taken into account - we actually have a relatively free pivot connection however side to side motion does not affect accuracy or interrupt output - only loss of power to the sender Why do we know this is good - well we have 26,000 senders in the field - On Cirrus Aircraft now getting to be 8 yrs old we have zero in service replacements - our MTBF is now over 80,000 hrs - the senders are airframe life rated. There is no discernible wear and if wear occurs it does not affect accuracy or output Why are they relatively expensive - well unlike components in the cockpit these devices live in a far harsher environment. They are relatively complex circuit devices. The FAA Certification guys considers these items to be "CRITICAL" to flight So the environmental testing we are subject to would quickly ruin your new radio or GPS. This forces us to use higher graded components throughout. And to achieve longevity we have some pretty complex and detailed coating requirements on the billet machined parts we use. In a relative sense - we should be three to four times more expensive vs an analog sender. Because of our non-contact measurement nature we meet a new FAA/EASA fuel and lightning safety requirement and we have a lot of OEM business around the world. Quantity and consistent production allows us to offer competitive pricing. The flexible nature of our sender allows for the unique customization we can do without charging substantially more - For example in the mix this week are senders for a Ford Tri motor, Grumman Mallard and a PBY Catalina how's that for obscure. We are dedicated to making fuel indication for all aircraft - airworthy. No other complex component on the aircraft is warranted for the life of the purchaser - I like to think that says it all
  2. @carusoam Well the ground filling component is a function of the smartphone APP I showed - tongue in cheek - for fuel level on the ground to replace a stick. With an accelerometer onboard the integral phone modem - aircraft attitude and ramp angle can be considered. This APP is being developed for several of our commercial customers where this is a critical issue. Equally hauling out a stick - does not inspire customer confidence. Kenmore - DeHavilland Beaver - Floats or Gear Cape Air - Tecnam P2012 - Commercial Application We are quite popular in Alaska for the reasons you stated in your post - weight performance is critical for several missions and commercial operators are utilizing the combined fuel information & GPS allow operators to put customers safely in places, that a lack of precise aircraft loading knowledge would have carried too much risk and liability. As the season is over we have this month, approx. 90 orders for Cessna 180, 185 headed in that direction. Our acceptance rate in Alaska is staggering. So the intention of this APP takes care of Tundra Tires, Floats or Conventional Gear without cluttering up the cockpit with unnecessary flight information. Once this portal is in place there are a lot of things that could be added in the future - tire pressure, oil level, De-ice fluid, oleo pressure, strain gauges for critical structure (not a Mooney Issue) - the list goes on ...... So yes - I think we are on to something.
  3. fuellevel

    CiES Fuel Senders Resource Thread

    Could have been - but not likely - most of those parts were Airbus helicopter where they are not quite gold plated but should be
  4. fuellevel

    CiES Fuel Senders Resource Thread

    just a nice little video in the machine shop Video
  5. fuellevel

    M20F Fuel Stick - I know I know

    Data I have - it isn't very interesting to most. But you are more than welcome to come on in and look through it. We will even provide coffee. All of it is tied to published data either ours filed with the FAA or that filed with the US government by some other organization. I have to do this, as we would reasonably expect that this would have to be proven to the FAA / NTSB or further in a court of law. This adds just a touch of voracity A stick you create for this use will never be mentioned or photographed in an incident or accident - don't believe me - the NTSB Accident files are open to anyone, Advisory Circular 23.17 the FAA specifically calls out that a totalizer can not be an approved fuel gauge Digital fuel flowmeters are not a required powerplant instrument except for turbine engine airplanes with an Amendment 23-43 certification basis. They are optional equipment and should not be considered replacements for fuel quantity or fuel pressure indicators What I am saying is - the methodology of getting a starting observed fuel value - Stick, observation, full tanks et all and then relying on a Totalizer or Time to determine in flight fuel level is not the intention of what should be used in a certified aircraft to determine actual in flight fuel level. Why - the FAA says so - or at least it says so in this location. An FAA stated design goal or recommendation is relavent regardless of how effective or accurate an alternative method is to a user in practice - this is the religious or rote component I mentioned. Because it is common or that everyone is doing it doesn't mean we should not reflect on it and ask why - or question the underlying reasons (Potentially that Fuel qty instrumentation in GA has been substandard or has not met or been maintained to the FAA design goal) The Standard for GA Fuel qty instrumentation is 3% of fuel tank value or 0.75 of a gallon on a 25 gallon tank - I know I am writing the ASTM spec and this relies on specifications for GA that have been written and published since the 1930's - so it has to be better than 1 gallon Bottom line - despite the advent and increasing usage of fuel totalizers the GA, fuel accident rate has remained unchanged. That fact is distressing, as this component is perceived as a safety item people rely on and tout the accuracy of. I hear your statement repeated countless times - my totalizer is accurate to less than a gallon. What I believe is that a totalizer or time in tanks has the potential to mislead or provide bad pilot information especially when it is critical information for continued flight. I believe, as do most of the people who have accurate fuel indication (Not vendor specific and a few Mooney owners) in that having the ability for a comparative in flight fuel quantity data from two different sources is a an item of safety - that I hope will be a proven better solution. i.e one that shifts the accident statistic southward, Doing something by rote for safety that has been proven by data to offer no change to the accident statistic is the classic definition of lack of careful thought or reflection.
  6. fuellevel

    M20F Fuel Stick - I know I know

    I simply post a picture of an app illustrating a different method with a comment of - "You still use a stick" There was no sales pitch or offer of any product just my logo, which is over on the left as well Can't we just get along.
  7. fuellevel

    M20F Fuel Stick - I know I know

    Cyril. I trust what we are doing in supplying accurate fuel level from a fixed location, is a very significant improvement on sticking a tank . Yes this is heresy to some, as this has been the time honored method that has kept some but not all safe. Aviation is like a religion - you trust what you were told at an early age and believe it throughout your life. It is a basic fact that what we can do relative to fuel level is better than you can do with a procedure with a stick. I will put up $1,000 for someone who believes they can be more accurate with a stick full stop. Name the place and location. We have 5,000 aircraft with our system, so I have users who back up my voracity. What is better is that our system travels with you when you fly, You can get a better than a stick reading in flight. - Level flight no turbulence. Initiating your flight with a basic stick level understanding of starting fuel level - has proven to be an issue.
  8. fuellevel

    M20F Fuel Stick - I know I know

    The app and aircraft interface are in final development, Mooney’s and Malibu’s have been shown it first. Some of you will be offered the app and the aircraft interface to beta test and provide feedback. There has to be benefits to being early adopters.
  9. fuellevel

    M20F Fuel Stick - I know I know

    Actually - I like the reaction. A fixed position (i.e. mounted in the tank) accurate reporting device should if designed correctly outperform A methodology that involves human interface, that coordinates a predictable repeatable action in a nearly impossible still volume of fuel with a porous and human marked stick. The ability to project that accuracy on the ubiquitous smartphone that everyone caries os just a succinct way of illustrating this disparity The last cars to come equipped with a stick are Early 1950's Volkwagon Beetles and MC TD's for a point of reference I am not driving in the illustration and I hardly qualify as a teenager. The fact that this former methodology (Stick) has no impact on fuel starvation and exhaustion statistic in aviation. An Actual Scientific Study was performed that indicated that this methodology for long distance flights is nearly universal or near 100% in the pilot population and slightly less so for a short distance flights. If you look at the current Nall Report - the Fuel Statistic remains stubborn while overall accidents in aviation are falling Funny - in speaking to people much older than me, it was equally unsuccessful in Volkswagen Beetles and MG TDs If I told you 10 years ago that you would take strangers into your house and rent them a spare room or get into a car with a total stranger to be taken somewhere - your arguments to those concepts may have had equal vitriol - yet here we are with Airbnb, Uber and Lyft The world does change
  10. fuellevel

    M20F Fuel Stick - I know I know

    You still use a stick?
  11. fuellevel

    Erratic idle... SOLVED!!

    Muuhh. Ha ha ha. Picture me setting down my morning coffee and wringing my hands in contemplation of my evilness. OK - evil test period over., now back to adding Cessna Twins to the AML
  12. Yes JPI has come around. Nobody in Aviation likes the new guy, that is a rule and probably in the CFRs I wasn’t so popular here as well. In later Mooneys there is a conversion box to take the analog resistive input and convert it. I don’t have one, but I suspect a voltage divider so that sensors from potential other manufacturers like Rochester could be used without changes to the instrument panel. Resistive to Frequency wasn’t a big item back then as fuel totalizers using frequency were new. This method was also applied to Bonanzas and Barons as another example. In most cases with a new Engine monitor or engine information system this box goes away. Garmin EIS would be the only potential exclusion as it accepts resistance, voltage and frequency, So the conversion box could stay, but the active question for the install shop is why.
  13. fuellevel

    Need help with CGR-30P choices

    To be specific EI senders are variable voltage and Hall effect sensor based. CiES are Frequency or analog & frequency and are based on Anisotropic Magneto Resistive or AMR technology. Yes I dug into a EI sender to investigate potential patent infringement. a Google search on AMR vs Hall Effect will tell you more. Yes similar concept, but different in detail. CiES senders are TSO’d and that is a difficult accomplishment one you won’t see at this price point by any other manufacturer.
  14. fuellevel

    CiES Fuel Senders Resource Thread

    Spending time in Willmar MN after OSH18. Thanks for stopping by . We are getting lots and lots of Mooney data and finishing up with a G1000 install. The Mooney G1000 fuel quantity interface which is similar to the Beech G36 and G58 leaves something to be desired, but it is working and calibrating. Pictures are not of the G1000 but of clean Mooney tanks. The charting and pdf are reference notes and a graph. The Senders individually supply data to the Garmin . And yes I know what the TCDS says for fuel qty owner wanted more....... The travel appears to be limited by a nutplate ot stop of which the Mooney has many. Mooney.pdf
  15. fuellevel

    CiES Fuel Senders Resource Thread

    Nice - yes there is damping, but in this case it is mostly from the JPI side. We have several scenarios we can utilize depending on application. See u at OSH 18