fuellevel

Supporter
  • Content Count

    199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

75 Excellent

About fuellevel

  • Rank
    Full Member
  • Birthday 07/17/1961

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.ciescorp.net
  • Skype
    scott.philiben

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

980 profile views
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. fuellevel

    TKS quantity indicating 0.0?

    We have been supplying TKS senders to Cirrus since 2012 They do corrode more than the fuel senders, but not to a point where operation is degraded. No sender removals for TKS now at 5 yrs send us a bad one
  7. fuellevel

    Digital Fuel Gauge Fuel Level Heads Up

    I am not dismissing Bob's issue or complaint - the plane is relatively local to us. If his mechanics can't figure out the issue, we surely can
  8. fuellevel

    Digital Fuel Gauge Fuel Level Heads Up

    I am here. So the Aerospace Logic unit averages over 10 second intervals and the average of the reporting is output is updated on the display This is just simple averaging of the input values over time - I will ask Shane but I believe it is 100 or so data points but it could easily be 1000. When I operate the Aerospace Logic gauge in our test and display setup - we don't see wild changes even with gross movement of the sender around a singular virtual level point. And that is moving a sender pair like the Mooney. However each aircraft due to arm length and travel presents unique challenges We have thousands of aircraft flying with a similar configuration due to the nearly universal use of our system by most of the OEM manufacturers and this reporting is new. Yes owners find the system to be more sensitive - that is a true statement Lately - in the last day or two I am seeing a few of these show up in aftermarket installations - customers with issues in turbulence - Navajo and this Mooney Our testing is all computerized so I checked to see if something had changed, thankfully no joy. On the Navajo, I called a fleet operator to check in to see if they had seen similar issues with their aircraft. Thankfully the single owner operator was unique. We are looking into momentary losses of power to the sensor - which can produce a wilder set of outputs It is interesting to get field data as aircraft are notoriously individualized - and if we can prevent the anomalies to our best effort as it is best to get KUDU's vs disappointment. What we have created is a very large and accurate turn and bank indicator - so lateral acceleration or a little boogie action reaction to turbulence in the air can move the fuel outbd - yes that happens. So will putting a little pressure on the rudder. We are flying several aircraft with dataloggers onboard to capture real aircraft information - and we do get a large number of Garmin G1000 data dumps (a 1 second interval reporting) Internally we have our own damping algorithm or actually sets of algorithms, that for most production senders we turn off. This damping can be up to 16 seconds so that we can customize a fuel sending solution for any opportunity or anomalies that exist in any aircraft fuel system. Other than turbine helicopters, the Cessna TTx and a few military projects we have not turned this on. So Bob's observation can happen in a number of ways, but it is unusual - let us simulate that configuration and report back
  9. fuellevel

    Monroy tanks

    There are always several reasons Technically no in a single tank you need to provide fuel measurement from full to empty - where empty is the demonstrated zero usable fuel level. However several Aircraft fail to meet that criteria from new - Beech 23 series come to mind and there are several other mods like the Malibu fuel tank extension where mo additional sender is provided. There are some that meet an addendum like nacelle tanks in a Cessna twin but that is a clear auxiliary tank that pumps to a main tank Advisory Circular 23.17C specifically addresses using the totalizer as a fuel gauge and issues arising from changes. It is not to be utilized - excerpts from 23.17 Digital fuel flow computer systems have a fuel flow transducer that directly measures the fuel being fed to the engine. The fuel flow transducer may be a small paddle wheel, an impeller, or spring-loaded movable vanes. Digital displays with a fuel computer also allow these instruments to display total fuel consumed, total fuel remaining, and time remaining at the present fuel flow rate for fuel management. Overall accuracy for fuel remaining and time remaining readings depends on the transducer processing unit and display. The largest possible error is the initial fuel supply, which is entered by the pilot at the start of each flight. Errors in the initial fuel supply may be caused by an uneven ramp, unusual loading, volume changes of the fuel because of temperature variations, malfunctions in the fuel system such as leaks, siphoning actions, collapsed bladders, and other factors. So, total fuel remaining should be verified with the fuel quantity indicator. Changes to total fuel quantity by incorporation of a fuel tank filler connection (§ 23.973) outboard of the existing connection will require changing the fuel quantity indicator to indicate the new quantity of fuel. The new indicator should meet the accuracy as specified in TSO-C55a, “Fuel and Oil Quality Instruments,” or MIL-G-9798. Fuel quantity indicators are also governed by § 23.1301, as are all 14 CFR, part 23 Subpart F appliances. This regulation requires the installed indicators function as designed and not create a hazard in their operation. This precludes indicators that read higher than the actual fuel level since this would constitute a hazard. 14 CFR, part 23, does not require an applicant to install a TSO fuel quantity indicator. However, when installed in a reciprocating engine airplane and produced under TSO­ C55a authorization, the allowable error of the indicator is no more than three percent of full scale. All said - it is a matter of local ACO FAA interpretation that renders a system or component to meet or not meet the requirements - as the title is ADVISORY CIRCULAR. They the FAA is trying to standardize response. I got my licks in on the new regulation 23.2430 (4) Provide the flightcrew with a means to determine the total useable fuel available and provide uninterrupted supply of that fuel when the system is correctly operated, accounting for likely fuel fluctuations; However - how the above is determined can be accomplished in any manner. Best to let sleepy dogs lie
  10. Hey our friends at Aerospace Logic got it done - EASA Approval baby
  11. fuellevel

    Bladders, CiES, and calibration

    Sorry this thread went completely around me. We are dealing with a few issues internally with a major health issue with my production manager that has been a large distraction The calibration does sound wonky - do you have the information they put into the EI for calibration values. and was clearance checked on the outbd sender as it has hit things - should be less in the bladder install. I am around, but in Vegas for NBAA - but I am available
  12. fuellevel

    CiES Fuel Senders Resource Thread

    1. This setup does not work with frequency type without a new JPI harness and sending the unit back to JPI at a cost of $350. This has been a moving target as the charge was $200 prior to OSH17 and we didn't get a notification from JPI. I believe they charge similarly for new JPI's ordered specifically for our sender 2. There was no mention when we purchased these that there were different types of senders, would have been nice to know this before we blindly purchased something and wound up having to do more work and spend more money to make everything work together. I saw this before and we are working to make that as obvious as we possibly can. I typically mention that the Analog senders are future proofed in that you can always upgrade to digital in the future, typically mentioning that the blue wire exists on all senders we produce. Upgrade is then merely a wire swap. I heard clearly that you didn't receive that message. 3. Your installation manual leaves a lot to be desired, more details and diagrams would save others some of the same headache we have gone through here. Remember, we aren't all installing these in a Cirrus. Yes it does, I agree - I have two customers and one of them gets to edit the manual. These customers are the aviation consumer and the FAA. In doing certification for this project I had to convince the FAA that this was a simple project worthy of a similar type manual that is utilized by the JPI's, EI's of the world where two paragraphs suffice for the fuel quantity system. So now that I have the STC - I can be more specific and that was the reason for my post this morning, I was waiting for the insights you both found on installation and then I can incorporate them as a separate FAA approved document on the AML Remember however that the FAA can edit or completely reject what we provide and we both will be the worse off for it. But I do want to see your comments and illustrations
  13. fuellevel

    CiES Fuel Senders Resource Thread

    Hey any updates here. The phone calls for tech support ended a few weeks ago. What is the latest Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  14. fuellevel

    CiES Fuel Senders Resource Thread

    We can support an increase in fuel capacity - but we need to work with the STC holder to get it done we also need to let EI / JPI know