Thinking of replacing engine gauges w/ certified digital

[gsxrpilot]

I had the G2 in my first Mooney and loved it. The data logging parameters, while limited to the available probes, are better and easier to access then any JPI or EI. The fuel flow/fuel management screen is better than the JPI/EI as well, in my opinion. Finally, the GEM's have the best resolution/color screens of any of the small round gauges.

The cost delta between the G2 and the EDM900 or even EDM830, is significant. For the money, the G2 is a great solution.

[wombat]

The install cost is also a huge factor in this decision.    Adding the fuel transducer will be a hassle, but also adding in MP, RPM and OAT and pressure will add a couple of hours each to the install.   At $90/hr, upgrading to the G3 would cost an extra $800 or so just for the install as well as the difference in unit price.  I'm just glad I am able to convince my co-owner to get anything.

[fuellevel]

12 hours ago, jlunseth said:

.  I tried to find out if they work with the JPI and EI can't say.  It would apparently be up to your mechanic.  

It would be difficult to get it to work together - the EI sender is part of the EI STC as another probe.   You would have to utilize the JPI sensor 5V power.  There is no power protection on the EI Magnetic sensor circuit card, as it relies on the EI CGR or MVP regulated and protected power.    You will have to stay under the JPI 4.6 or 4.7 volt limit and there is no adjustability for this.   The EI circuit card is above.   It probably looks better if it wasn't dug out of potting material to be photographed. 

Because we received separate TSO approval for the sender, it had to have its own power supply.  To meet a variety of output capabilities our sender is programmable to curve fit the output to meet any requirement.   The nice thing is that JPI working with CiES now allows digital input on both the JPI 900 and it was always available on the JPI 930.  Our record of MTBF is 288,000 hrs, about 1/3 of this performance I attribute to the digital communication.    We use and hold the patent for utilizing a more robust magnetic field sensor technology - AMR (Anisotropic Magneto Resistive) vs Hall Effect.   We have a majority of OEM contracts (Cirrus, Textron, Quest, Tecnam, Vulcanair ...) for supplying fuel sending technology.   But that is the market we are pursuing  and EI is supporting aftermarket aircraft installations.  The volume that consistent manufacturing allows CiES to sell a more feature enriched product at a similar price.  

Both senders EI and CiES  are huge improvements over resistive rheostat senders of the past.  The senders are similarly if not identically priced.   Obviously we believe ours to be better for the reasons stated above.  

 

 

[wombat]

I think I talked to you guys briefly at the Northwest Aviation Conference yesterday.  

[fuellevel]

Yes we were there @ the NW Aviation Conference 

[jlunseth]

Thank you!

There has to be something better than the factory senders.  Both of mine show empty when there is still around 10 gals. in the particular tank, and they have a tendency to "stick," in other words it will read full for quite awhile (37 gals.) and then suddenly it is at 20.  

[jamesm]

Are these fuellevel  approved for "C" model Mooney's ?  My biggest fear is a leak  after installation..... Don't like disturbing the tank sealant, I try avoid it all possible cost. Currently no leaks at wing root in the cabin where the present fuel senders are  located , hope to keep it that way for the next 20 years.

What is involve in changing out fuel senders is the 4 screws and nuts  and a  gasket ?

Curious....  Is there a reason why your fuel sender assembly aren't either a threaded to receive a screw or a threaded to receive a nut ?

I take it  from the picture above (of the fuel sender)  suggests  that  the OEM fuel sender have nuts inside the tank or the the head of the screw is inside the tank  another potential source for a possible leak it has been quite  a while since I have looked inside the tank don't remember how the OEM fuel sender are assembled.

 

I like your resolution of your  fuel sender  much better than OEM  fuel sender ( I think mine is 30 ohm) especially in the gauge reading.

I Have a Insight G3 and would like to get rid of the oil/fuel/amp OEM engine gauge cluster at some point. What are the fuel gauge options ? 

What is the calibration procedure for a typical 52 gal Mooney "C" model ?

Thanks,

James '67C

 

 

 

[fuellevel]

The Mooney has sealed nut plates in the tank. So all fuel senders consist of a plate or in our case a machined part that is bolted to the tank. We don't have a wire feed through to leak and the gasket provides a second barrier to fuel leakage around the attachment bolts. MOONEY used smaller screws with isolating washers but it is an easy bolt in replacement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk