Fuel Sending Units

[Brandontwalker]

On a separate, but related, note.  Does anyone have the part number for the inboard fuel sender gasket on a J model?  I can't seem to find it on Spruce's website.

[wcb]

On 12/25/2017 at 9:51 PM, Bob_Belville said:

What model do you have? C & E have only one per side. F & J have 2.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 

I called for my F and CiES quoted around $1700 and some change for all four.  A steep price for what exactly if mine are currently working fine(simply more precise?)? 

[Bob_Belville]

1 hour ago, xcrmckenna said:

Hey Bob, 

I just received my EDM 900, I’m going from the 830. I was wondering if I should upgrade to the CiES sensors. And is changing them out just as simple as pulling the old ones out of the tank and installing the CiES units? Then hooking them up to the edm?

 

 

You have a choice. If you get the CiES installed as resistive (analog) you should be able to do a simple swap. But the preferred protocol for the CiES is digital (frequency) which should be more precise. That's what I elected to do so I had to send my 930 to JPI for conversion and a new harness. $350 plus freight.

(I took my plane down in December to add the expansion bladders and the CiES. I did a one hour test flight after that upgrade and am impressed with the CiES thus far. But I took the plane back down to get @Sabremech's cowl mod so I can't provide a complete pirep except to say that the install was very straightforward and I'm going to like having a 64 gallon E model. 

[Bob_Belville]

1 hour ago, wcb said:

I called for my F and CiES quoted around $1700 and some change for all four.  A steep price for what exactly if mine are currently working fine(simply more precise?)? 

Yup. that's about it. Of course fuel quantity is something we'd like to have precision on. 

[wcb]

Agreed.  To many occurrences of pilots mismanaging fuel.  I do not want to be one of those guys.  I will most likely be doing them when I do the tanks.

[luv737s]

Just paid $566 for a sender from Mooney (work done at Dugosh).  They are getting scarce...usually means cost more.  Good news is it fixed the problem.  Thought about a rebuild but got a 3 year warranty with this one.

 

 

[ArtVandelay]

Can Cies resistive be direct replacement, ie work with existing factory one on a J where you have 2 in series?
I don’t need $1700 worth of precision, I have FF and wing mounted gauges as well, and the lowest I’ve ever gotten to was 20 gal.

[Marauder]

5 hours ago, xcrmckenna said:

Hey Bob, 

I just received my EDM 900, I’m going from the 830. I was wondering if I should upgrade to the CiES sensors. And is changing them out just as simple as pulling the old ones out of the tank and installing the CiES units? Then hooking them up to the edm?

 

 

Nope. I wish it were. Depending whether you are running resistive, frequency, etc., you will need to do something different. I think you have a J model. This means you will have 4 senders. You will need to run some wires to the outboard senders. Also, depending on the firmware, you may need to have it upgraded. My thread on the CiES installations in my plane will talk to these steps.

[xcrmckenna]

Nope. I wish it were. Depending whether you are running resistive, frequency, etc., you will need to do something different. I think you have a J model. This means you will have 4 senders. You will need to run some wires to the outboard senders. Also, depending on the firmware, you may need to have it upgraded. My thread on the CiES installations in my plane will talk to these steps.

Thanks Marauder and right after I asked Bob that question I found your thread and spent the evening catching up on what I’m getting into:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

For tech questions regarding Cies senders... the sales guy is an engineer.  @fuellevel

If you are going JPI, it makes sense to have the accuracy of the digital/frequency type senders.  It is possible that Cies has senders that can handle both methods.  JPI can do both, but requires a visit back to the shop for your JPI hardware...

For fuel aromas in the cockpit, there are a few sources...

• fuel sender seals is a big one. When these leak the carpet starts to turn bluish in the back.  It smells like old plane when you open the door....
• fuel lines are connected with a short piece of rubber hose, if you haven't seen these, or your log entry for these. Find them, they will look crusty and crunchy, not very rubbery any more...

PP thoughts from a 65C that come to mind...

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

Thanks Marauder and right after I asked Bob that question I found your thread and spent the evening catching up on what I’m getting into:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Despite a challenging process to get the CiES and JPI details worked out, the CiES are a definite improvement from the old resistive senders. Never in the 27 years of ownership have I been able to look at my fuel gauges and know within a gallon what is in that tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[1964-M20E]

From Aerospace web site:

http://www.aerospacelogic.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=249

Aerospace Logic Digital (Digital Frequency Hz)

PART NUMBER: FL202D

List price: US$936.00  

Online Price: US$879.00

You save: US$57.00 (6%)

 

From CiES site: 

https://www.ciescorp.net/mooney.html

Senders are priced at $395 ea. for Digital Output (Which includes Outbd senders if outfitted)

So for me should I wish to replace my standard fuel gauges with an electronic version I would need 2 CiES senders sets with inboard and outboard $800 and the Aerospace Logic display unit for $900.  So $1,700 plus installation which would be my time working with my A&P.

All my other instruments have been replaced with Electronics International EI gauges and a Insight G-2 engine monitor.   However, the fuel gauges are original and the left gauge lately has been acting up and it is associated with the inboard sensor.  I have the bladders with inboard and outboard sending units.

Am I looking at this correctly?

 

 

 

 

 

[Marauder]

From Aerospace web site:

http://www.aerospacelogic.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=249

Aerospace Logic Digital (Digital Frequency Hz)

PART NUMBER: FL202D

List price: US$936.00  

Online Price: US$879.00

You save: US$57.00 (6%)   From CiES site: 
https://www.ciescorp.net/mooney.html
Senders are priced at $395 ea. for Digital Output (Which includes Outbd senders if outfitted)
So for me should I wish to replace my standard fuel gauges with an electronic version I would need 2 CiES senders sets with inboard and outboard $800 and the Aerospace Logic display unit for $900.  So $1,700 plus installation which would be my time working with my A&P.
All my other interments have been replaced with Electronics International EI gauges and a Insight G-2 engine monitor.   However, the fuel gauges are original and the left gauge lately has been acting up and it is associated with the inboard sensor.  I have the bladders with inboard and outboard sending units.
Am I looking at this correctly?
 
 
 
 
 

If you have an C or E, your bladdered plane will have only 2 senders. If you have an F, J or newer, you’ll have 4 senders. Based on Bob B’s report, with 2 inboard only senders, your gauge will read full until it has burned a few gallons.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Cyril Gibb]

19 hours ago, Marauder said:

If you have an C or E, your bladdered plane will have only 2 senders. If you have an F, J or newer, you’ll have 4 senders. Based on Bob B’s report, with 2 inboard only senders, your gauge will read full until it has burned a few gallons.

For an M20 that has 4 senders currently, is it legal to install only the inboard senders?  That doesn't sound correct, although in practice it wouldn't matter as long as the last 1/2 tank quantities were known accurately.

[Marauder]

For an M20 that has 4 senders currently, is it legal to install only the inboard senders?  That doesn't sound correct, although in practice it wouldn't matter as long as the last 1/2 tank quantities were known accurately.

 

I know when my annual was done at a MSC, they stated that they would pass my gauges because my tanks showed correctly at empty (Not sure how they did that since I thought both senders needed to be in the down position to show empty. I doubt they drained the tanks). So I am guessing the FAA requirement in the States is empty accuracy.

 

When Mooney was producing the short bodies, I believe they had initially 40 and then 52 gallon tanks. Which they certified with one sender per side. When the 64 gallon tanks were introduced, the gauges would be in accurate until the level reached the range of the inboard sender. If the requirement is “empty”, then I believe they could have stayed with one sender per side.

 

When Bob B did the CiES 2 sender installation on his 64 gallon bladder install, he reported that he needed to burn a fuel gallons off before a change was registered on the JPI. In my case, I am seeing immediately quantity reduction with the 4 senders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[carusoam]

One way to look at it....  (long winding logic of a PP)

1) you can know exactly how much you have before you start... no ambiguity there...

2) once you start the engine, the fuel used becomes less and less known, as time elapses.

3) if accuracy of the gauges can only be good at one end of the scale. Select the end furthest from when you knew how much fuel was in there to begin with....

4) Since you aren't going to accidently run out of fuel at the beginning of the flight, it is best to have accuracy of the gauges at the end of the flight...

5) Realistically, were not in the 60s any longer.  It is possible to have fuel gauges that work throughout the whole flight... no matter what the old regs claim...  read the old reg.  It can be interpreted in a couple of ways.  

6) The accuracy at empty requirement, gave flight instructors a way to explain pilot responsibility to students...

7) following this logic, in the case of a pilot that needs four sensors but can only get two... he can..

• Put two good sensors in one tank and know it’s fuel volume the whole time... use the unknown volume tank first.
• put one good sensor in the bottom of each tank and know pretty well what the volume of fuel is as it runs down from half way.
• put one good sensor in the top of each tank, and not know anything about fuel level as the tank runs down...

8) If there is ambiguity in the fuel level indication... it is better to have the ambiguity fade as the flight progresses.

9) the 65C’s single float 52gallon system, There is some ambiguity when the tanks are filled.  The float is inhibited as it bumps into the top limit.... after a few gallons are used from a tank the float starts operating properly.

10) it is OK to have some ambiguity... with full tanks.  Not OK to have ambiguity after that.

11) for some improvement...

• Check the float sensors do they operate smoothly? Are they floating properly? (Float integrity)
• Check the calibration of the gauge on the panel. Does it read properly with the motion of the float?

12) eBay dental cameras probably can be really helpful for checking the float age related issues in a dry tank...

13) only updating half of the system can lead to a lot of challenges as the memories fade...

14) modern Moonies often have Three floats in each tank, two gauges for each tank, and a fuel totalizer summing up the fuel used...

15) acceptable Worst Case... having ambiguity in fuel level at the beginning of the flight can lead to stopping short to get more fuel... plenty of warning in time to adjust the flight plan.

16) unacceptable worst case.... having ambiguity at the end of the flight, not knowing if you have enough fuel to get where you are going...

17) do whatever it takes to eliminate ambiguity. Starting with the ambiguity at the end of the flight first.

18) know that the two float (per tank) systems need the two floats to cover the range because the long tanks are going uphill, they are not level...

19) fuel level sensors on some modern Mooneys...

• 2 floats in each tank to feed data to the instrument panel, accurate in level flight.
• 1 float in each tank connected to the gauge on the wing, accurate on the ground for filling.
• 1 totalizer based on a spinning volumetric wheel sensor
• 1 gps to measure distance to destination.
• 1 computer to calculate gph, FL, distance, time and alarm when the fuel left doesn’t match the fuel required....
• Adding digital fuel level sensors provides accuracy of 1 gallon per tank or so.

20) Enough Technology to know you have enough fuel + reserves to go to the next airport...

21) No... you can’t mix a digital frequency sensor with an old resistor sensor in the same tank.

22) the new digital sensors can be set to operate as a resistance measuring device, but the accuracy is more resistive in style, not the 1% of the digital style.

 

Lots of things to think about. PP ideas only, not a mechanic.

Best regards,

-a-