CiES Fuel Senders Resource Thread

[gsxrpilot]

I installed the CiES at the same time I installed the EDM-900. Other than getting the correct firmware on the JPI to match the version of the senders, it was no problem at all. I couldn't be happier with the setup. There's nothing quite like complete confidence in your fuel situation when trying to get max range out of the Mooney. 

Living down deep in Texas, it takes some proper range just to get across the state line.

[jlunseth]

I know the feeling.  I flew from KFCM once to Asheville NC.  Both tanks were “red” during the approach and landing.  I knew I had the fuel and the gauges were wrong.  Still, it can’t help but create some anxiety.  Nothing like a little false pucker factor to brighten your day.

[Marauder]

Hmm.  That is a different error than I am getting. 
 
I get a "Fuel Level" error which requires me to press a button to "clear" it after which is seems to mess up the accuracy of the individual tank readings but the total remaining is still accurate. 

My error seems to occur only in flight and at some pitch attitude other than level, I.e either climbing or descending. 

Could be the way the error message is displayed on your version of firmware. How old is the unit and has it had any firmware updates? I suspect it is the same error.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[ArtVandelay]

I just installed the 900 and the fuel calibration failed. Pulled both inboard senders and manually move the float, both had erratic readings, the outboard senders seem ok, I’m guessing because the outboard senders spend less time submerged in avgas.

The JPI provided technical help sheet says Mooney senders range from 30-300ohms? I thought combining they are 0-60, makes me nervous JPI doesn’t know the specs. The bad thing about the calibration procedure is they don’t display the resistance readings, instead displaying some random numbers, otherwise we would have known something was wrong.

 

[Geoff]

4 hours ago, Marauder said:

 

Could be the way the error message is displayed on your version of firmware. How old is the unit and has it had any firmware updates? I suspect it is the same error.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

The unit is 2 months old. Senders are factory originals. No firmware update that I am aware of. 

[Bob_Belville]

We installed the 10 gallon bladder extension in January along with CiES sensors. The EDM 930 went back to JPI to change it for the digital senders and update the firmware. Before I got to go anywhere except a test flight we sent the cowls to @Sabremechfor the new cowl so yesterday was the first flight of any duration with the CiES.

The improvement in info is nothing short of awesome. Even though my old E model has only one sensor per side and the arm only extends a short distance from the fuselage the accuracy is great except for the first few gallons at the top of the highest cell. Like older cars, the level stays on full (32 per side) until in drops 4 or 5 gallons fairly suddenly after which it is rock solid. Wow.  And the revised JPI display now includes "fuel remaining" based on FF right beside the column displaying fuel in each tank based upon the CiES. This provides great backup/redundancy. FWIW my firmware is now rev 1.20.532.001.

There's a cautionary pop up that displays if the FF derived info varies by some amount from the CiES derived info. 

[Bob_Belville]

I don't think I've updated this thread for my trip to Tampa. I used 34.5 gallons per FF accumulator and the CiES read 14.1 and 15.2 remaining so 64 total minus 29.3 = 34.7 used. Pretty close!

Looking at the data with Savvy indicates that the first 6 gallons from each side does not register with the floats but by the time I had used 8 gallons out of a tank the FF and the CiES level agree. That makes sense since we calibrated the sensors at 0, 8, 16, 24, 32 gallons per side. (That's empty.1/4, 1/2, 3/4, full)

The M20E only has 1 sensor per side which is in the 1st, most inboard bladder cell ot of 4 per side.

[Marauder]

I don't think I've updated this thread for my trip to Tampa. I used 34.5 gallons per FF accumulator and the CiES read 14.1 and 15.2 remaining so 64 total minus 29.3 = 34.7 used. Pretty close!
Looking at the data with Savvy indicates that the first 6 gallons from each side does not register with the floats but by the time I had used 8 gallons out of a tank the FF and the CiES level agree. That makes sense since we calibrated the sensors at 0, 8, 16, 24, 32 gallons per side. (That's empty.1/4, 1/2, 3/4, full)
The M20E only has 1 sensor per side which is in the 1st, most inboard bladder cell ot of 4 per side.

How did you get your fuel quantity to read a tenth decimal place? Mine doesn’t.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Bob_Belville]

10 minutes ago, Marauder said:

How did you get your fuel quantity to read a tenth decimal place? Mine doesn’t.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

I don't think mine displays decimal gallons on the screen but have you looked at your downloaded data? That's what I'm analyzing.

[carusoam]

1/10th sounds too accurate for something bouncing around in flight...?

Unless they have some really nice and accurate smoothing to go with that...

Thinking out loud,

-a-

[Marauder]

1/10th sounds too accurate for something bouncing around in flight...?

Unless they have some really nice and accurate smoothing to go with that...

Thinking out loud,

-a-

 

That’s the weird thing - they don’t bounce around in flight. The number stays solid until it flips down to the next gallon if you are burning from that tank. If I switch tanks, that amount of fuel indicated doesn’t change at all.

 

I’ll need to look at my JPI data and compare to the log I keep. I am consistently within 0.2 gallons between the fuel totalizer and the gallons I put in. I sometimes will see a gallon off on the fuel gauges, but it probably is the rounding it does.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Bob_Belville]

4 hours ago, Marauder said:

 

That’s the weird thing - they don’t bounce around in flight. The number stays solid until it flips down to the next gallon if you are burning from that tank. If I switch tanks, that amount of fuel indicated doesn’t change at all.

 

I’ll need to look at my JPI data and compare to the log I keep. I am consistently within 0.2 gallons between the fuel totalizer and the gallons I put in. I sometimes will see a gallon off on the fuel gauges, but it probably is the rounding it does.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Looking at the data I see that when I took 4 minutes to climb from 8000 to 9000' the fuel level went from 19.1 up to 19.7. It took about 3 minutes after I leveled off for the fuel level to return to 19.1.  This indicates to me that the float is sensitive to pitch and that there is dampening going on.

[carusoam]

Sounds like...

1) 1 Part accuracy...recognizing a change in pitch...

If the floats are closer to the trailing edge, the level will rise with positive pitch, descend while lowering the pitch...

If the floats are closer to the leading edge, the level will descend with positive pitch, increase while lowering the pitch... (Bob’s description above ?)

Based on gravity moving fuel in the tank while changing pitch to various angles...

The Cies seem to be proving their accuracy well over time. True to their claim of accuracy while in level flight?  

New idea... improve their accuracy during various pitch attitudes... locating the float to be in the best location for rotation around the pitch axis... how is that for a minor improvement? (May require different float arms to accomplish)

 

2) 1 Part averaging over time...

If the IO360 is burning fuel at a max rate or 18gph during the climb... 

• 0.3 g/min...
• 0.1 g/20 seconds...

At the highest fuel flow, it would take 20 seconds to change the actual fuel level 0.1 gallon.

For our IO550 powered friends... 27.2 gph... 0.45gpm... 0.1 gallon every 12 seconds

It looks like it would make sense to average a lot of data over this time frame before expecting to see the fuel level drop consistently as expected...

For the higher FF of the larger engine... averaging needs to be done over a shorter period of time to recognize the 0.1gph smoothness... If too long of a period we’re used... the numbers may seem to jump by 0.2gph... depending very much on the averaging algorithm...?

 

3) Interesting observation regarding ‘reaction time?’ After leveling off... 3 minutes... Sounds like the existing averaging period / algorythm may be longer than it needs to be...?

4) Is there something known as a center of volume, or center of cross sectional area?  A place that would make the most sense for Mooney fuel floats to be arcing through?  This would minimize the change in fuel due to the change in attitude...

 

Either way... Much better than bouncing needles in turbulence....

 

sounds really better than originally forecast...

Our Cies Salesguy/engineer has got to love this...

Thanks for sharing the details.

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

And another dumb question. You guys ran another ground wire back to the head unit. Where exactly did you mean? Sharing the ground it has, or to the mounting plate that holds it in the panel? Sorry.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I sent this hand drawing to you in a PM but thought I would share it here so others can take the mystery out of the grounding situation. There needs to be a ground from one of the screws holding the sender in place (after sandpapering away the anodized surface of the sender around that screw hole) to the plane chassis. And then you need to run the outboard sender's black wire to the inboard sender's black wire and then connect these two wires with the ground wire from the supplied JPI cable. Repeat for the other set of senders. I used a Delco style disconnect connector to facilitate removing the senders if needed.

 

[Davarron]

When installing the cies fuel senders, what fuel inspection panels need to be removed, if any? I ask because I may wait to install them until I think about new paint in many years. All of the panels above the wing have not been touched since the plane was repainted a few years ago.

[Marauder]

When installing the cies fuel senders, what fuel inspection panels need to be removed, if any? I ask because I may wait to install them until I think about new paint in many years. All of the panels above the wing have not been touched since the plane was repainted a few years ago.

 

Depending if you have a 2 or 4 fuel sender system. On the older models, you will typically find 2 and they are located behind the interior panels inside the cockpit, between the crew and rear passenger seats.

 

On the 4 sender planes, they are located behind an access panel near the front of the wings. You will need to remove the next inboard access panel to be able to run the wires.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Bob_Belville]

29 minutes ago, Davarron said:

When installing the cies fuel senders, what fuel inspection panels need to be removed, if any? I ask because I may wait to install them until I think about new paint in many years. All of the panels above the wing have not been touched since the plane was repainted a few years ago.

Since you have a J with 4 senders you'll remove one access panel on the bottom of the wing just outboard the fuel compartment. On short bodies the senders are accessed from the cabin so no wing panels get removed. 

(The access panel you remove is probably removed at every annual.)

[Bob - S50]

1 hour ago, Davarron said:

When installing the cies fuel senders, what fuel inspection panels need to be removed, if any? I ask because I may wait to install them until I think about new paint in many years. All of the panels above the wing have not been touched since the plane was repainted a few years ago.

Sort of a combination of what they said above.  On the J you have two senders that you replace from inside the cabin and two senders in the end of the tank that are accessed through an inspection panel on the bottom of the wing just outboard of the fuel tank.  Do not remove ANY panels from the tank itself.  If you don't see a weep hole in the panel, don't take it off.  Also, you'll need to remove several inspection panels along the leading edge of the wing to snake a power wire out to the outboard float.

[xcrmckenna]

When installing the cies fuel senders, what fuel inspection panels need to be removed, if any? I ask because I may wait to install them until I think about new paint in many years. All of the panels above the wing have not been touched since the plane was repainted a few years ago.

You don’t need to open any fuel panels. These are the three access panels I opened in the wing. The outside panel gets you to the outside fuel sender. The two inner panels let you run the wires.



I’m the cabin you’ll need to remove whatever interior panels, seats and what not to access the lower kick panel in the back seat to reach the inner fuel sender.



Again DONT’T remove any of the fuel panels:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Davarron]

Well that makes me feel a lot better. Thanks for the good info and pictures.

[fuellevel]

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 

[Marauder]

5 hours ago, David Herman said:

Just did a long flight yesterday ... (really only the second or third flight since installation which was long enough to evaluate the performance) and the CiES fuel senders w/ the EDM-930 has got to be the most accurate system I’ve seen in a GA airplane.

Not a perfect system. But the best I have had in a small aircraft. 

A few observations:

1. I did get that error message that Maurader noted above, but it lasted a few seconds and went away.
2. I noted during the flight that the sum total of the two tanks indications varied from the “fuel remaining” reading by as much as two gallons early in the flight?

• I’m thinking the “fuel remaining” number is dictated by the “fuel used” subtracted from the fuel which you tell the JPI you have at power-up?
• And of course the individual tank quantities are strictly from the CiES senders.
• so ... two different readings from two different sources?

       3. I noticed as fuel was burned from the tanks, the gap closed until eventually the two readings matched ... exactly. (I use the recommended fuel management technique. Use one tank one hour, switch, use other tank one hour, switch, use all fuel in that tank, switch) I know the shop mentioned they focused the (five?) calibration points to be more accurate at the lower levels than at the higher fuel levels ... I wonder if that is a factor? 

       4. I noticed (If I recall correctly) that the numbers on the fuel quantity gauges stepped in twos (I.e. - 26-24-22-20-18) rather the one gallon at a time ..? But I’m not sure sure if I recalled correctly?

What mode are you running in? Frequency or resistive are the usual modes.

1. If you are referring to the "fuel mismatch" error, I have not seen it since going with frequency mode CiES senders. I suspect you will get a "fuel mismatch" error if you filled up and didn't tell the JPI you did it.

2. I think the fuel used & fuel remaining are strictly from the totalizer and are derived from what you said you have in the tanks at fillup. 

3. I am not sure what the shop meant by focusing to more accurate on the low levels. Maybe they took more data points when the tank was closer to empty? Mine was spread out evenly across the expected fuel quantity in the tank.

4. I always see 1 gallon step downs in fuel quantity used. Never saw a 2 gallon step down. When Bob B told me to look in the JPI raw data, I could see if I appeared to be off during fill-up between the fuel totalizer and the fuel gauges, it was clearly a rounding thing going on with the JPI. When I used the decimal version of the data, I am always within 0.3 gallons between what the totalizer said I used and the tank quantity level reported in decimal format.

[Marauder]

3 minutes ago, David Herman said:

Frequency ... or my shop didn’t follow my instructions.

1) I did tell it I filled-up ... the error message was about the top of climb or shortly afterward. I wonder if it was pitch change related?

2) ya

3) My understanding was you could set five calibration points ... and while they made recommendations ... where to set them was your discretion?

4) not sure? Not sure if that’s what I saw either? I’ll have to pay closer attention next flight. However, you have four senders ... and Bob and I have two. Wonder if that makes a difference?

 

For point 1, this all could be related to points 3 and 4. I am sure the algorithm is based on averaging those data points to make intermediate calculations for quantity left and reported. The linearity of that line may be slightly skewed since the data points are on the low side and less from the high side. In other words, if on a 64 gallon tank they did calibrations at 0, 5, 10, 20 and full, the readings between 20 and full may not be linear. On the other hand, calibrating at the low end, you are probably a lot more accurate. I am finding the way Terry and I calibrating it is working fine all the way through the fuel quantity levels.

On point 4, absolutely. Bob has shown it doesn't register correctly until the fuel is burned down a bit. Bob should be able to chime in on what he is seeing with his two sender CiES installation.

[fuellevel]

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

[MoonFlyer68]

Hello all.  I am very glad I found this topic here.  I am taking my 68 M20F to Griggs next week for bladder install due to some leaking in the right wing.  I was thinking that it was also the ideal time to upgrade the fuel sending units.  Initially I would still use my factory fuel gauges.  At a later date (when the wallet can support it after the cost of bladders) I want to put in a nice engine monitor primary gauge replacement.  Knowing that I wanted to use the digital signal with the engine monitor my initial thought was that I could not do this.  After reading all 7 pages I noticed that if I order the analog version of the senders they already have the wiring for the digital installed.  Basically they are both analog AND digital.

 

So just to be sure before I commit myself, I can purchase and have installed the analog senders to drive my factory gauges and when I install the engine monitor gauge replacement I can get the digital signal by using the blue wire instead of the green?  Can someone please confirm that this is correct?  Sounds like a no brainer to have the senders done when the bladders are installed as it would save on the labor of doing them separately.  Thanks for the help.