CiES Fuel Senders Resource Thread

[LANCECASPER]

I had a JPI 930 installed recently with CIES senders. (I have the Monroy Long Range Tanks)

The total published fuel that I can take onboard is 120 gallons (and the JPI is programmed for this number), although I can squeeze a little more in.  So my total fuel used on this morning's fill up was accurate. I had 52.7 gallons remaining when I topped off (squeezed in as much as I could) with 71.06 gallons.

However the quantity showing in each tank is way off. Before top off I showed 44 remaining on the R side and 46 on the left side. The left took on 38.86 gallons and the right took on 32.2 gallons. The shop that did the install did a good job on the JPI itself but this was their first install of CIES on a Mooney. They did not get the calibration right. 

I'm waiting for a call back from Laura at SWTA to see if they can schedule me for a calibration, (JD said they can do it - just a matter of scheduling me in.)

Question for the Mooney braintrust: Does anyone who has installed a JPI-930 (or 900) on a Long Body with Monroy Long Range Tanks have their calibration table that they used when setting up their JPI? I would like to look at the numbers on mine and see how far off they are. Thanks

[StevenL757]

3 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Question for the Mooney braintrust: Does anyone who has installed a JPI-930 (or 900) on a Long Body with Monroy Long Range Tanks have their calibration table that they used when setting up their JPI? I would like to look at the numbers on mine and see how far off they are. Thanks

I have mine somewhere.  Need to do a little searching, but will do so and send along.

Do you care whether I have 102USG capacity, or are you just looking for a trend/pattern to which you can compare your data?

[LANCECASPER]

Just now, StevenL757 said:

I have mine somewhere.  Need to do a little searching, but will do so and send along.

Do you care whether I have 102USG capacity, or are you just looking for a trend/pattern to which you can compare your data?

Figures with Monroy tanks would be perfect but I'd like to compare the trend/pattern on any long body. Thanks

[carusoam]

Lance do you have 130 gal with that?

I can ask my favorite accountant with a similar set-up in his Bravo...

He probably could use a break... it’s kinda tax season lately... 

@Danb

 

Standard  Long Body tanks have 44.5 gallons noted in their POH...

JPI typically takes copies of the POH and mis-handles the data accordingly...

It helps to have a good contact with JPI while setting these devices up...  fortunately we got that...

Ask @Jeev!

Jeev is an MSer and retailer of fine products like the line of JPI engine monitors... he is also pretty close to their business...

Best regards,

-a-
 

[LANCECASPER]

11 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Lance do you have 130 gal with that?

I can ask my favorite accountant with a similar set-up in his Bravo...

He probably could use a break... it’s kinda tax season lately... 

@Danb

 

Standard  Long Body tanks have 44.5 gallons noted in their POH...

JPI typically takes copies of the POH and mis-handles the data accordingly...

It helps to have a good contact with JPI while setting these devices up...  fortunately we got that...

Ask @Jeev!

Jeev is an MSer and retailer of fine products like the line of JPI engine monitors... he is also pretty close to their business...

Best regards,

-a-
 

Back when they did this one it was 120. I think Acclaims might have 130 gallon long range tanks.

[Davidv]

12 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

I had a JPI 930 installed recently with CIES senders. (I have the Monroy Long Range Tanks)

The total published fuel that I can take onboard is 120 gallons (and the JPI is programmed for this number), although I can squeeze a little more in.  So my total fuel used on this morning's fill up was accurate. I had 52.7 gallons remaining when I topped off (squeezed in as much as I could) with 71.06 gallons.

However the quantity showing in each tank is way off. Before top off I showed 44 remaining on the R side and 46 on the left side. The left took on 38.86 gallons and the right took on 32.2 gallons. The shop that did the install did a good job on the JPI itself but this was their first install of CIES on a Mooney. They did not get the calibration right. 

I'm waiting for a call back from Laura at SWTA to see if they can schedule me for a calibration, (JD said they can do it - just a matter of scheduling me in.)

Question for the Mooney braintrust: Does anyone who has installed a JPI-930 (or 900) on a Long Body with Monroy Long Range Tanks have their calibration table that they used when setting up their JPI? I would like to look at the numbers on mine and see how far off they are. Thanks

 

Hi Lance, I’m sure you’ve thought of this, but I don’t believe your fuel levels can show more than the stock 44.5 (or thereabouts).  Once that outboard sender is fully deflected in the up position I’m not sure how it would know how much more fuel is left?  Since the Monroys are further outboard that sender should show full up well before you get to 120 gallons.  I had them installed with my G3X and both gauges are pegged to the high 40s until I burn off some fuel. 

[carusoam]

When it comes to extended fuel tanks and fuel float locations... and what the JPI may be saying...

It may be helpful to have a couple of people added to the conversation...

@fuellevel and @Gagarin.

 

The situation...

1) A long body has extended range fuel tanks... 120gal. (Up from 89gal nominal)

2) The owner is adding Ceis fuel level sensors

3) How does the JPI 900 get set up to best account for the extra fuel?

4) Have the outer fuel float locations changed when the additional capacity got added?

5) Or... did the capacity increase, and the fuel level measuring system stay unchanged, indicating 44.5 gal on each side?

6) If the Mooney factory were to deliver a new Bravo today with the extended capacity fuel tanks...  how would things get marked?

1) Fuel gauges on the instrument panel... 0-45.5 or 0-60

2) placards on the panel indicating total fuel...

3) placards on the fuel selector switch

4) placards on the wing at the fuel selector

 

Hmmmmm...

I think I covered the issue pretty well...  but it is complex enough I may have missed a few things...

Best regards,

-a-

[Danb]

-A-  I do have 130 gal tanks, generally fill to 120 for long trips, other times I keep it between 45-95 gal for just flying around. BTW one of the best additions and first upgrade to my plane about six months after purchase, my wife complained why I had to stop for fuel after five hours or so, I told her about the upgrade available she said do it.

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, Davidv said:

Hi Lance, I’m sure you’ve thought of this, but I don’t believe your fuel levels can show more than the stock 44.5 (or thereabouts).  Once that outboard sender is fully deflected in the up position I’m not sure how it would know how much more fuel is left?  Since the Monroys are further outboard that sender should show full up well before you get to 120 gallons.  I had them installed with my G3X and both gauges are pegged to the high 40s until I burn off some fuel. 

Yes I agree 100% and that's what I was expecting. But I had burned off 71 gallons and was still showing 44 (R) and 46 (L) gallons remaining, so the calibration is off.

Thankfully total fuel remaining showing 52.7 was very close (that comes from the fuel that went through the fuel flow transducer not the CIES senders). I would just like to know which tank has what.

[LANCECASPER]

On 5/6/2021 at 6:05 AM, carusoam said:

When it comes to extended fuel tanks and fuel float locations... and what the JPI may be saying...

It may be helpful to have a couple of people added to the conversation...

@fuellevel and @Gagarin.

 

The situation...

1) A long body has extended range fuel tanks... 120gal. (Up from 89gal nominal)

2) The owner is adding Ceis fuel level sensors

3) How does the JPI 900 get set up to best account for the extra fuel?

4) Have the outer fuel float locations changed when the additional capacity got added?

5) Or... did the capacity increase, and the fuel level measuring system stay unchanged, indicating 44.5 gal on each side?

6) If the Mooney factory were to deliver a new Bravo today with the extended capacity fuel tanks...  how would things get marked?

1) Fuel gauges on the instrument panel... 0-45.5 or 0-60

2) placards on the panel indicating total fuel...

3) placards on the fuel selector switch

4) placards on the wing at the fuel selector

 

Hmmmmm...

I think I covered the issue pretty well...  but it is complex enough I may have missed a few things...

Best regards,

-a-

You forgot to mention that you're only a PP, not a flight engineer. : )

[Davidv]

1 minute ago, LANCECASPER said:

Yes I agree 100% and that's what I was expecting. But I had burned off 71 gallons and was still showing 44 (R) and 46 (L) gallons remaining, so the calibration is off.

Thankfully total fuel remaining showing 52.7 was very close (that comes from the fuel that went through the fuel flow transducer not the CIES senders). I would just like to know which tank has what.

Yes, maybe if the JPI is set to 89/102 gallons and you recalibrate it will solve the issue, but I'm no expert in this area so I'll just quietly wait for someone who is more knowledgeable to weigh in .

[LANCECASPER]

3 minutes ago, Davidv said:

Yes, maybe if the JPI is set to 89/102 gallons and you recalibrate it will solve the issue, but I'm no expert in this area so I'll just quietly wait for someone who is more knowledgeable to weigh in .

Or if I leave the total at 120 (for the fuel totalizer feature) and set the calibration table figures the same for 60 on each side to the figures for 44.5. (There are data points you enter for each tank.)

[fuellevel]

I only play a flight engineer on TV.    We should be able to read more than the factory placarder just due to the fact that “by regulation” Mooney had to leave a 3% tank capacity vent volume.     This is ostensibly to limit fuel going overboard in a full fuel situation in the sun, or leave expansion room in the tank.   Geometry of location plays a part -but we should be able to read a gallon or so higher.   I’d have to spend time doing this on a Mooney with the Monroy tanks.    I’d love to work with them (monroy) to give full indication for the mod - but I would need their help.  

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, fuellevel said:

I only play a flight engineer on TV.    We should be able to read more than the factory placarder just due to the fact that “by regulation” Mooney had to leave a 3% tank capacity vent volume.     This is ostensibly to limit fuel going overboard in a full fuel situation in the sun, or leave expansion room in the tank.   Geometry of location plays a part -but we should be able to read a gallon or so higher.   I’d have to spend time doing this on a Mooney with the Monroy tanks.    I’d love to work with them (monroy) to give full indication for the mod - but I would need their help.  

@Gagarin Paging Jose Monroy

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, fuellevel said:

I only play a flight engineer on TV.    We should be able to read more than the factory placarder just due to the fact that “by regulation” Mooney had to leave a 3% tank capacity vent volume.     This is ostensibly to limit fuel going overboard in a full fuel situation in the sun, or leave expansion room in the tank.   Geometry of location plays a part -but we should be able to read a gallon or so higher.   I’d have to spend time doing this on a Mooney with the Monroy tanks.    I’d love to work with them (monroy) to give full indication for the mod - but I would need their help.  

I volunteer my Mooney for you to use in figuring this out.

[RobertGary1]

What is the reason to do this vs overhauling the factory senders? I’m leaning towards overhauling the factory ones because it appears to be 1/2 the price. I’m assuming they’ll last another 40 years again. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by RobertGary1

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

What is the reason to do this vs overhauling the factory senders? I’m leaning towards overhauling the factory ones because it appears to be 1/2 the price. I’m assuming they’ll last another 40 years again. 

@fuellevelScott, Robert is lobbing you an easy one here. Give him and the rest of the onlookers your pitch for more accurate senders. 

[kortopates]

18 hours ago, fuellevel said:

I only play a flight engineer on TV.    We should be able to read more than the factory placarder just due to the fact that “by regulation” Mooney had to leave a 3% tank capacity vent volume.     This is ostensibly to limit fuel going overboard in a full fuel situation in the sun, or leave expansion room in the tank.   Geometry of location plays a part -but we should be able to read a gallon or so higher.   I’d have to spend time doing this on a Mooney with the Monroy tanks.    I’d love to work with them (monroy) to give full indication for the mod - but I would need their help.  

We would need a 3rd sensor on the extended tank or moving the existing the outboard to the extended outboard position - but the doubt the latter would work well - I would bet there is too little change in the inboard when outer tank is dry. 

With the 2 CIES I get do get a much better accounting of fuel in the extended tanks just from re-calibrating with the extended tanks - its not perfect but greatly improved and I get more and more accurate indications the lower the fuel in the tanks get.

Edited May 13, 2021 by kortopates

[fuellevel]

On 5/13/2021 at 8:43 AM, RobertGary1 said:

What is the reason to do this vs overhauling the factory senders? I’m leaning towards overhauling the factory ones because it appears to be 1/2 the price. I’m assuming they’ll last another 40 years again. 

Hmm.   So because we study the issue in depth,  the method of failure for classic resistance fuel senders is a loosening of the pivot at the sender body.   this additional clearance needs to be accounted for as accurate contact pressure needs to be maintained between the beryllium follower and the resistance grid.   Too much and the resistance grid wears out or the float doesn't fall onto the fuel surface  and too little and there is intermittent contact with the grid -  the latter is the source of windshield wiper fuel gauges.           

Rebuilt senders typically put in a new beryllium follower and resistance grid and do not address the pivot pin wear.... or corrosion pitting or security of the assembly.    We get fuel level senders sent to us everyday  - it isn't a good look let alone something to fly with. 

Your current senders when they and the aircraft was new - utilized tooling for  the fuel senders that was accurate and maintained to produce a large number of relatively accurate fuel senders per year.   For the aviation market - the tooling was brought out a few times a year for a replacement production run as the primary customers had moved on  - I suspect that output quality for this tooling was neglected as well.    It was a technology that was commonly used and common in its day but it was replaced wholesale 30 yrs ago   

So yeah we are more expensive - but we use aviation grade materials and practice.  We set up what we do to be low volume and to hold accuracy for life despite that.      

Accurate fuel level at this point is proving to be the most effective way to prevent fuel related accidents.    We and others in this field providing accurate fuel quantity in aircraft  have yet to see a fuel related  incident or accident aircraft.   as I have been quoted - zero is a pretty impactful number. 

 

 

 

[carusoam]

Great pitch, RG1.... high, fast, right down the center....

Fantastic response FL!...   I think you got all of that one....  

Tremendous detail, at the engineering level... and shared for everyone.

Thanks for sharing the details...

Go Cies!

Best regards,

-a-

[PilotX]

Not writing to ding anybody just to get the information out. This isn't the shop's first install of CIES senders and they assure me I will be much happier with the accuracy. I told them I didn't trust back up cameras for the first six months I had one, I don't know that I will ever trust a fuel sender.

So I was hoping to make sure this post is searchable so I will tag it as best as I can. First, I don't know the rules regarding certification or adding info that isn't part of the STC to the kit or install instruction but if @fuellevel could please help get the word out via the CIES website that the senders don't fit out of the box, maybe put something in the box, perhaps even tell people to go to MS or BT, have the sales folks mention it. 

I knew there was a bend needed in the based upon a discussion with @LANCECASPER it was something I read on MS in March. The avionics tech doesn't read MS (nor did he ask me any questions), I think his quote was "I don't stay up all night reading MooneySpace" - I would have changed shops had he told me that months ago. The instructions on CIES (that he read) did not mention anything and I don't think there was much curiosity as it is only five screws.  However, the CIES fuel senders out of the box do not fit in an M20M Bravo. The rods have to be bent to fit to prevent getting hung up on ribs, protrusions, etc.

If anybody is installing senders in the future don't hesitate to DM and I will talk you through my experience. I am certain I will be pleased with the final result but the education of avionics techs is expensive and preventable, to an extent. I paid by the job but other CBs may not be so lucky.

Bravo M20M CIES Fuel Sender Bend Fitment

Edited June 9, 2021 by PilotX
Slight de-barbing and clarity

[carusoam]

2 hours ago, PilotX said:

First, I don't know the rules but...

Probably the most important rule is to contain the disappointment... and keep it positive...

If you want people to get the message... stay on the message.

If you want vendors to be helpful... be helpful to the vendors.

Sometimes it takes a day or two to get past the aggravation... to write what it is you want to have attached to your name...

PP thoughts only not a writing coach...

Best regards,

-a-

[Tom 4536]

18 hours ago, PilotX said:

Not writing to ding anybody just to get the information out. This isn't the shop's first install of CIES senders and they assure me I will be much happier with the accuracy. I told them I didn't trust back up cameras for the first six months I had one, I don't know that I will ever trust a fuel sender.

So I was hoping to make sure this post is searchable so I will tag it as best as I can. First, I don't know the rules regarding certification or adding info that isn't part of the STC to the kit or install instruction but if @fuellevel could please help get the word out via the CIES website that the senders don't fit out of the box, maybe put something in the box, perhaps even tell people to go to MS or BT, have the sales folks mention it. 

I knew there was a bend needed in the based upon a discussion with @LANCECASPER it was something I read on MS in March. The avionics tech doesn't read MS (nor did he ask me any questions), I think his quote was "I don't stay up all night reading MooneySpace" - I would have changed shops had he told me that months ago. The instructions on CIES (that he read) did not mention anything and I don't think there was much curiosity as it is only five screws.  However, the CIES fuel senders out of the box do not fit in an M20M Bravo. The rods have to be bent to fit to prevent getting hung up on ribs, protrusions, etc.

If anybody is installing senders in the future don't hesitate to DM and I will talk you through my experience. I am certain I will be pleased with the final result but the education of avionics techs is expensive and preventable, to an extent. I paid by the job but other CBs may not be so lucky.

Bravo M20M CIES Fuel Sender Bend Fitment

One of my new Cies senders hung up. They had to drain the tank and bend the sender. A note in the box would have saved some time and $$. BUT, I do like these fuel senders. They work well with my new JPI 900.

 

[Bob - S50]

4 hours ago, Tom 4536 said:

One of my new Cies senders hung up. They had to drain the tank and bend the sender. A note in the box would have saved some time and $$. BUT, I do like these fuel senders. They work well with my new JPI 900.

 

If I remember right from when we installed the floats in our plane, there was a note instructing us to ensure that the float didn't hang up on anything.  It didn't specifically say "you have to bend the float wire to avoid having the float hang up on a Mooney xxx", it just said make sure it doesn't hang up.

[fuellevel]

One - there is an amazing number of variations in aircraft - even between serial numbers.

When we have consistent information we make changes.

But this is on Page 10 

The insert in the box lets the installer know that this document is available online.

In the beginning we make sure we highlight items the installer should pay attention to

This is an industry standard warning - typically found in Garmin install manuals.