CiES Fuel Senders Resource Thread

[201Mooniac]

Paul, From what I understand Garmin had updated the GEA-110 wiring diagrams awhile ago and just got to updating the GEA-24 wiring diagrams, no idea why they changed it for one adapter but not both.

[kortopates]

interesting. Sounds like an oversight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MironV]

4 hours ago, 201Mooniac said:

Well hopefully that should be an easy fix and you can be working quickly

No, I mean they grounded things properly. So the issue is something else.

[aviatoreb]

I've been reading through this thread and trying to figure three things - 

- Is this something a good local mechanic can handle or does it really need to be a fuel tank specialist?  Or is this an avionics shop specialist job?

- How many hours does this install take?

- I see the kit comes with a set of 4.  Does that mean it measures each of my four main bays - the two mains and the two LR tanks?  Do I get a measurement on each as to how much remaining?

CIES DIGITAL SENDER FOR MOONEY M20FGJK SET OF 4

 

$1740.00/Set

 

Part# 10-06546
MFR Model# CC284022-M20FGJK-101

[carusoam]

9 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I've been reading through this thread and trying to figure three things - 

- Is this something a good local mechanic can handle or does it really need to be a fuel tank specialist?  Or is this an avionics shop specialist job?

- How many hours does this install take?

- I see the kit comes with a set of 4.  Does that mean it measures each of my four main bays - the two mains and the two LR tanks?  Do I get a measurement on each as to how much remaining?

CIES DIGITAL SENDER FOR MOONEY M20FGJK SET OF 4

 

$1740.00/Set

 

Part# 10-06546
MFR Model# CC284022-M20FGJK-101

I ran into Terry the other day (Mooney fly in)… he is the mechanic that worked with Marauder on his install….

 

Expect that they use two sensors in each large tank… low end, and high end of the tank….

In the case where two separate tanks are used… one sensor per tank will work pretty well…

 

in the end… the whole system gets calibrated one gallon at a time… gravity keeps things pretty consistent…

So expect that you get a reading per wing… with great accuracy… 

Sorry, no math required… 
 

Select the sensors that use frequency, vs. resistance for the small additional accuracy…

As far as install goes…prior Cies experience Would be helpful… 

Mooney fuel tanks are the least understood… the M20K has the most complex fuel tanks…. Not seen by all mechanics…

Knowing all of the obstructions found in the tanks will be helpful… recognizing them during install  is why you want somebody with prior experience…

Terry is in East PA… mentioned he is mostly on the FaceBook group….

We also get really good help around here from the Cies guy… @fuellevel

 

So….

1) Get the Cies floats, using Hz…

2) Install connected to your JPI 900… make sure it is Hz ready. Some can be updated in the field, other may need to return to home base for the update…

3) Calibrate, and enjoy!

We should have a Mooney fly-in and do a Cies fuel tank calibration…  

Best regards,

-a-

[kortopates]

The CIES senders replace only your original Mooney senders, in the main tanks. There aren’t any senders in the extended/aux tanks.
You’ll still get better accuracy with the extended tanks when properly calibrated over the original senders, but not perfect since the senders will max out before the tanks are filled to capacity.
If the engine monitor is already installed, then very little special skill is needed.
But hours estimate should come from someone who is willing and able to do the job for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

It sounds like I do not necessarily need to go to a fuel tank specialist (e.g. weepnomore or such), but I really would like to go to a Mooney specialist (near me - which is not so near - I would likely go either Weber at KLNS or airmods in NJ).  Sounds like its a pretty high hours job - but the kit itself is pretty reasonable.

E

[Marauder]

It sounds like I do not necessarily need to go to a fuel tank specialist (e.g. weepnomore or such), but I really would like to go to a Mooney specialist (near me - which is not so near - I would likely go either Weber at KLNS or airmods in NJ).  Sounds like its a pretty high hours job - but the kit itself is pretty reasonable.
E

You don’t need to go to a Mooney specialist to install these senders. A competent mechanic can do it.

You will want to replace your existing wiring with shielded wire. The majority of my time installing these senders was spent running the new wires and the time it took to calibrate the senders.

As Anthony mentioned, your JPI will need to have the firmware required to support these senders. Also, JPI provides a harness to connect to the JPI. Again, nothing a mechanic can’t handle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[aviatoreb]

13 minutes ago, Marauder said:

You don’t need to go to a Mooney specialist to install these senders. A competent mechanic can do it.

You will want to replace your existing wiring with shielded wire. The majority of my time installing these senders was spent running the new wires and the time it took to calibrate the senders.

As Anthony mentioned, your JPI will need to have the firmware required to support these senders. Also, JPI provides a harness to connect to the JPI. Again, nothing a mechanic can’t handle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

...I think this will be my next upgrade!

[TheAv8r]

@Marauder So I have an E model with the same Griggs O&N Bladders, and am doing a EDM 930 / CIES senders install. My avionics shop asked for all the documentation around the powerplant and fuel system, so of course I sent them what I had - which included the AFM from Griggs stating the total fuel was a little over 57 gallons, and total useable was 54.8gal. I'm assuming this is what he sent to JPI when making the order. 

So, as you said, you couldn't get an ounce more than 52gal in the airplane.... assuming the senders are calibrated correctly, how is this going to reflect on the JPI? Do we need to call them to have them reprogram the fuel limit accordingly, or will it report accurately the 52gal in the tanks, but JPI won't show that as "full" per se? 

[Marauder]

[mention=9886]Marauder[/mention] So I have an E model with the same Griggs O&N Bladders, and am doing a EDM 930 / CIES senders install. My avionics shop asked for all the documentation around the powerplant and fuel system, so of course I sent them what I had - which included the AFM from Griggs stating the total fuel was a little over 57 gallons, and total useable was 54.8gal. I'm assuming this is what he sent to JPI when making the order. 
So, as you said, you couldn't get an ounce more than 52gal in the airplane.... assuming the senders are calibrated correctly, how is this going to reflect on the JPI? Do we need to call them to have them reprogram the fuel limit accordingly, or will it report accurately the 52gal in the tanks, but JPI won't show that as "full" per se? 

During the calibration, we set the top end of the calibration to 26 gallons per side. In the years since I have installed the senders, they are always within 0.5 gallons on fill up between what the pump says and what the JPI is reporting. So while O&N and subsequently Grigg’s belief is you have 27.4 usable per side, reality says otherwise. I proved this not only on fill ups but also when I ran a tank down to 3 gallons so I could change out the sump drains. The total fuel left was the 3 gallons plus the unusable found in the bladder documentation.

The JPI doesn’t report decimal values on the display but it has decimal level resolution in the way it calculates the amount in a tank. And that data resolution is in the JPI download data.

What that means if you see 15 gallons on the JPI, it will be somewhere between 14.6 and 15.5 in reality. It will round to the whole value (Bob Belville clued me into that phenomenon).

One thing I can’t state enough is how accurate these sender/gauge combinations are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TheAv8r]

20 minutes ago, Marauder said:

During the calibration, we set the top end of the calibration to 26 gallons per side. In the years since I have installed the senders, they are always within 0.5 gallons on fill up between what the pump says and what the JPI is reporting. So while O&N and subsequently Grigg’s belief is you have 27.4 usable per side, reality says otherwise. I proved this not only on fill ups but also when I ran a tank down to 3 gallons so I could change out the sump drains. The total fuel left was the 3 gallons plus the unusable found in the bladder documentation.

The JPI doesn’t report decimal values on the display but it has decimal level resolution in the way it calculates the amount in a tank. And that data resolution is in the JPI download data.

What that means if you see 15 gallons on the JPI, it will be somewhere between 14.6 and 15.5 in reality. It will round to the whole value (Bob Belville clued me into that phenomenon).

One thing I can’t state enough is how accurate these sender/gauge combinations are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Forgive me, still trying to wrap my head around this, so JPI would have programmed the L/R fuel tanks to 27.4gal/tank... so if you're setting the CIES calibration to report full at 26gal, would the JPI be reporting 27.4gal or 26gal? Just want to make sure I relay the right information to my shop since I'm sure he's thinking it will be 27.4gal.

Good to know on the decimal rounding, that's helpful! Very much looking forward to the accuracy of having both.

[Marauder]

Forgive me, still trying to wrap my head around this, so JPI would have programmed the L/R fuel tanks to 27.4gal/tank... so if you're setting the CIES calibration to report full at 26gal, would the JPI be reporting 27.4gal or 26gal? Just want to make sure I relay the right information to my shop since I'm sure he's thinking it will be 27.4gal.
Good to know on the decimal rounding, that's helpful! Very much looking forward to the accuracy of having both.

Whatever value JPI puts in can be updated during your calibration. The mechanic should be told to set the JPI to the actual amount they can stick in the tanks. The calibration steps will be just the actual value based on how many gallons you put in at each step. When the final amount is added, it will be the actual the tank can hold.

My plane’s bladders were installed in 1991. I often wondered if they could possible shrink over time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, Marauder said:

During the calibration, we set the top end of the calibration to 26 gallons per side. In the years since I have installed the senders, they are always within 0.5 gallons on fill up between what the pump says and what the JPI is reporting. So while O&N and subsequently Grigg’s belief is you have 27.4 usable per side, reality says otherwise. I proved this not only on fill ups but also when I ran a tank down to 3 gallons so I could change out the sump drains. The total fuel left was the 3 gallons plus the unusable found in the bladder documentation.

The JPI doesn’t report decimal values on the display but it has decimal level resolution in the way it calculates the amount in a tank. And that data resolution is in the JPI download data.

What that means if you see 15 gallons on the JPI, it will be somewhere between 14.6 and 15.5 in reality. It will round to the whole value (Bob Belville clued me into that phenomenon).

One thing I can’t state enough is how accurate these sender/gauge combinations are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Huh. That's not how I would have designed it if I were designing the software.  I would want a reading of 15 to correspond to 15.0 through 15.99.

E

[carusoam]

Keep in mind how JPI works with certified planes…

1) POH values are everything…

2) STCs supplement the POH data…

So….

Be sure to supply the paper work that reflects the proper value of fuel capacity in your certified bird…

Technically… 103 gallons actually fits in my fuel tanks on level ground….

But only 89 useable is documented in the M20R POH…. And 95 total…

So… there is some unaccounted for volume between the documents and reality…

The important value…. Is when the fuel level reaches the bottom of the tank… it best be very accurate there…

 

Using floats for measuring fuel level must be nearing their end, technically… They have so many limitations.   

Best regards,

-a-

[Mooney-Shiner]

Does anyone else have a problem with squashing their sender gaskets? I used the 18 inch/lb torque (CIES install manual prescribes 18-22 inch/lb).

Edited May 18, 2024 by Mooney-Shiner

[Utah20Gflyer]

1 hour ago, Mooney-Shiner said:

Does anyone else have a problem with squashing their sender gaskets? I used the 18 inch/lb torque (CIES install manual prescribes 18-22 inch/lb).

No. My gaskets didn’t compress like that.  Are you sure you didn’t use ft.lbs?   If you did use the correct torque then I would check with CIES.  It could be that they had a batch of gaskets that were too soft.  

[Mooney-Shiner]

38 minutes ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

No. My gaskets didn’t compress like that.  Are you sure you didn’t use ft.lbs?   If you did use the correct torque then I would check with CIES.  It could be that they had a batch of gaskets that were too soft.  

Thank you. Yes, used the torque screwdriver at 18 in. What measured torque did you use? 

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, Mooney-Shiner said:

Thank you. Yes, used the torque screwdriver at 18 in. What measured torque did you use? 

If that’s the case your torque screwdriver is way off.  They should be snug but not over-torqued like that. Those gaskets are completely deformed and will most likely leak sooner than later, if they aren’t already.

[Mooney-Shiner]

31 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

If that’s the case your torque screwdriver is way off.  They should be snug but not over-torqued like that. Those gaskets are completely deformed and will most likely leak sooner than later, if they aren’t already.

How did you measure your torque? Maybe I will use your method 

[LANCECASPER]

On 5/18/2024 at 2:17 PM, Mooney-Shiner said:

How did you measure your torque? Maybe I will use your method 

I had the CIES senders installed in February 2021 in a Bravo that I had. Since I'm not an A & P I let the avionics shop do it since they had installed quite a few CIES senders. I happened to be there the day they did it and I helped with the tedious fuel calibration.  I remember them snugging them diagonally,  like you would diagonally when doing lug nuts on a car. I don't remember if they used a torque screwdriver, but the silicone material is just like the new valve cover gaskets that are on the engine.

(The same principle applies as in these instructions for silicone valve cover gaskets, not to over-tighten: https://realgaskets.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/RG-632459-approved-2018.pdf)

If you use to much pressure you will deform them. When thinking inch-pounds, think "snug", not "torqued".

This is a picture from @kortopates earlier post on this thread, but it looks just like mine did when they were finished. No leaks.

[Utah20Gflyer]

4 hours ago, Mooney-Shiner said:

Thank you. Yes, used the torque screwdriver at 18 in. What measured torque did you use? 

So it’s been a couple years but from what I remember I got everything in place and snugged up and then the A&P  finished tightening them up.  We didn’t come to an agreement as to a torque but I think we talked about the spec and he said that was too much and he did it by feel and maybe to some degree the look of the gasket.  I think you want it to be as tight as you can make it with deforming the gasket.  
 

I am certainly not qualified to say this is the correct way of doing it.  I think CIES is the judge of what is correct since it is their product, BUT several years later I have no leaks and everything is working fine.  So you can do with this information what you would like.
 

 I’d be interested to know how many people have actually used the torque spec versus the method used on my plane and whether CIES has received much feedback on the issue.  It could be most people ignore the spec and never tell CIES and therefore it never got reconsidered. 

[LANCECASPER]

With any gasket like this I wouldn’t start with going all the way to the published torque value, just start snugging with common sense. When is the gasket doing its job? When there’s no gap, but the gasket retains its shape.

Then if you want, see what that registers on your torque device. If it looks way off, gently see if you have any more room before you start changing the shape of the gasket. If it’s still way off from the instructions get some guidance. You can always tighten, you can’t do much if you’ve over-tightened and broken the fastener or deformed the gasket, other than replace the gasket. Then before putting the interior back I would make sure that after filling up there are no leaks.

Most people over-do it when torquing almost any fastener. If a little is good, it just seems like more would be better. But try getting lug nuts off of a wheel when the newbie in the shop has re-installed your wheels on your car or truck. Or try getting the spark plugs out when the prior gorilla-mechanic has installed them or when he has not used anti-sieze. 

Soon after buying that airplane, but well before the CIES project I smelled fuel in the cockpit. When I re-did the interior I gave the screws a little tightening on the old senders (cork gaskets). It took care of it.

[FlyingDude]

On 8/17/2017 at 1:28 PM, Bob - S50 said:

The floats were marked with which side goes up.  However, doing that, the holes in the float did not match the bolt pattern on our plane. 

Hi, 

Reviving the thread. I just opened the package yesterday, and I'm in the same situation. However, when I turn it upside down, the float points aft and hits stuff. I'll call cies tomorrow first thing, but I thought maybe you guys already knew what's happening. 

Thanks.