Jump to content

CiES Fuel Senders Resource Thread


Marauder

Recommended Posts

On 6/11/2021 at 7:32 PM, fuellevel said:

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.

 

201541715_ScreenShot2021-06-11at6_23_53PM.thumb.png.e31df2d09a7c8ce0d2ff2a67efd901b8.png

 

1068644750_ScreenShot2021-06-11at6_20_33PM.thumb.png.7e47130a111a13cdbb3c3c1bf936b31e.png

+Great product that works well once installed. 

-Nightmare for the installers to fine tune sender geometry.  It is great to write a caveat to cover all installations that just says “make sure sender is free to move from the top to the bottom.”  It is also great to see this in a cutaway of a tank — much harder in real life where filler ports are one or more ribs aways from the sender ports.  It is impossible to see the installed float in many applications.

The real installation process is:

1.  Look in the installation hole (lights, mirrors, camera,...) and try to guess what the sender might hit.  Then guess if a bend is needed and install the sender.

2.  Start the calibration process by filling the tank and watching the electronic output for sender movement throughout the full tank range.  This requires a full fill of the tank.

3.  If issues arise, the tank now needs to be fully drained.

4.  Try to figure out what the problem is when it is almost impossible to have the sender installed and look for interferences in many installations.  Do whatever you can to fix, bend,... the installation.

5.  Reinstall and repeat.  Then you get to start over on the other side.  Then imagine a bigger plane with two discrete tanks on each side.

As you can see the installation process can be very extended, time consuming and expensive.  We will no longer quote a flat rate for this installation and will coach potential customers that the install process can be difficult and can get expensive.

I don’t want to be too negative, just set realistic expectations for all parties involved.  I will repeat that they are great senders and seem to be very accurate.  It would be great if CIES could find a way to reliably duplicate the geometry of the senders being removed to resolve installation issues.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Warren said:

 It would be great if CIES could find a way to reliably duplicate the geometry of the senders being removed to resolve installation issues.

We need this information and the eyes of people installing the senders as mentioned above  -  We have the ability to make an arm in any manner.   We choose 3003 Aluminum rod for its ability to take and keep a bend and corrosion resistance. 

So here is our favorite Cirrus G2 installer - just to be ecumenical   We get videos and we act on them.    I can't do anything without some documentation,  remember the FAA is always ready to help. 

I have made adjustments only to rub on some sealant somewhere else  

We have a CNC rod bender  - its in our video 

 

https://youtu.be/AzNHs3TEgvs?t=25

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the picture of the original M20M senders if it helps the community to pre-bend new CIES senders. I am still comparing sight gauges on the wing vs digital fuel readouts on the EIS. I understand that the CIES are calibrated for level flight and so when I taxi over to the fuel pit in a bit and put 20 gallons in I hope to see a commensurate increase in the digital readout.

 

1638802219_ScreenShot2021-06-15at12_27_29PM.thumb.png.ed6ef4762eaf73cac02ab5bec7bf72bd.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just reading up on this, as my avionics installer is asking me if I want these senders.

I have an M with 89gals

For long-range trips, I have used the totalizer that came with the plane with great success. 

I feel comfortable landing with 20 in the tanks and filling up again with 65-70 gals.

What demonstrable benefit (rather than just knowing exactly how much is in the tank) will I get from using these? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rbp said:

What demonstrable benefit (rather than just knowing exactly how much is in the tank) will I get from using these?

The main benefit of good fuel gauges in an airplane with an accurate fuel totalizer system is to cover failure modes the totalizer can't "see".  The obvious one is failure to program the totalizer correctly.  Another is a bad or missing gas cap that allows fuel to be siphoned out of the tank in flight.  Another that's applicable to Continental fuel injection is a leak in the fuel return system.

It's fair to argue that even the old, original, "inaccurate" senders give you pretty good protection against these sorts of problems.  But some people want better accuracy than those old senders can provide even when they're in good shape.  Longevity is another selling point, though it's unclear to me whether the CIES senders are demonstrably better in that respect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rbp said:

The estimate I got was $2000 for the senders and $4000 for installation. None of those sound like a $6000 problem

Well if they do it right the first time (not a knock on my installer - but educate your installer in advance) it should take 8-12 hours which would include R&R, wiring, calibration and I can't see how they would get to 40ish hours. The installer that handled mine said they are not going to bill by the job anymore on these, they have had two very time consuming installs (including mine). 

I have done similar math with speed brakes. How much would it cost me to put in electrics - that stick out over the wing - just to get rid of the remaining 5lb vacuum pump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fuellevel See pic from pilotX…

-a-

8 hours ago, PilotX said:

Here is the picture of the original M20M senders if it helps the community to pre-bend new CIES senders. I am still comparing sight gauges on the wing vs digital fuel readouts on the EIS. I understand that the CIES are calibrated for level flight and so when I taxi over to the fuel pit in a bit and put 20 gallons in I hope to see a commensurate increase in the digital readout.

 

1638802219_ScreenShot2021-06-15at12_27_29PM.thumb.png.ed6ef4762eaf73cac02ab5bec7bf72bd.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rbp said:

The estimate I got was $2000 for the senders and $4000 for installation. None of those sound like a $6000 problem

Depends on who you are…

Somebody collected the data that said running out of fuel is still a problem for pilots…

The Ceis sensors connected to a digital display would be a vast improvement over the mechanical gauges in my plane…

It is really easy to not reset the totalizer or know exactly how much fuel is in the tank at the beginning…

So… I mostly use my FF/totalizer to do the dirty work…

Leaves me pretty dependent on that one sensor… that is known to get dirty, or count air bubbles while failing….

Your numbers sound a tad high….  What price would make sense for you to have decent fuel data… 5amu, 4amu, 3amu, 2amu?

Terry did a great job of explaining the instilation a while back…

For a really expensive job… include putting in a JPI or G-EIS… for the data display…  :)

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a backup instrument for the totalizer! 

its called a watch: I allocate a very generous 24gph in the climb @500fpm/120KIAS, and 20gph in fast cruise (based on CHT and TIT). those numbers make the math easy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great set of numbers rbp!

My M20C didn’t have FF/totalizer… it took me dozens of flights to collect actual numbers to go with my time keeper… :)

Then I had to take decent notes on leg timing…

Hard to believe the data was so repeatable….  That took dozens of more flights to prove how repeatable it was…

Flying Life before MS was so much more difficult… :)

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The estimate I got was $2000 for the senders and $4000 for installation. None of those sound like a $6000 problem

Where they wearing an eye patch with their mask when they handed you the estimate?

Terry H and I installed mine. In my case, the real work was running new wires to operate the senders in frequency mode. Being a slow and meticulous owner, it took me about 5 hours. There is another 3 hours removing and reinstalling the interior to get to the inboard senders. And then another 3 hours to make the connections and do the calibration. Even doubling that to 22 hours and using a $100/hr shop rate, I’m not sure how they came up with $6,000.

I’ve been flying behind these CiES senders for the past 3.5 years. I actually look at my fuel gauges now. 90% of the fill ups are within 0.5 gallon what the gauges are reading. And when they are off, it is no more than a gallon and it is usually because of the expansion/cooling thing that goes on with fuel. There is a rounding thing going on with the JPI 900 displayed quantity. Bob Belville clued me in to look at the raw data from a JPI download. You can see it to a decimal place.

I have seen and heard comments about problems with their fit. In my case, I needed to install them upside down to make them clear everything. I did speak to Scott a lot through the process and at times it was frustrating because the FAA approved documentation left out details. He explained the challenges of modifying the documentation for every application. I get it.

I can attest they work great in an F model with bladders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 6/15/2021 at 8:27 PM, carusoam said:

@fuellevel See pic from pilotX…

-a-

 

We have the original factory senders.   We also have some pictures/videos recently from Garmin showing interference, which we are reviewing.   Keeping Garmin and the rest of our customers  happy is a good thing  Our current AML sender update has been with the FAA since January, with no prognosis on completion.    The senders were designed and originated for the current Mooney production   Bill Wheat and Charles Beck worked together to get the initial CiES fuel sender on factory Mooney aircraft.   Charles Beck is the inventor.     I have installed the senders on current Mooney production aircraft with no issue - but I also know how close they can come to structure and I am very careful to put the sender in without bending.  That being true - it isn't a guarantee it will work every time   Even a jigged wing built as well as a Mooney has variations  That is the nature of aircraft production quantities. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.