CiES Fuel Senders Resource Thread

[kortopates]

1 hour ago, N6758N said:

The CiES manual does not mention anywhere the need to run the grounds back to the unit, nor does it mention anything specific to the JPI.

I mentioned that in my post on the 8/17, but I didn't realize that JPI had made that a requirement so to speak with the drawing. We just had lots of problems that were suspected to be from grounding issues, so one of the final changes was bringing the ground back to the cockpit which was the best insurance to solve that and got us past an unstable signal.

[N6758N]

3 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I mentioned that in my post on the 8/17, but I didn't realize that JPI had made that a requirement so to speak with the drawing. We just had lots of problems that were suspected to be from grounding issues, so one of the final changes was bringing the ground back to the cockpit which was the best insurance to solve that and got us past an unstable signal.

I do remember seeing that in your post Paul, next time I will follow that! Chris and I think that the signal wire needs to see the ground come from internal to the JPI in order for everything to work and 'complete the circuit'.  Hence why you had issues until you ran the ground back to the JPI. The really frustrating thing is that the CiES drawings fail to mention this anywhere. 

[fuellevel]

So yes we want to see critical information, and please bring it on    But you have to remember that in the end - CiES nor JPI are the authors of the manuals, that particular responsibility remains with the FAA.  For our example they removed half of the information supplied.  

JPI and CiES try to supplant that limited information we are allowed to share FAA wise - in supplemental directions. 

We were lucky to get blanket approval referencing original senders from the various aircraft we got approval for  i.e. either we had example senders or factory data  - and the bladder installation utilizes per its documentation the existing Mooney senders.    Could there be a better install knowing that the bladder exists in some Mooney aircraft  - probably 

The question becomes, what is that market size or how many customers with this particular configuration.   Is it worth a custom install with a custom directions.    The FAA puts a caveat to the installer in any STC that the viability of the STC is dependent on any other modification performed on the aircraft.    As you stray farther and farther form type design - the clear path is less available.  

As for complexity - we tried as hard as possible to keep this simple in adding one more wire to what was a passive system - i.e. it bolts into the same space and you need to run a power wire.      Our senders intend to use aircraft power for operation - grounding our senders through someone else box i.e. JPI  may compromise the available power to the sender and render it intermittant.   We are not privy to JPI internal schematics,  and yes I know JPI wants the ground to go to the sender.    We have not had success on some installs with the senders grounded through the JPI - Paul K's being a good example  - ground the JPI to the aircraft in the cockpit and ground the senders to aircraft structure locally (insuring a good wing structure ground to a known good ground like the engine mount)  This limits the amount of wiring you have to deal with and it has been proven to be a better installation. 

As for AE concern - what happened in this aircraft is that the outbd circuit cards were placed on the inbd senders and vice versa.    The only difference in circuit cards is the number of wires and the board components and software are identical..  What happened is called a Quality Escape - this needs to documented and there has to be an action plan put in place and documented to preclude this from happening again.    This is the material we will be audited by the FAA on next week.   It is an onerous and time consuming process to be wrong.

But here lies the rub - all of the aircraft we deal with are old -   In the case of Cessna's in Alaska for example  - some / not all are flying with different wings than what they had when they left Wichita.    So we can supply the correct senders for a Cessna 180 for a model year - but it will be different for that aircraft.    Now throw in variation like Monarch tanks and extended range tanks manufactured by companies other than Cessna - the variations become endless and confusing - and when we get it wrong, which happens - we have to go through the process above.  Many legacy senders we see have customization done at the factory to miss a blob of excessive sealant for example or an internal repair. 

Panel instruments are nearly easy by comparison (mounted to a reasonable flat Instrument panel - and again variations are legion 

OEM wise our quality hovers around 99.99% -  i.e. no returned units from the field.    But this business is consistent, uniform  and supported by the OEM.   Are there issues - yes - Somebody may change something in the tank - and there may be clearance issues resulting.   Feedback that consistent and constructive  helps  - also pictures  

 

 

[Marauder]

I mentioned that in my post on the 8/17, but I didn't realize that JPI had made that a requirement so to speak with the drawing. We just had lots of problems that were suspected to be from grounding issues, so one of the final changes was bringing the ground back to the cockpit which was the best insurance to solve that and got us past an unstable signal.

 

One of the advantages working for a company filled with top shelf EEs, I get to ask a lot of stupid questions and get a college level tutorial as an answer.

 

The grounding issue is a real one. Even in the CiES manual there is mention of the grounding resistance for the actual sender itself (I believe this is for safety). The grounding of the sender measurement circuit should be made back at the JPI unit itself. The cable that JPI sent is shielded and I suspect they are concerned as well with interference. We currently have the sender measurement circuit grounded near the sender. I will run the JPI wire and make the ground connection back to the JPI. The only GOOD news is that I had enough foresight to run another ground wire from the outboard senders into the the plane and grounded it with the inboard ground. No more Marauder flesh hanging off of Tinnermans.

 

The issue with grounding the sender measurement circuit at the airframe is any electrical interference could be picked up by the ground. As well, any poor grounding or corrosion could affect the integrity of the ground.

 

On a related topic, Terry and I are mauling over the usable fuel situation. From comments others have made about the amount of fuel they can get into their bladders, there appears to be some dynamics at work. Terry will be speaking to Grigg's about this since the actual amount of usable fuel is needed to be known in order to do the JPI calibration.

 

My mechanic who installed the JPI told me he could not get more than 50 gallons of usable into the plane on two attempts. I suspected there may have been poorly placed foam installed (the 2005 AD) but had the MSC confirm it was installed correctly. I also thought the bladder might have folded on itself, but looking into the tank with a borescope didn't see any evidence of folding.

 

Since Terry has not installed his tanks yet, we are contemplating doing a capacity check. We are thinking about closing off all of the openings and then filling the bladders with water to determine by weight how much they can hold. This will give us the total amount of fuel. Due to the dihedral of the wings, I'm guessing that a portion of the outboard most tank can't be completely filled. This may have meant that O&N knew this and installed larger tanks knowing that an air gap was going to remain. The fact they quoted exactly 54.8 gallons of usable makes me believe they did do some measurements.

 

To address the unusable portion, we know that a certain amount of fuel will sit in the tank below the pick-ups. If we removed the fuel line from the tank and slowly poured a known quantity of fuel into the tank until the fuel starts to come out, we would have an idea of the unusable amount. A confirmation of this amount could be then also be determined by draining the tank at the sumps and then measuring how much we captured.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Bob_Belville]

26 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 

One of the advantages working for a company filled with top shelf EEs, I get to ask a lot of stupid questions and get a college level tutorial as an answer.

 

The grounding issue is a real one. Even in the CiES manual there is mention of the grounding resistance for the actual sender itself (I believe this is for safety). The grounding of the sender measurement circuit should be made back at the JPI unit itself. The cable that JPI sent is shielded and I suspect they are concerned as well with interference. We currently have the sender measurement circuit grounded near the sender. I will run the JPI wire and make the ground connection back to the JPI. The only GOOD news is that I had enough foresight to run another ground wire from the outboard senders into the the plane and grounded it with the inboard ground. No more Marauder flesh hanging off of Tinnermans.

 

The issue with grounding the sender measurement circuit at the airframe is any electrical interference could be picked up by the ground. As well, any poor grounding or corrosion could affect the integrity of the ground.

 

On a related topic, Terry and I are mauling over the usable fuel situation. From comments others have made about the amount of fuel they can get into their bladders, there appears to be some dynamics at work. Terry will be speaking to Grigg's about this since the actual amount of usable fuel is needed to be known in order to do the JPI calibration.

 

My mechanic who installed the JPI told me he could not get more than 50 gallons of usable into the plane on two attempts. I suspected there may have been poorly placed foam installed (the 2005 AD) but had the MSC confirm it was installed correctly. I also thought the bladder might have folded on itself, but looking into the tank with a borescope didn't see any evidence of folding.

 

Since Terry has not installed his tanks yet, we are contemplating doing a capacity check. We are thinking about closing off all of the openings and then filling the bladders with water to determine by weight how much they can hold. This will give us the total amount of fuel. Due to the dihedral of the wings, I'm guessing that a portion of the outboard most tank can't be completely filled. This may have meant that O&N knew this and installed larger tanks knowing that an air gap was going to remain. The fact they quoted exactly 54.8 gallons of usable makes me believe they did do some measurements.

 

To address the unusable portion, we know that a certain amount of fuel will sit in the tank below the pick-ups. If we removed the fuel line from the tank and slowly poured a known quantity of fuel into the tank until the fuel starts to come out, we would have an idea of the unusable amount. A confirmation of this amount could be then also be determined by draining the tank at the sumps and then measuring how much we captured.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

As I have previously reported the Avionics shop that installed and calibrated my JPI 930 was unable to get more than 26 gallons in each wing though they "knew" they were suppose to hold 27.4 per side.  

I will be very interested in what light the Griggs folk who also worked at O&N can shed on this issue. This might not be the right thread to ask but I also wonder if anyone can confirm that their bladders will hold the 27.4 per side referenced on the STC?

[N6758N]

1 minute ago, Bob_Belville said:

As I have previously reported the Avionics shop that installed and calibrated my JPI 930 was unable to get more than 26 gallons in each wing though they "knew" they were suppose to hold 27.4 per side.  

I will be very interested in what light the Griggs folk who also worked at O&N can shed on this issue. This might not be the right thread to ask but I also wonder if anyone can confirm that their bladders will hold the 27.4 per side referenced on the STC?

I have sent an email out to Griggs and am hoping someone from their tech side will respond soon so we will have something on the record.  We are thinking that these bladders have some air trapped in the corners when full, and by filling the tanks on a slope, the uphill wing might be able to fit more fuel in it. 

[N6758N]

And Griggs has answered, I present exhibit A, the Flight manual supplement for the 54.8 system. Total fuel capacity is 57.3 gallons, with 54.8 usable. 

 

FMS Mooney M20F,J Rev 1 4-20-15.pdf

[Danb]

14 hours ago, Marauder said:

I will be providing a full write-up in the next week with all of the things we are doing to install these senders. That write-up will happen after the dust settles in southeastern PA.

I will say that the CiES Installation manual leaves a lot to guess work. There is no mention of the difference between bladder and wet wing installs.

It is clear JPI has been working on this frequency thing for a while based on the release of their wiring diagram that came with the JPI after the modification they made to the unit. They also provided a cable and I recommend using it. -- again more in the full write-up.

Here is the JPI wiring diagram:



I also saw on Aircraft Spruce there is a configuration option to buy the unit already configured for CiES senders in frequency mode. None of this was mentioned in the CiES Installation manual.



As someone who works in the OEM electronics world, I believe CiES should have done a better job of providing the necessary information to let consumers know what was going to be required to install these units in any particular mode. I am also a bit concerned over their QA when it comes to sending out properly configured senders. Again more in the full write-up. I also think JPI probably was left sorting through how to make these work in frequency mode. As someone who has seen this happen to OEM electronics, it makes them look bad but better coordination of the aftermarket product with the OEM would have prevented this.

I'm hopeful that Terry and I will look back and laugh at this comedy routine we are going through to make these work. But for now, it's been a frustrating adventure.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Chris you have completely talked me out of these until all issues are resolved, I have enough things complicated at this point. Very glad I read this thread.  Btw Chris good luck finishing up.

[Marauder]

And Griggs has answered, I present exhibit A, the Flight manual supplement for the 54.8 system. Total fuel capacity is 57.3 gallons, with 54.8 usable. 
 
FMS Mooney M20F,J Rev 1 4-20-15.pdf

So you know what this means Terry? Mythbuster time!! I think to find the missing fuel, we will need to jack one wing up and see if can get more fuel in the opposite wing. I still think the air bubble will be there since the fuel connection points are low in the tank. All we will do is move the bubble from the outside of the most outboard bladder to the innermost portion of the bladder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[N6758N]

4 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 

So you know what this means Terry? Mythbuster time!! I think to find the missing fuel, we will need to jack one wing up and see if can get more fuel in the opposite wing. I still think the air bubble will be there since the fuel connection points are low in the tank. All we will do is move the bubble from the outside of the most outboard bladder to the innermost portion of the bladder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

Yes, we can probably accomplish this by pulling one wheel onto a ramp as well...

[gsxrpilot]

4 hours ago, N6758N said:

These senders have been nothing but a nightmare. I wired my own airplane over the weekend following the CiES installation manual while referencing JPIs install manual available online. JPI did not publish this new diagram anywhere, we did not get it until our units arrived back from JPIs modification to run in frequency mode. The CiES manual does not mention anywhere the need to run the grounds back to the unit, nor does it mention anything specific to the JPI. So now @Marauder and I get to rewire our airplanes again, what fun! So happy to waste my time because CiES didn't do their homework properly. 

I really feel for you guys. I didn't have any of these issues when I installed the CiES senders in my plane. I know there was some discussion at the avionics shop about grounding the units, but a quick call to Scott resolved the question and we proceeded with the wiring. 

As you all know, I flew the 252 to Burning Man and back last week. This was the first time I was able to go Austin to San Francisco and then the return, with only one fuel stop each way. That is 100% on account of the CiES senders. I know for some ( @201er) and others, that range is no big deal. But I've made the trip several times and always had two fuel stops. But knowing exactly how much fuel I had onboard at all times, and also knowing which tank it was in, eliminated a stop and an hour from the trip each way.

Needless to say, I'm a huge fan of them and the increased capability they bring to my 252.

[N6758N]

11 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I really feel for you guys. I didn't have any of these issues when I installed the CiES senders in my plane. I know there was some discussion at the avionics shop about grounding the units, but a quick call to Scott resolved the question and we proceeded with the wiring. 

As you all know, I flew the 252 to Burning Man and back last week. This was the first time I was able to go Austin to San Francisco and then the return, with only one fuel stop each way. That is 100% on account of the CiES senders. I know for some ( @201er) and others, that range is no big deal. But I've made the trip several times and always had two fuel stops. But knowing exactly how much fuel I had onboard at all times, and also knowing which tank it was in, eliminated a stop and an hour from the trip each way.

Needless to say, I'm a huge fan of them and the increased capability they bring to my 252.

It's nice to hear from someone with these in operation Paul. If I could do this all over again, I would have gotten the resistive type senders (green wire) thus making the installation easier by not running new wires and saving money on not having to send the JPI back for modification. Since this wasn't even presented as an option to me, we went ahead with the frequency style (since we didn't know any better) and now we are here. I think I can see the light is at the end of the tunnel though....

[peevee]

1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said:

I really feel for you guys. I didn't have any of these issues when I installed the CiES senders in my plane. I know there was some discussion at the avionics shop about grounding the units, but a quick call to Scott resolved the question and we proceeded with the wiring. 

As you all know, I flew the 252 to Burning Man and back last week. This was the first time I was able to go Austin to San Francisco and then the return, with only one fuel stop each way. That is 100% on account of the CiES senders. I know for some ( @201er) and others, that range is no big deal. But I've made the trip several times and always had two fuel stops. But knowing exactly how much fuel I had onboard at all times, and also knowing which tank it was in, eliminated a stop and an hour from the trip each way.

Needless to say, I'm a huge fan of them and the increased capability they bring to my 252.

Paul,

 

Do you have the monroy tanks?

[gsxrpilot]

@N6758N yeah that might be some of the difference. I've got the green wire senders.

@peevee no, I've just got stock tanks. 

[peevee]

17 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

 

@peevee no, I've just got stock tanks. 

Thanks, I'm not certain the cies can help us with the monroys, you're not going to get accurate info above about 20 gallons any way you slice it (I think?)

Anyway, another discussion for another thread.

[kris_adams]

32 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

@N6758N yeah that might be some of the difference. I've got the green wire senders.

@peevee no, I've just got stock tanks. 

Paul do you have a JPI or EI?  I'm noodling through a calibration issue (I think at least) with mine, but sounds like I'm the only one with EI and these senders.

[gsxrpilot]

41 minutes ago, Kris_Adams said:

Paul do you have a JPI or EI?  I'm noodling through a calibration issue (I think at least) with mine, but sounds like I'm the only one with EI and these senders.

Yep, mine's a JPI EDM-900.

[fuellevel]

One - Great video on the Burning and Approach    -    Can I steal it and the quote for a twitter post 

I hear it is all the rage - twitter that is and I guess Burning Man.

In the long run Frequency is better,   it is one of the reasons for our good success and longevity on OEM platforms - i would choose frequency and it is less expensive 

Lots of EI and our sender examples  - EI allows for any input, but you have to get the wire pin right and internal software switches correct 

We are sick of it smelling like a campfire here 

 

[gsxrpilot]

1 minute ago, fuellevel said:

One - Great video on the Burning and Approach    -    Can I steal it and the quote for a twitter post 

I hear it is all the rage - twitter that is and I guess Burning Man.

Yes, of course!

[carusoam]

PV,

Is your accuracy challenge for the Monroy tanks because you don't have two senders per tank?

The tanks are on such a long incline the second float is required  to take up the slack that is left from the first float maxing out at the top wing skin.

It looks like a previous owner may have added the extra capacity, but decided that the additional accuracy wasn't worth the extra investment in wires and floats..?

The standard for years was for accuracy near the bottom of the tank.

 

Chris and Terry, are you able to use scales reliably to determine the weight of the...

• plane (dry)
• Plane + unusable fuel
• plane + unusable + useable fuel

If you can, be sure to record the temperature for the conversion from pounds to gallons.  The density of 100LL has some temperature dependency.  The O POH has a value they use for the density of 100LL.

This method could be a whole lot less complex than adding and subtracting volumes of gasoline...

I always liked the Mooney fuel gauges for being calibrated in pph... with the resulting fuel burned already in pounds.  Plug that result directly into the stall speed/landing speed calculation... (too complex to use in real life)

Does the JPI offer fuel used values in pounds? (Saving the effort of multiplying gallons used X6)

 

As for connections between fuel cells.  There should be a method of allowing air to escape betwen the top of the cells and fuel to escape at the bottom between cells...

If the connections are not at the top and at the bottom skins...  there will be air entrapment and fuel entrapment that will be problematic to your calculations...

 

PP thoughts only, intending to communicate ideas that may be beneficial to the MS community.  Not a mechanic.

 

Thanks for sharing the learning experience...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[peevee]

14 minutes ago, carusoam said:

PV,

Is your accuracy challenge for the Monroy tanks because you don't have two senders per tank?

The tanks are on such a long incline the second float is required  to take up the slack that is left from the first float maxing out at the top wing skin.

It looks like a previous owner may have added the extra capacity, but decided that the additional accuracy wasn't worth the extra investment in wires and floats..?

 

Affirmative. I did not know adding an additional sender was an option with the LR tanks.

[fuellevel]

We can support an increase in fuel capacity - but we need to work with the STC holder to get it done 

we also need to let EI / JPI know 

[Bob - S50]

Sorry about your problems.  Our installation was relatively hassle free.

I'm thinking the problem is with JPI, not Cies.  Wiring was easy with our Aerospace Logic FL202 and I assume it would be just as easy with the FL202D or FL252.  We just flew today and the difference in total fuel indicated on our gauge and quantity by sticking the wings was less than 0.5 gallons.

Also, the AL gauges don't care what the stated capacity is.  You add 2 gallons at a time until you can't add any more.  It then knows what your capacity is.

[kortopates]

4 hours ago, peevee said:

Affirmative. I did not know adding an additional sender was an option with the LR tanks.

You can't add an additional sender for Monroy's tanks. The better solution might be to move the outboard sender to the Monroy tank but some testing/experimenting would need to be done to verify a re-positioned 2 sender system provided no discontinuities in fuel level between full Monroy tanks and empty. Anyway chasing such changes is a pipe dream.

I wrote about the CIES senders and Monroy tanks at the beginning of this thread. Its a huge improvement in fuel level/qty accuracy than with the old OEM senders and not just because the CIES are more accurate.

[fuellevel]

Hey any updates here. The phone calls for tech support ended a few weeks ago. What is the latest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk