M20F Fuel Stick - I know I know

[Marauder]

Did Mooney have a factory paint stirrer? 

Hey we’re talking about FAA certification here. When did anyone say he had to make sense?

[Hephaestus]

2 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 

Hey we’re talking about FAA certification here. When did anyone say he had to make sense?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

Shhhh.... 

You'll give transport Canada ideas on how to make the great republic of canuckistan's pilots lives even more miserable

[MyNameIsNobody]

On 9/29/2018 at 10:02 PM, fuellevel said:

Cyril.   I trust what we are doing in supplying accurate fuel level from a fixed location,  is a very significant improvement on sticking a tank .   Yes  this is heresy to some,  as this has been the time honored method that has kept some but not all safe.  Aviation is like a religion - you trust what you were told at an early age and believe it throughout your life.

 It is a basic fact that what we can do relative to fuel level is better than you can do with a procedure with a stick.   I will put up $1,000 for someone who believes they can be more accurate with a stick full stop.  Name the place and location.

We have 5,000 aircraft with our system, so I have users who back up my voracity.     What is better is that our system travels with you when you fly,  You can get a better than a stick reading in flight. - Level flight no turbulence.    

Initiating your flight with a basic stick level understanding of starting fuel level - has proven to be an issue.   

You completely misunderstand my point, or perhaps your marketing again?  My point is not “religion” although flying is about doing things that work again and again.  I sump my tanks after I fly to confirm I have what I thought I have on BOTH of my fuel flow readings (EI and G3). The EI provides a fuel used and remaining.  Of course this depends on using accurate numbers to begin with.  We primarily store our plane with tanks FULL so no stick is needed, just a visual inspection with tank sumping.  My totalizer is within a gallon on fuel used based on post flight sumping prior to filling tanks.  How much is your product?  If it is more than a free paint stick it has zero value to me as stated.  Very ominous on the last sentence with “issue” as closer.  Data?  Examples?  Again, how and what is the value of your product to me?  I am speaking of MY personal reference based on a single tank.  Your follow-up was what really set me off and your condescending judge mental words.  Your “You still use a stick” remark was immediately after I posted what was asked for.  No man we are not going to be Rodney Kinging it...

[fuellevel]

Data I have  - it isn't very interesting to most.   But you are more than welcome to come on in and look through it.   We will even provide coffee.  All of it is tied to published data either ours filed with the FAA  or that filed with the US government by some other organization.  

   I have to do this,  as we would reasonably expect that this would have to be proven to the FAA / NTSB or further in a court of law.  This adds just a touch of voracity 

   A stick you create for this use will never be mentioned or photographed in an incident or accident  - don't believe me - the NTSB Accident files are open to anyone, 

Advisory Circular 23.17 the FAA specifically calls out that a totalizer can not be an approved fuel gauge 

1. Digital fuel flowmeters are not a required powerplant instrument except for turbine engine airplanes with an Amendment 23-43 certification basis. They are optional equipment and should not be considered replacements for fuel quantity or fuel pressure indicators

What I am saying is  - the methodology of getting a starting observed fuel value  - Stick, observation, full tanks  et all and then relying on a Totalizer or Time to determine in flight fuel level  is not the intention of what should be used in a certified aircraft to determine actual in flight fuel level.   Why - the FAA says so - or at least it says so in this location.

An FAA stated design goal or recommendation is relavent regardless of how effective or accurate an alternative method is to a user in practice  - this is the religious or rote  component I mentioned. 

Because it is common or that everyone is doing it doesn't mean we should not reflect on it and ask why - or question the underlying reasons  (Potentially that Fuel qty instrumentation in GA has been substandard or has not met or been maintained to the FAA design goal) 

The Standard for GA Fuel qty instrumentation is 3% of fuel tank value  or 0.75 of a gallon on a 25 gallon tank  - I know I am writing the ASTM spec and this relies on specifications for GA that have been written and published since the 1930's   - so it has to be better than 1 gallon 

Bottom line - despite the advent and increasing usage of fuel totalizers the GA,  fuel accident rate has remained unchanged.    That fact is distressing, as this component is perceived as a safety item people rely on and tout the accuracy of.   I hear your statement repeated countless times  - my totalizer is accurate to less than a gallon.   

What I believe is that a totalizer or time in tanks has the potential to mislead or provide bad pilot information especially when it is critical information for continued flight.  

I believe,  as do most of the people who have accurate fuel indication (Not vendor specific and a few Mooney owners)  in that having the ability for a comparative in flight fuel quantity data from two different sources is a an item of safety   -  that I hope will be a proven better solution.  i.e one that shifts the accident statistic southward,   

Doing something by rote for safety that has been proven by data to offer no change to the accident statistic is the classic definition of lack of careful thought or reflection. 

[MyNameIsNobody]

34 minutes ago, fuellevel said:

Data I have  - it isn't very interesting to most.   But you are more than welcome to come on in and look through it.   We will even provide coffee.  All of it is tied to published data either ours filed with the FAA  or that filed with the US government by some other organization.  

   I have to do this,  as we would reasonably expect that this would have to be proven to the FAA / NTSB or further in a court of law.  This adds just a touch of voracity 

   A stick you create for this use will never be mentioned or photographed in an incident or accident  - don't believe me - the NTSB Accident files are open to anyone, 

Advisory Circular 23.17 the FAA specifically calls out that a totalizer can not be an approved fuel gauge 

1. Digital fuel flowmeters are not a required powerplant instrument except for turbine engine airplanes with an Amendment 23-43 certification basis. They are optional equipment and should not be considered replacements for fuel quantity or fuel pressure indicators

What I am saying is  - the methodology of getting a starting observed fuel value  - Stick, observation, full tanks  et all and then relying on a Totalizer or Time to determine in flight fuel level  is not the intention of what should be used in a certified aircraft to determine actual in flight fuel level.   Why - the FAA says so - or at least it says so in this location.

An FAA stated design goal or recommendation is relavent regardless of how effective or accurate an alternative method is to a user in practice  - this is the religious or rote  component I mentioned. 

Because it is common or that everyone is doing it doesn't mean we should not reflect on it and ask why - or question the underlying reasons  (Potentially that Fuel qty instrumentation in GA has been substandard or has not met or been maintained to the FAA design goal) 

The Standard for GA Fuel qty instrumentation is 3% of fuel tank value  or 0.75 of a gallon on a 25 gallon tank  - I know I am writing the ASTM spec and this relies on specifications for GA that have been written and published since the 1930's   - so it has to be better than 1 gallon 

Bottom line - despite the advent and increasing usage of fuel totalizers the GA,  fuel accident rate has remained unchanged.    That fact is distressing, as this component is perceived as a safety item people rely on and tout the accuracy of.   I hear your statement repeated countless times  - my totalizer is accurate to less than a gallon.   

What I believe is that a totalizer or time in tanks has the potential to mislead or provide bad pilot information especially when it is critical information for continued flight.  

I believe,  as do most of the people who have accurate fuel indication (Not vendor specific and a few Mooney owners)  in that having the ability for a comparative in flight fuel quantity data from two different sources is a an item of safety   -  that I hope will be a proven better solution.  i.e one that shifts the accident statistic southward,   

Doing something by rote for safety that has been proven by data to offer no change to the accident statistic is the classic definition of lack of careful thought or reflection. 

Epiphany.  Now I remember you rolling this same line out before.  Been a while, but now I remember your slow roll.  I have certified gauges that read quite well in my plane.  I don’t rely solely on my totalizer.  I rely on a known start 52 gallons that is visually inspected at launch.  We had the senders recalibrated by Paul B. With tank re-seal and they have never worked better.  I look at tanks and confirm/record burn/used on totalizer while in flight.  I have ZERO concerns about running my plane out of fuel.  Sticks confirm that totalizer is very accurate with fuel remaining prior to fill and launch.  I will continue to use my stick as I have for the last 15 years.  One thing is certain.  Should I ever need to replace my senders your company wouldn’t be on the list of consideration for purchase.  That should sell you a bunch...Lack of careful thought or reflection...Classic.  

[bonal]

It seems some of the simplest subjects can create quite the debate. My thought is if we have fancy technology to tell us how much fuel is in your tanks are you going to stop opening each fuel cap to confirm fuel and if so you might as well stop pulling your dip stick to check engine oil as well. I think oil level is every bit as important as fuel level yet there we are still using a stick to measure this vital level. I use an air hawk to measure fuel and my o360 doesn't have much variation in consumption given a set performance in power and leaning to rough then smooth etc.  I think it's also safe to say that modern automobiles have very accurate fuel gauges yet people still run out of gas. I don't think the problem is in how we measure our fuel but in thinking we can push to known limits on duration. My aggregate consumption is 9gph flight after flight so don't have a problem making certain we have enough for planned legs plus reserves. 

[RLCarter]

We (GA) still have an average of 1 a week that try to get an internal combustion engine to run on air. The FAR's state what the reserves are for the type of flight. Personally I use 1 hour, yep on long x-countries I stop more than I should but I'm not in that big of a hurry or i would have gone commercial. Knowing exactly how much fuel and where its at is a huge plus if your going to push the minimums but for me, a "Stick & Watch" gets me to my next fuel stop, besides I would much rather stretch my legs than my fuel. Oh and if mother natures calls, I land as well.

[gsxrpilot]

1 hour ago, bonal said:

It seems some of the simplest subjects can create quite the debate. My thought is if we have fancy technology to tell us how much fuel is in your tanks are you going to stop opening each fuel cap to confirm fuel and if so you might as well stop pulling your dip stick to check engine oil as well. I think oil level is every bit as important as fuel level yet there we are still using a stick to measure this vital level. I use an air hawk to measure fuel and my o360 doesn't have much variation in consumption given a set performance in power and leaning to rough then smooth etc.  I think it's also safe to say that modern automobiles have very accurate fuel gauges yet people still run out of gas. I don't think the problem is in how we measure our fuel but in thinking we can push to known limits on duration. My aggregate consumption is 9gph flight after flight so don't have a problem making certain we have enough for planned legs plus reserves. 

FWIW none of my cars have oil dipsticks. They all have oil level gauges that tell me very accurately, how much oil is in the engine. If my airplane had an oil level gauge, I wouldn't have to use that dipstick either. 

[MyNameIsNobody]

Not a real debate.  One guy is trying to sell something (poorly) and another doesn’t want to run his plane out of fuel...but is repeatedly told he is wrong.  My mind not changed here.  YMMV.

[bonal]

Geeez this is a tough room. My only point is we use the tools we have to the best of our ability I don't doubt that an oil level gauge would be a suitable replacement for a dip stick if you have one and I think we all can trust our oil sticks as long as we use them just as we can trust a fuel stick if properly calibrated and used consistently.  I guess I don't know if I would ever be comfortable with not visually checking my fuel or the dip stick for my oil before taking the runway.  And maybe I was a bit put off by someone's comment about still using a fuel stick. I guess my question is do you trust the technology that much that you no longer visually confirm your fuel before flight.

[gsxrpilot]

2 minutes ago, bonal said:

Geeez this is a tough room. My only point is we use the tools we have to the best of our ability I don't doubt that an oil level gauge would be a suitable replacement for a dip stick if you have one and I think we all can trust our oil sticks as long as we use them just as we can trust a fuel stick if properly calibrated and used consistently.  I guess I don't know if I would ever be comfortable with not visually checking my fuel or the dip stick for my oil before taking the runway.  And maybe I was a bit put off by someone's comment about still using a fuel stick. I guess my question is do you trust the technology that much that you no longer visually confirm your fuel before flight.

Hey, not trying to be hard on you or anyone. 

When I flew an M20C, I used a stick and a totalizer. I was generally within half a gallon at any time. So I'm with you.

But with the 252, visually checking fuel is virtually impossible. There are huge flappers that have to be moved out of the way meaning anything with a stick is a two handed job and don't let a finger slip or you're likely to cut that paint stirrer in half with part of it now floating somewhere in the tank. Even getting a visual on the fuel in the tank is often not possible. So I often fly without opening the fuel caps and looking inside. Unless the tanks are full, it's just not all that useful. And even with the tanks visually "full", they could still each be +/- 5 gallons. I have wing mounted gauges that are fairly accurate and so I count on those along with the CiES senders and my JPI gauges to give me accurate fuel quantity at engine start and at any other time during the flight or after.

[Hank]

14 minutes ago, bonal said:

I guess my question is do you trust the technology that much that you no longer visually confirm your fuel before flight.

I don't trust anything or anyone that much! 

[bonal]

Did not know that about the 252 are all the more modern Mooney's like that. 

[gsxrpilot]

1 minute ago, bonal said:

Did not know that about the 252 are all the more modern Mooney's like that. 

I don't know about of the Mooney's more modern than mine. But I can say it is the one thing I really dislike about the 252. I miss the simplicity of asking the line guy to "top it off" and with a quick glance inside the cap, know without a doubt that I had 26 gallons in that wing. 

Fueling the 252 is an exercise in frustration every time.

[Andy95W]

10 hours ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

 

Tough call, but I think Cies' girls are cuter and may not leave as big a mess in the back yard.

On the other hand, the girls probably make pretty poor bird dogs...

[Shiny moose]

20 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

Yes.  Same gauge.

What we found was over time, we would get larger and larger fluctuations in the fuel level reading.  It might read 13.2 gallons one minute and a minute later it would say 22.4 gallons.  It would usually read higher than actual fuel.  If I walked the rudder a bit and waited about a minute, it would usually (but not always) return to what appeared to be about right.  At that point the Cies floats became available and we jumped at the chance.  My fuel gauge and totalizer now track each other within about .5 gallons for an entire 4 hour flight.  If they don't, I believe whichever says I have less gas.

However, something to keep in mind.  Cies can use either resistance (legacy) or frequency.  Cies says the frequency system is more reliable and I believe them.  After our annual last year, our right fuel gauge started acting up even with the Cies floats.  As suggested by Cies, it turned out to be a loose ground connection.  Since the resistance based system is based on very little change in voltage, any loose connection can impact your readings.  However, we have had no more problems since we tightened down that loose ground.

Thanks for the info, I will be installing a FL202 this year. 

[Browncbr1]

19 hours ago, fuellevel said:

I simply post a picture of an app illustrating  a different method with a comment of -  "You still use a stick"    

There was no sales pitch or offer of any product just my logo, which is over on the left as well   

Can't we just get along.   

You  have beautiful kids.. don't let any trolls get to you.

[Browncbr1]

19 hours ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

Sorry.  Not sorry.

real nice way to treat someone who gives money to support this site that you use every day for free

[MyNameIsNobody]

4 minutes ago, Browncbr1 said:

You  have beautiful kids.. don't let any trolls get to you.

I agree, but at $790x2 for senders on M20E I won’t ever be assisting with their future college tuition...

[MyNameIsNobody]

3 minutes ago, Browncbr1 said:

real nice way to treat someone who gives money to support this site that you use every day for free

There are two ways to view Mooneyspace.  WITH or WITHOUT adds.  To you as well I will say: Sorry.  Not sorry.

[MyNameIsNobody]

Hey Brown:  Just to be clear an internet troll is a person that starts quarrels or upsets people by distracting, sowing discord, or by posting inflammatory digressive  or extraneous off-topic messages.  I actually own a Mooney and replied here in good faith to a topic.  (See my original post) I was then trolled by Fuellevel and now I was trolled by you regarding the adware.  My comments, while giving back what I received in being called an: old, stodgy refuser of accepting new technology kinda guy by fuellevel who then throws out a Rodney King line and shows photos of two cute young girls that may or may not be his.

You may not like my message-response to his product and communication of value to stated “problem”.  I will again say: Sorry.  Not sorry.

My summary: Spending $1600 for two OEM fuel senders in a vintage Mooney and then paying to install/calibrate them is NOT a good/sound value to this Vintage M20E owner as stated.  In fact I would rather put several thousand dollar new dangled wingtips with wiz bang lighting than these.  I could buy a nice O&U or a pointer for that money.

If you run your plane out of gas and survive or don’t survive an off field landing I will call you an idiot.  Do the same of me...

[Hephaestus]

The fng agrees with @MyNameIsNobody . 

Thread was about dipsticks, not requests for information on what new fangled sensors to measure fuel flow / capacity. I'm not sure why fuellevel doesn't start his own thread rather than just spamming any thread involving the word fuel.

[Bob - S50]

36 minutes ago, Hephaestus said:

The fng agrees with @MyNameIsNobody . 

Thread was about dipsticks, not requests for information on what new fangled sensors to measure fuel flow / capacity. I'm not sure why fuellevel doesn't start his own thread rather than just spamming any thread involving the word fuel.

Show me one thread on any forum that doesn't drift off the subject.

Being mean doesn't persuade anyone to change their mind.  Most people have already made up their mind.  Logic can change the minds of a few.  Money can change the minds of a few others.  Being mean spirited never works.

There a couple old saying I like:

If you don't have something nice to say, then don't say anything.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 

[Browncbr1]

44 minutes ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

Hey Brown:  Just to be clear an internet troll is a person that starts quarrels or upsets people by distracting, sowing discord, or by posting inflammatory digressive  or extraneous off-topic messages.  I actually own a Mooney and replied here in good faith to a topic.  (See my original post) I was then trolled by Fuellevel and now I was trolled by you regarding the adware.  My comments, while giving back what I received in being called an: old, stodgy refuser of accepting new technology kinda guy by fuellevel who then throws out a Rodney King line and shows photos of two cute young girls that may or may not be his.

You may not like my message-response to his product and communication of value to stated “problem”.  I will again say: Sorry.  Not sorry.

My summary: Spending $1600 for two OEM fuel senders in a vintage Mooney and then paying to install/calibrate them is NOT a good/sound value to this Vintage M20E owner as stated.  In fact I would rather put several thousand dollar new dangled wingtips with wiz bang lighting than these.  I could buy a nice O&U or a pointer for that money.

If you run your plane out of gas and survive or don’t survive an off field landing I will call you an idiot.  Do the same of me...

  

There isn't a dichotomy, so no reason to trigger so easily..    I just thought targeting kids is lacks decency..   wrongs don't make rights and truth is truth..   let it go..    you and I are not his customers anyway...  we hold on to our dollars for something we want more, as such the free market works...  I don't like adware, but at least he's not like the last guy that came on here with his first post asking for dip stick measurements so that he could go make a plastic one to sell online...    

[Hephaestus]

25 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

Show me one thread on any forum that doesn't drift off the subject.

Being mean doesn't persuade anyone to change their mind.  Most people have already made up their mind.  Logic can change the minds of a few.  Money can change the minds of a few others.  Being mean spirited never works.

There a couple old saying I like:

If you don't have something nice to say, then don't say anything.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 

Nah, just comes across spammy... 

Which comes across as a poor marketing choice in my eyes, but everyone has their own beliefs. 

Not how'd I'd want to market a product myself, generally doesn't lend itself to building a positive brand image - but what do I know 

And mynameisnobody did explain he was having a rough week. We've all had those, threads drift - no issue, but a better choice would have been to create his own thread not to hijack another only semi related thread for his own marketing.