gsxrpilot Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 We all operate with limited budgets. And so with an eye towards protecting my investment and the lives of those who fly with me, the very first money I spend on my Mooneys is an engine monitor and working, accurate, fuel gauges (CiES). These are not luxury items like a nice autopilot or moving map GPS. So unless I'm going to just use my Mooney for lunch runs and pattern practice, I can't think of many parameters more important than fuel. I realize this is of outsized importance with the M20K's (possibly others) because of the flapper's in the filler necks and therefore being unable to accurately determine the volume of fuel from the tank filler neck. This includes looking, dipping, etc. There's no way to accurately know the volume of fuel. When I bought my 252 there was a wish list of things I wanted to do to improve it. But I flying it home from NE Ohio to Texas with stock fuel gauges, a Hoskins totalizer, and an EDM 700, was all I needed to see. I immediately ordered and EDM900 and CiES senders for it. The result is I can confidently use the range afforded by this wonderful traveling machine. I've made other upgrades as funds have allowed, but top of the list is keeping the engine running and the prop turning. That means an engine monitor with good fuel gauges and senders to feed it accurate data. Quote
fuellevel Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 @andy95. There are many examples but I chose these as, personally i have held military trained pilots who taught and corrected me to a higher standard. That is a personal bias based on my experience. One was witnessed by many pilots who on forums railed against those that declared stupidity in this case as the cause. A group of pilots who gathered at this small airport for coffee and treats to discuss aircraft. The preflight and fueling according to their reports happened 20 yds in front of them. The pilot did as I was told by those military pilots who taught me for pre flight. - something on this aircraft will kill you son, it is your preservation of life to find it before it accomplishes its task. To say from reports that it was thorough preflight would be a gross understatement. The second case I can only rely on the pictorial image of the aircraft. To say it was well maintained is also an understatement and followed up my assessment of the pilots character in the interview I did. It is a Cherokee I would have been very proud to own myself. He did own and use a fuel hawk. To limit an aircraft to 1/2 its capability is an antithesis to any benchmarks we use to judge aircraft Range, useful load, speed. To limit the useful capability of an aircraft caused by an unknown directly due to inadequate instrumentation, instrumentation that is historically so bad it requires a stick in the tank on preflight for every flight as a standard work around, ...... is frankly madness. This is from the 1000 ft view. Qualifier. Preflight of aircraft requires a visual confirmation of fuel when it is practical and a slight thump on the lower surface when it is not visible but acceptable for the flight intended. If standard POH published numbers don’t matter the PA 28 is superior to the MOONEY M20C INTENTIONALLY INFLAMMATORY STATEMENT TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT. As obviously it isn’t, as we regularly use published numbers to illustrate to superiority of one aircraft over another, or justify our purchase or ownership including range. 1 Quote
Andy95W Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 First, I never said anything about anyone being "stupid" or their "stupidity" or anything else. I never used that word, and I didn't edit my posts- go back and read them again. Additionally, I never mentioned their preflight of their aircraft. If they said they fully fueled their aircraft, I believe them. "Preflight" has two components, though. Part of that is the physical inspection of the aircraft, the other is preflight planning. Book fuel burn is predicated on leaning in flight. Did they do that? If they chose not to lean their mixtures, did they take into account the additional fuel usage in their calculations? My assumption is that they performed all of their required actions correctly. But then the question remains, if they didn't have a catastrophic leak, why did they land, out of gas, just short of their destinations? If you actually believe they did everything correctly, why do you honestly believe they ran out of gas? You and I will always disagree on the root cause of these types of accidents. You obviously believe that better fuel indication systems will prevent these sorts of accidents. I believe there are people who will still run out of gas regardless. And why have there been, and why are there still, many hundreds of thousands of pilots who don't run out of gas every year with our old fuel gauges? I've said many times in the past that you've designed and built a better fuel indication system. You're also very quick to post assistance to those who've bought your system, which is commendable and helpful to all of us here in the community. Unfortunately, it seems like every other time you post you're just trying to beat the rest of us over the head with it. Or sell more of your products. Quote
Cyril Gibb Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 2 hours ago, fuellevel said: Qualifier. Preflight of aircraft requires a visual confirmation of fuel when it is practical and a slight thump on the lower surface when it is not visible but acceptable for the flight intended. O.K. I concede. For those pilots who confirm their fuel by a "slight thump on the lower surface", accurate fuel gauges would be a potential life saver. 1 Quote
fuellevel Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 It is a broad based response to posts and not specific but I am addressing arguements that refute my position. Given my situation - what would you do.. I grew up in aviation and around aircraft every single day of my life. And I was told that in regards to aircraft if you do something wrong or see something wrong it is to be brought up - without consequence. I have designed many systems used on Mooney aircraft factory and aftermarket - I will and wish to design many more aviation systems in aircraft of the future However I seem to be stuck here for a moment. Being stuck here requires me to interact with pilots all day and aircraft companies about a very specific and important aspect of powered flight., that being fuel indication Being here makes me review all accident and incident data related to fuel issues and GA Aircraft. Being here makes me search for and read aviation research that appears to have been forgotten or disgarded because it did not conform to standard thinking in regards to aviation fuel quantity. Being here makes me collate data to test theories on fuel accidents Being here makes me pick up the phone and ask a pilot about an accident that occured over a year ago. Being here requires me to consult on accident investigations regarding fuel. It is an understandably extremely unique position . If anybody wants in, hey the more the merrier I am sorry after all this I have come up with a WTF , wake up and smell the coffee admittedly brusque attitude - but see the first paragraph , I cant stand idley by. I just cant. I highly doubt I have barkered my product directly I am talking about safety in a field I am involved in from design, certification and application. I have seem and heard more about this subject than anyone i have yet encountered save some of the big boy system engineers . Because Parker Hannefin wrote the book on aircraft fuel systems, now is that also marketing - i dont really think so. They are sharing in my mind thier observations to make future systems well engineered and safe. That is the only textbook on the subject by the way They dont recommend a stick (tongue in cheek) I am here because Cirrus asked for a better and more accurate system and I wasnt doing anything of importance at that time. I did not ride into this on some marketing mission to change the world, far from it. I would rather work on a new aircraft system design asolving a new OEM issue and for the most part I am. For example 2 years ago I designed the Cirrus Conviencae controller - remote entry light up aircraft and cockpit. I dont tell anybody about the virtues of remote keyless aircraft entry, it isnt an item of safety. I highly doubt I would STC it even if you asked nicely. The FAA asked us directly to STC the fuel quantity product. Today i am working on two other projects, I dont talk about that and you will read about in future aviation magazines - you wont need those either. So yes I believe i have lifted the covers over an unsavory element of aviation, one that is an item of safety. An element that by every measure needed to change . Iam aware I have competitors and I may be driving some of you to them - I am definately OK with that 2 Quote
Andy95W Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 Believe it or not, I'm one of your biggest proponents in the products you've brought to market. I've looked into the STC process a tiny bit and it scared me away- so I've got a huge amount of respect for someone who sees it through. I'm glad you've developed the products you have, and General Aviatioon is better for it. I stopped by your booth at OSH a year (or 2?) ago and was glad to meet whoever was there- I assume it was you. When it comes time for me to finally retire my old fuel tank gauges, I'll be buying yours. I have a friend who is considering a JPI 930- I immediately recommended your fuel senders. But if I ever run out of gas in my Moooney, I know it'll be my own damn fault, with or without a modern fuel level system. -edit: I wish you'd post your name so we wouldn't have to refer to you as "the CiES guy". You've been a valuable contributor to this forum. 2 Quote
Bob - S50 Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 Here's my take on why people run out of gas in no particular order. Excluding mechanical issues such as trapped gas. 1. Poor planning. They plan a long flight and don't bother checking to see if they will have enough gas. 2. Weather. Some people will plan carefully but plan to land with the minimum required fuel. They then run into unfavorable winds and use up all their reserve. 3. Poor execution. Some people will plan properly but maybe they forget to lean the engine or they fly at a lower altitude than planned and they simply burn up all their fuel. 4. Poor inflight tracking. They simply don't track actual fuel burn compared to planned burn. Some things are beyond our control. Some are not. In the words of Ron White "you can't fix stupid." While having accurate gauges won't stop people from running out of gas. And it won't keep people from running out of gas because they decide to press on in spite of the fact that they are running low on fuel. But they will give a prudent pilot the information they need to decide to stop short of their destination to buy some fuel. Quote
Cyril Gibb Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 1 hour ago, fuellevel said: It is a broad based response to posts and not specific but I am addressing arguements that refute my position. Given my situation - what would you do.. Your efforts are laudable and appreciated. Your product appears to be excellent and a huge leap over our old senders and gauges. I'd buy them if I had more aircraft discretionary $. My question has been if it's a safety benefit for reasonably conscientious pilots. For example, if we used 2 shoulder harnesses in case one broke, that would be a safely benefit, but the improvement would be vanishingly small. I dip my tanks before each flight and know based on many many refuelings that my accuracy is typically within 1/2 gallon. I have a fuel totalizer that is accurate to within 1/10 of a gallon. I've flown each tank to empty and know for the last quarter of each tank how much is left to about 1 gallon. (more than 1/2 tank accuracy admittedly isn't anything to write home about) I know my fuel burn within a few 10ths / hour. I always depart with at least the legal VFR/IFR reserves. If on the way to my destination any one of: burn time, totalizer or gauges indicated I was below legal reserve minimums, or if any of those factors disagreed I'd be on the ground. I don't fly into my reserve and I've never had to. Perhaps I'm missing something. What possible scenario would make me run out of fuel that more accurate fuel gauges would prevent? Quote
jaylw314 Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 27 minutes ago, Cyril Gibb said: Perhaps I'm missing something. What possible scenario would make me run out of fuel that more accurate fuel gauges would prevent? leaking from the engine fuel pump? That would be dumped overboard during flight, and you wouldn't necessarily see anything during pre-flight? 1 Quote
Culver LFA Posted May 23, 2019 Report Posted May 23, 2019 On 9/22/2018 at 9:35 AM, Bob - S50 said: I have a "J", but if the tanks are the same as the "F", here is a PDF file that contains the markings for our airplane. Cut the paper to fit in the FuelStik so that the mark for 11 gallons is at the very top of the rising indicator. If you'll notice the notes (which can be left visible on your stick), for our airplane it takes 7 gallons of usable fuel to just wet the area under the filler cap. It takes 11 gallons usable before there is enough fuel to float the riser. If your plane has 50 gallons tabs, fill a wing to the tab and see if the FuelStik indicates 25 gallons. If it does, you should be pretty close. We did not calibrate above 25 gallons. Our reasoning was that if you need more than that, you can fill to the tab and then meter in the amount needed to bring you up to the desired fuel level. So for example, if you need 54 gallons and want 27 gallons/side, just fill to the 25 gallon tab and then meter in 2 more gallons. Done. Fuel Stick.pdf 14.26 kB · 40 downloads I just made one of these using your pdf, after 2hrs of flight on each tank today I checked the levels with the stick when I landed and it shows around 13 a side. That’s about perfect! That scrap wood and sharpie I used to make this was the best money I ever spent in aviation. 1 Quote
Mooney-Shiner Posted June 24, 2020 Report Posted June 24, 2020 If all fails, some Mooneys come with integrated measuring stick. This spade-shaped piece reads "25 US GALs". So its tip touches the surface of 25 gals. This is my 67M20F. Thank you for your contributions, guys! It definitely helps for me to lear about my new purchase Quote
carusoam Posted June 24, 2020 Report Posted June 24, 2020 Ukr, There May be a bit more to that..? It might be the hole, or a line that is hiding under the extra sealant that got splashed on the marker... It is possible that the point is the reference, just slightly unlikely.... too may tiny variables to make it that exact... You definitely want to look that up, or test it to make sure... typical mid 60s Mooneys got 26 gal per side.... For a total of 52 useable... Definitely, Don’t rely on any fuel system parts until you have had a chance to verify/test them yourself on your plane... If this is yours... the fuel neck is showing a touch of rust color... these can be swapped out with a shiny stainless version... My 65C rusted so much it got a hole in it... The backside rusts worse than the front side... I was collecting rust bits and getting rust stains in the bottom of the gascolator... sort of a safety issue... Tiny solid particles have a tendency to migrate downstream... I figured out the problem when water was getting the fuel tank when it rained... You can probably reach under there and feel if it has been rusting, or even get a pic with a handy idevice.... PP thoughts only, not a mechanic... Best regards, -a- 1 Quote
Hank Posted June 24, 2020 Report Posted June 24, 2020 I think the F has always had 64 gal fuel capacity. 1 Quote
Bob - S50 Posted June 24, 2020 Report Posted June 24, 2020 10 hours ago, ukrsindicat@yahoo.com said: If all fails, some Mooneys come with integrated measuring stick. This spade-shaped piece reads "25 US GALs". So its tip touches the surface of 25 gals. This is my 67M20F. Thank you for your contributions, guys! It definitely helps for me to lear about my new purchase We've found on our J that the drilled hole is the reference point for 25 gallons. Makes it a lot easier to see when filling too. 1 Quote
JimB Posted June 24, 2020 Report Posted June 24, 2020 I use one of the universal fuel sticks. Calibrated it when I refilled the tanks after installing/calibrating the EDM900. Easy, clean and doesn't soak up and smell like fuel. Put the numbers on a page in the back of my POH. 8 gallons is 1 16 gallons is 2 3/4 24 gallons is 5 1/2 32 gallons is 10 1 Quote
Mooney-Shiner Posted June 25, 2020 Report Posted June 25, 2020 On 6/23/2020 at 11:57 PM, carusoam said: Ukr, There May be a bit more to that..? It might be the hole, or a line that is hiding under the extra sealant that got splashed on the marker... It is possible that the point is the reference, just slightly unlikely.... too may tiny variables to make it that exact... You definitely want to look that up, or test it to make sure... typical mid 60s Mooneys got 26 gal per side.... For a total of 52 useable... Definitely, Don’t rely on any fuel system parts until you have had a chance to verify/test them yourself on your plane... If this is yours... the fuel neck is showing a touch of rust color... these can be swapped out with a shiny stainless version... My 65C rusted so much it got a hole in it... The backside rusts worse than the front side... I was collecting rust bits and getting rust stains in the bottom of the gascolator... sort of a safety issue... Tiny solid particles have a tendency to migrate downstream... I figured out the problem when water was getting the fuel tank when it rained... You can probably reach under there and feel if it has been rusting, or even get a pic with a handy idevice.... PP thoughts only, not a mechanic... Best regards, -a- A, thank you for the ideas. I will double check. My F has 64gal. Sometimes, if they leak, owners replace them with fuel bladders, which reduce the capacity to 54.8 gal. 1 Quote
hmasing Posted June 28, 2020 Report Posted June 28, 2020 I 3D printed one of these with PETG . I've got a fuel totalizer in my '68 F, and it's very accurate. This is within 1/2 gallon on each side based upon my calculations. Quote
davecusto Posted September 16, 2021 Report Posted September 16, 2021 Actually my unbladdered 1968 M20F holds 34 gallons if filled all the way to the top. I made a stick for it, calibrated from empty and my number at 8.5 inches is 34, not 32, so I'm wondering how you did your filling calibrating. I plan to redo the exercise, this time recording the measurements. If your "7" was a "5" then our calibrations might be more similar... Quote
carusoam Posted September 16, 2021 Report Posted September 16, 2021 1 hour ago, davecusto said: Actually my unbladdered 1968 M20F holds 34 gallons if filled all the way to the top. I made a stick for it, calibrated from empty and my number at 8.5 inches is 34, not 32, so I'm wondering how you did your filling calibrating. I plan to redo the exercise, this time recording the measurements. If your "7" was a "5" then our calibrations might be more similar... Dave you have replied to a fuzzy aging thread… You might want to include who you are asking this question to… The chance they stumble upon your request is going to be pretty slim… If I knew who you were looking for I could help invite them to stop by here… Best regards, -a- Quote
davecusto Posted October 22, 2021 Report Posted October 22, 2021 Thanks, I just tested the 34 gallon belief. It's true, the tank DOES hold 34 gallons. The problem is that 2 gallons get sucked out after about 20 minutes, maybe less. Quote
1001001 Posted October 22, 2021 Report Posted October 22, 2021 On 6/25/2020 at 6:36 AM, ukrsindicat@yahoo.com said: A, thank you for the ideas. I will double check. My F has 64gal. Sometimes, if they leak, owners replace them with fuel bladders, which reduce the capacity to 54.8 gal. Is this a difference between the F and J model bladders? I have bladders in my 1978 J, and I calibrated the tanks--each holds 32.8 gallons when completely full. Quote
carusoam Posted October 23, 2021 Report Posted October 23, 2021 On 10/21/2021 at 9:34 PM, davecusto said: Thanks, I just tested the 34 gallon belief. It's true, the tank DOES hold 34 gallons. The problem is that 2 gallons get sucked out after about 20 minutes, maybe less. Get sucked out from where? We have one tank vent per side… That isn’t known for drawing fuel out… The vent tube is pretty far up hill, compared to where the fill hole is… Sounds like an opportunity to check on the fuel vent tube’s health status… (?) Some may have a history of corrosion… To get too much fuel in the tank…. It helps to have uneven ground… To get fuel to escape the tank… uneven attitudes may be required…. If 2 gallons escaped… did it leave a blue stain? How did you measure/estimate the missing amount? Inquiring PP thoughts only, not a mechanic… Best regards, -a- Quote
Pinecone Posted October 30, 2022 Report Posted October 30, 2022 On 10/2/2018 at 12:06 AM, gsxrpilot said: 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. Even worse with the Monroy tanks. You fill the standard as full as you think you can get them. Then fill the aux. Then you go back and forth and put another 10 gallons in them Quote
Pinecone Posted November 4, 2022 Report Posted November 4, 2022 52 minutes ago, mike261 said: here's mine. M20K 252 standard tanks. calibrated by starting with unusable fuel in tank and adding 5 gallons at a time. ill put it in downloads. mike Nice, just need someone to post a 252 with Monroy tanks. Or, at some point in time, I will do so. Once I get time to do the measuring Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.