Beech Baron Digital Fuel Level Sender Retrofit - Part 3

Beech Baron 58 Fuel Level Senders

We have now digitized the Baron 58 Senders.  For the Baron 58 we have gone ahead with part production for top mount senders and only needed to establish the arm lengths to complete this design.   As we produce the arms in house - this gave us the shortest time to achieving a TSO Baron Fuel Sender for our customer.

All dimensions for these new senders  were captured from a legacy set of Beech Baron Fuel Level senders.  As our design constraints are different from the legacy senders - there is a little bit to getting the right geometry in the tank 

We are looking forward to this system in the aircraft as it represents a chance for us to utilize our capability of summing multiple senders to achieve a single fuel tank output 

One of the interesting items that came up in investigation is that every legacy Outboardd bottom mount Beechcraft Baron 58 Fuel Sender has a seemingly factory grind mark on the housing and screw  - Clearance ?

Stay tuned for further updates and pictures.

Cessna 210 Digital Fuel Level

CiES Added Another Aircraft Today 

So three new aircraft configurations this week in as many days.    This one was admittedly easy as it is identical to the Cessna 177 Design.   

I believe our greatest accomplishment this year is developing a methodology to add TSO'd configurations to our list.   

Our magnetic field design makes changes to fuel senders as easy as changing float arm length and an internal map profile 

Our technology for fuel level sending is eclipsed by no other method.  Magnetic Field is superior to both traditional aircraft Capacitive and Resistive fuel senders.  

Contact us to find out why we can make such a bold statement.

Cessna Cardinal 177 - Owner Reviews

Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts." Arnold Bennett

As expected with a new system there will be a learning curve with both the installer and the aircraft owner / pilot.  It is inevitable and AOPA E Brief provided us with the proper quote last week.  It fit our feeling so well lat week, we utilized this as a alternative heading.

So far this week all issues accounted for and happy installs going on in the field.

At present we have Greg Ridder and Dennis Del Grasso with flying Cessna 177's that have the CiES Fuel Level senders installed.  The PIREPS are good to great, both of them noting a big improvement in fuel level indication.  This may be more true of a combination of new indication and of new sending units.  

While we are pretty new with the JPI EZtrends software - we can see a definite pattern to empty with the ever-present oscillations in the fuel tank.  If you look closely at the data as the tank empties the peak to peak get larger as there is more room to slosh.   

Dennis Del Grasso: 

Very sorry to hear of all these issues.  All I can relate is that when I got into the idea of going with CIES, Scott was only making the frequency based senders.  Fuel level indication was one of the primary reasons I went with JPI (actually, ALL of the engine gauges were__)

Anyway, when I bought my JPI in FEB 2014, I told JPI the type senders I was going to install - the box came configured for it.  When I finally got them plugged in and went thru the Cal process, they have worked swimmingly well!

Mostly for Scott, but if any else would like to see it, attached is the export from my two most recent flights.  (Widen the "B" column to see Date/Time) Starting on 7/20 (outside of Phila), the tanks were filled at 25 Gal each.  Flight home about 2.5.  Went up again on 8/9  without adding any fuel and the CSV file shows the fuel remaining at the end.  Aligns pretty closely with total USED between the two flights at 25.8 (meaning 24.2 remaining according to the FuelFlow sensor and computer) while the tank gauges show 23.2 remaining.  Within a gallon!  I'll take that ANY day.

Greg Ridder :

Last Wednesday Brian installed the new right sender and since then all seems to be working well.  We have not done a new calibration since the old calibration appears to be fairly accurate.  Today I will return your old sender to you.  I will be interested in hearing what happened to the V Out circuitry since the frequency response was never affected.  BTW, I did not swap out the old resistors in the connectors - still could if you think it is advisable. I was trying not to change the calibration if possible.

I’ve made few observations since the new sender was installed.  When I got the plane back with a nearly empty right tank (gauge read 4.6 gallons), I added precisely 15 gallons at the pump and the gauge read 19+ gallons. Granted, the plane was not in flight attitude, but it was hopeful that the gauge change reconciled with the gallons added.

I have also filled each of the tanks to the 22 gallon hole in the filler with the gauge results of 26 (left) and 24 (right) on the ramp and in flight.  After flying for 1.5 hours at 7.2 gal/hour via the flow meter (estimating 10.8 gal used - I was throttled back and past lean 25°) I dipped the tanks and got a crude estimate of 15 (left) and 17 (right) - indicating 12 gal used - with gauge readings of 20.6 and 18.8 respectively - indicating 10.6 gal used. Certainly the fuel level changes match up pretty well with the gas pump and flow meter and full reads “Full”. 

Watching the chart data on the gauge shown right indicates the precision of the senders and gauge are pretty noise free and clearly shows slight sloshing of fuel in the tanks during abrupt attitude changes.  

What we don’t know yet is the absolute accuracy of an “empty” tank. Our next step is to drain each tank completely and add 2 gallons of unusable fuel.  If the numbers are close to zero (± 3 gallons?) we will placard it. If not, we will redo the calibration.  

In the discussion of precision and accuracy, I’m not sure how accurate to expect any fuel system to be if changing the plane’s attitude will change fuel level measurements.  

We are pretty conservative on keeping reserve fuel and this system already appears to be MUCH better than the old steam gauges.  Hopefully, more experience with it will bring more enlightenment.  Anyway, you now have a happy customer!  Hope the rest of the installs are going well.

Thanks again for your great customer support,

We are most proud of the customer support component, because without it we would never overcome the drawbacks and discomforts.

Cessna 206 - CiES Bladder Tank Fuel Senders

CiES Magnetic Field Fuel Senders for Cessna 206

We continue to add configurations to the CiES Fuel Sender Aircraft list. 

Today we completed the physical elements of the Cessna 206 Bladder Senders

In the picture you will see the new machined and red  anodized senders bracketed by the senders our customer  removed for the aircraft. 

This set of senders is for the Cessna 206 bladder tank fuel system.  The old sender on the right is a FAA PMA replacement and the one on the left is the factory Leigh Sender that this Cessna 206 Left the factory with.

As our sender design simplifies the mechanics of the float sensor  This is due to the increased travel range that our magnetic field senders allow. 

This simplified design may also be applicable to Cessna 182 and 172 Bladder tanks 

We have a set of 182 Fuel Senders from a bladder tank coming our way to confirm our belief.    

Beech Baron CiES Magnetic Fuel Level Sender Retrofit - Part 2

Beech Baron 58 Fuel Level Senders

We received a another set of Beech Baron fuel level senders today.  In the coming days we will quantify the major characteristics of these senders like the arm length and position so that we can make new CiES Digital Magnetic Field Senders.  This set presents a challenge as we need to combine three senders into 1 output.   

These three inputs will accurately read the volume in the Beech 58 Baron fuel tanks   

Stay tuned for further updates and pictures.

Beech Baron CiES Magnetic Fuel Level Sender Retrofit - Part 1

Beech Baron 55 Fuel Level Senders

We received a set of Beech Baron fuel level senders yesterday.  In the coming days we will quantify the major characteristics of these senders like the arm length and position so that we can make new CiES Digital Magnetic Field Senders to accurately read the volume in the Beech Baron fuel tanks - Both the Main and Aux.  

Stay tuned for further updates and pictures.

Aircraft Fuel Level Senders - For All Aircraft

So you need a FAIRCHILD 24 Fuel Sender?

Fairchild 24 

In reviewing our current sender design we had few short moments of brilliance.  Let me explain.    

• We can build senders for any aircraft   

Traditional Sender Design 

Yes any aircraft.  Fuel sender mounting design is universal in aircraft.  The senders utilize the same offset 5 bolt pattern.

While CiES utilizes a float to ride on the fuel surface it doesn't utilize a potentiometer in the fuel to measure fuel level 

New Sender Overlay

Dropping the potentiometer gives CiES distinct operational advantages, and some practical ones as well.  Our sensor arms can be quite simple.  

Ask us about fuel level senders for any aircraft - you might be surprised at the answer. Our Fairchild 24 Owner certainly was. 

FAIRCHILD 24 Fuel Sender 

Does Airport Density Affect Aircraft Fuel Starvation Rates

One of the aircraft owners user groups postulated an interesting question.  

Does the density of airports affect the number of fuel starvation events? 

Are you more likely to push the fuel envelope if you feel safer knowing there are many suitable 
alternatives to land and refuel,  and do pilots take advantage of those opportunities. 

As always when it regards aircraft fuel,  it is always an interesting question and not a lot of concrete information available.  Most of what is written about aircraft fuel level is unfortunately anecdotal.

So armed with a fuel starvation/ exhaustion dataset gleaned from the ASRS (Aviation Safety Reporting System)  I set out to see what actually would shake out if we looked at number of airports per sq. mile and fuel related aircraft issues and put it on an overlay of the USA.   Darker States are worse off than Lighter States.  

Generally speaking - pilots seem to be more careful out West where airport density is lower.   

I did evaluate the per state fuel starvation statistic by number of aircraft per state, but as aircraft quickly transition from one state to the next, I didn't believe it held much merit to display.  

What does show up in many graphs of this type is that Wisconsin and EAA draws a number of pilots from around the USA and a fair percentage tend to inadvertently stay longer than planned. 

Stealing an safety idea from the Cirrus Pilots Association  

Fuel Early, Fuel Often