Cessna - Friggin Lasers in Their Fuel Tank

Hidden Costs Behind the High Cost of Aviation 

I had started to re-energize our 2015 marketing effort  and wrote a few blog posts about delivering magnetic field fuel senders to,  new to us,  European Aircraft and Helicopter customers.  We seem to be popular over there,  we may owe many thanks to Flieger editor Thomas Borchert  

To check on our progress on our google search listing placement,  I ran across a G1000 Cessna Fuel Sender for Sale on Ebay  and thought I'd share it.

This is a Meggitt TDR (Time Domain Reflectometry) Fuel Level Sensor for a Cessna Single Engine.

• Used Ebay Price is $1,800 each
• New Price from large Cessna Parts Jobber is $3,100
• Cessna List Price is $3,864.  

The Meggitt Fuel Level Sensors do look well made and come with a nice calibration sheet for your Cessna 172, 182 or 206.

Replacement Cost for 2 of these sensors on a Cessna would be $7K to $8K a Kit -  Installed cost would be well over $10,000 - This for a retrofit fuel level system on a Cessna 172 for heavens sake.  It is painfully obvious why there isn't a retrofit STC available.

Maybe some in aviation are correct,  airplanes are getting to be very expensive  - part prices contributing greatly.  But with a bit of creativity, it doesn't have to be.   

The caveat is,  that our Fuel Level Sensors met all the FAA TSO requirements that the TDR fuel sensor has met - and we do it for far less money.  I was told early on,  Engineering is not building the best without regard to cost, it is providing best performance at a price that is attractive to your consumer and the FAA.   

While I have heard that our FAA TSO fuel level sensors are expensive compared to legacy commercial grade resistance fuel senders, i.e. the kind of sensor they used to put in aircraft of the past.   I agree to a point on the expensive part arguement, but I truly feel CiES hit the target.  We provide improved aviation technology and performance at a competitive price. 

This Meggitt TDR sensor is not a well known change to the venerable Cessna Single Engine Lineup,  you would be hard pressed to know this was in your wing unless you queried the Cessna Illustrated Parts Catalogue.   There is no mention of this system any Cessna Marketing literature.   You'd think that a $8,000 fuel level system would be worthy of editorial or marketing content  - I guess it isn't.

Almost overnight the world of aviation fuel level changed and somehow nobody bothered to notice.

The TDR system works by shining laser light down a glass rod and measuring returns, so next time you come in contact with a G1000 Cessna owner - Let them know they have "friggin" lasers in their fuel tanks. I am going to bet they'll be surprised.

Cessna Cardinal 177 & 177 RG Fuel Level Sensor

Well we produced another configuration of our fuel level sender for a very popular Cessna Aircraft model with a rabid and enthusiastic following.

---- Yes the Cessna Cardinal 177 ----

We had sought out common aviation fuel level sensors to copy into our format and we had a few mixed results, for example owners of Cessna 177's would send in the sensors per our request,  but the part numbers of the units supplied only matched up to another model Cessna Aircraft and did not match any of the Cessna Fuel Level drawings we have on hand.  

Finally, last year we got what we were looking for - Senders from an aircraft that matched the P/N for the aircraft. 

Note:  When you get involved in this small segment of aviation - It becomes very clear why fuel level in aviation has a very low reputation.

A Cardinal Aircraft owner tells a better story: 

Anyway, I saw the mention of CiES on one of the Cardinal Flyers Digests and gave them a call.  I spoke with Scott Philiben, who said that they could build them for me, and it would interface correctly with the JPI.  JPI confirmed this.  This was last FEB 2014 when I initially purchased the JPI, based on that answer.  

I had to wait till July 1 to start install, both due to the cold weather here, and because that was my annual date  (I also wanted to install an Oilamatic Pre-oiler and an Alpha Systems AOA Gauge).  

What Scott didn't tell me initially, was that I was to be the guinea pig for them getting a TSO sender for Cardinals as this minor variation needed to be sent to the FAA and approved - they had predicted an October delivery.

Scott & company finally came thru with fully TSO'd senders in late Nov, but I then encountered the passing of my Mom, which has led to further down time - anyway, FINALLY got the senders installed last Saturday.

CiES Above - Competitor Below

I was quite impressed on the substantial difference internally between CiES senders and the Electronics International ones.  The electronics in CiES look great, and based on the digital freq meter I have, they work VERY smoothly. I am also impressed with the machining on the fuel senders.

For JPI's part, their wire harness to the wing has three wires - +5V, Ground, and Signal. The JPI diagram says NOT to connect the +5V for CiES, but what they didnt say, and I didnt know until early Nov (when I mentioned that to Scott at CiES) is that the CiES units need +12V!! Turned out not to be an issue - the JPI harness has a "Y" connection in the harness shortly after the harness leaves the JPI box enroute to the wings - I unpinned the +5 wire that comes from the JPI and capped it off, and instead ran a +12 supply from one of the Circuit Breakers (dont remember which at the moment) into the same pin spot. (There is NO interface box as there is with some other senders. Not sure if my JPI is any different internally - JPI could answer though.) Works great (again, on my digital freq meter out at the sender)

One thing I particularly like about the CiES is that the float arm wire is 3x as thick as the one from Cessna, BUT the CiES float arm easily disconnects from the sender, making installation MUCH MUCH MUCH easier. I placed a long tie wrap on the fuel sender arm (in case I dropped the float/arm combination into the tank while working the sender into position) and then after the sender was connected and small cotter pin inserted, the tie wrap was removed. The senders come with a new rubber gasket, and there is no chance of leakage in the middle (like Cessna supplied Rochester, Stewart Warner, or Leigh senders) as there is no pass-thru screw terminal.  CiES uses a 3-pin connector with a twist lock shield. VERY easy to plug in.

At first, Scott and his engineers were concerned about MIN/MAX settings, but they had an epiphany one night and realized that all measurements are relative. They were worried about setting hard "stops" these are the little metal tabs on Cessna original equipment fuel senders that limit the float arm travel.   Turns out the CIES senders have the capability to move thru-out an almost 180 degree range from straight down to straight up.  The original equipment Cessna fuel sender contained a 60 degree potentiometer which limited the angle range allowed by these senders.   The calibration in the JPI is what establishes the fuel level limits and the physical limits of the fuel tank are the physical limits of the sender.

Scott Philiben's phone number is 541-408-1095 - they are in Oregon, so there is a 3hr time difference for me. His email is scott.philiben@ciescorp.com I still have the prototype sender/float combination that we used for testing and verification that this new simpler configuration would not hit any internal ribs/structure. Can't see internally, but externally it looks exactly like the ones with the TSO labels on them!

Update - Installed and calibrated - first impressions are good