Capacitive or float (AF-2500 or EMS-D10)

I've pretty much decided to use a graphical engine monitor: the ACS AF-2500 or Dynon EMS-D10. Now, before I order the wing kit, is there any reason I should get capacitive sensors vice the traditional float (resistive) fuel level sensors? I believe both will work with either choice. But I may have to use an additional adaptor for the capacitive sensors, correct?

I will not be installing a flop tube, were it to matter in this case.

Regards and happy to be about to restart construction.

If i had it to do over....

I fly a -7A with a GRT EIS 4000 and capacitive senders in the tanks. The fuel gauge is an EI gauge.

I would choose the cap. senders again for the no maintenance issues down the road. I don't believe converters would be an issue to wire in for any monitor. If i were buying an engine monitor today I would get the AFS 2500. Why?, it includes every display needed in one area and a % power computation. It also is flexible with the software upgrades and display features, voice warnings, checklists. Played with it at sun and fun and loved it.

I will probably buy the GRT engine monitor to achieve the same result and hook it to my existing eis 4000 in a few months (just because I have the grt eis 4000 that comes with the monitor). The GRT does not have the same flexibility as the AFS 2500 from what i see but may be wrong here.

The dynon does not have a % power computation. But if it as easy to use as my D10A, it would be a nice instrument.

Don't make the mistke I did and try to skimp on cost here. Get what you want now and build it into your panel and systems initially instead of playing the retrofit game!

Jeff

Jeff,
Do you mean the Percentage of Power reading as explained in the paragraph at the lower left corner of this page?

http://www.grtavionics.com/images/emp.gif

By the way, I'm using the standard floats in mine because the are really just a backup for the primary fuel gauge, the fuel flow option reading from the EIS 4000. I see no benefit in the capacitive units for my application.

percent power reading on GRT

Vern,

Yes, that is the calculation that I am referring to. I think it is a nice feature and is presented well in both the grt monitor and the AFS 2500 unit.

Jeff

Percent Power Rocks!

I am sure that other EFIS units have the same capability, so I'm not saying this to sell GRTs, but aside from setting my RPM, the Percent Power number is the only thing I look at the rest of the flight! (Well, maybe the fuel flow when I lean...). It sure is easier than using MP and RPM, goign into a table to find power.....What a huge advance in power management!

Paul

Af2500

FWIW, I have the AF2500 in my RV7 that will fly sometime next week. The unit is extremely easy to set up. I have float senders and calibrated the tanks last week. Since it is a TD I had to do a "ground" and "flight" calibration. Took a little more time, but very easy to do.

In my install I needed the vertical orientation set up which the AF is capable of doing. I love the flap and trim indicators. No need for the cheesy trim indicators from Allen. All of the engine indicators are very easy to see. Again setting desired parameters is quick and easy.

Although it is a little more money than some of the others it has much more capability.

Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ

Downside to floats? Capacicive?

Thanks for the inputs, guys.

I'm really more looking for any potential downside to floats or capacitive sensors. Is one more difficult to install? Any maintanence on floats required? Potential fouling of capacitive senders?

I'm building an 8A, which is why I'm not selecting the GRT EFIS (and expense, $9K). So that's why I'm looking at a different engine monitor system; I'm already sold on Dynon for EFIS (and their sportpack is economical, relatively).

Regards

If you're not using flop tubes, capacitive are more difficult to install. The floats are cheaper (no coverter box needed) and easier to install. The only drawback I've read about the floats is that they may need to be replaced years down the road and they don't read the first few gallons of fuel used because of the dyhedral of the wing. One big drawback of the capacitive senders is that they are sensitive to the type of fuel in the tank.

I'd use floats if I had to do it again.

If you install a fuel flow transducer with your graphical engine monitor, it'll give you a much more accurate reading of fuel used. You'll only use the tank senders if you forget to reset the fuel computer or to verify you don't have a huge hole in your tank that's sending all the fuel into the air.

Sub officer should get "float" senders

parashak said:

Thanks for the inputs, guys.

I'm really more looking for any potential downside to floats or capacitive sensors. Is one more difficult to install?


With your title I would think the "FLOAT" senders would be your choice

Thank you for your service!!!!!

Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ

Click to expand...