Cies Fuel Sender System

[rdamazio]

Originally Posted by Selma

Thanks Evolution10,
Good advice, thanks. Do you know whom to contact at CIES and who is probably familiar with the set up in a RV9 with a G3X?
Pit

There's a form on their website to express interest:
https://www.ciescorp.net/vans-rv-fuel-level.html
But afaik it's not out yet.

[Selma]

Originally Posted by rdamazio

There's a form on their website to express interest:
https://www.ciescorp.net/vans-rv-fuel-level.html
But afaik it's not out yet.

I tried twice to get in contact with CIES, unfortunately no answer ...

[rdamazio]

Originally Posted by Selma

I tried twice to get in contact with CIES, unfortunately no answer ...

I managed to talk to them by phone just before OSH, then met them there, but what they said was basically that they're still working on it (what they have now - or had then - is certified and costs almost $200/sensor - $800 total). You can try calling them.

[Evolution10]

Call and ask for Scott.

[fuellevel]

I am around - we have been buried with OEM work lately. The Vans aircraft presents some difficulties. One - the Van's aircraft sender location only measures partial fuel volume unless you go to the effort Evolution 10 went to to add outbd senders - this is the preferred solution as it meets the regulations for indicating usable fuel to the pilot. Two - if you only use 1 sensor per tank which will not measure all usable fuel the clearance to structure is critical and would suggest a new float to insure clearance is maintained - that would be a custom mold and float. I took the concerns to Van's (over the mountains) and they were not interested.

Three - we have been an aircraft manufacturer only to date and that leaves us with a very robust and very expensive TSO'd circuit card. We have a commercial grade card in prototype phase but we need a market (Marine, Propane Truck, Gen-set) to make this a viable option at the price point I have indicated in the sign up sheet. We have interested parties - but no one has taken the bait.

The issue we face that while we are new technology to measure fuel - we look like the legacy system that has experienced failure and poor reporting. People expect new technology to look new - ours just doesn't. Its simple and retrofittable - all good points. So any claims that I can back up with hard data fall on deaf ears - 16,000 senders, 375,000 operational hours No Unscheduled removals - best in class accuracy exceeding any other fuel measurement technology only to be met with questions on how to we insure the float will float and the final condemnation of floats don't work - (NBR Closed Cell Foam if you want to know)

The G3X will take a frequency input - I checked and we have a Bonanza in EXP flying with that interface

[Selma]

Originally Posted by fuellevel

I am around -
Two - if you only use 1 sensor per tank which will not measure all usable fuel the clearance to structure is critical and would suggest a new float to insure clearance is maintained - that would be a custom mold and

The G3X will take a frequency input - I checked and we have a Bonanza in EXP flying with that interface

Thanks Fuellevel. Do I have to fabricate my own float if I am going with a CIES fuelsender for the RV9? Did I got your message right?

[czechsix]

Found this thread after seeing the CiES booth at Oshkosh this year and reading the article about them in the Aug issue of Sport Aviation. Sure hope they decide to produce the fuel sender for RVs.

On my RV-8A I used the Princeton capacitive senders and they worked pretty well, although a few times had issues that were probably related to a drop of water or other contamination affecting the capacitance between the inner and outer elements. At least they were solid state with no moving parts and I never had to remove/replace them. However the pre-bent Princeton probes don't fit the RV-14 tanks, and I am also uncertain how the various fuels that will replace 100LL will affect capacitance probe accuracy. So I reluctantly installed the Stewart Warner senders included with the kit but would really like something better.

If anyone else wants to encourage CiES to produce a probe specific to the RV series it looks like their website still has a page where you can do that:

https://www.ciescorp.net/vans-rv-fuel-level.html

[larosta]

I would like to weigh in on the CiES fuel sending unit product. I have spen a great deal on time on a fuel sending unit prounrelated to the RV application but similar. In the process I have spent some time discussing their technology with them and have more than passing understanding of the technologies they are using.

In my opinion they probably have as good an understanding of the issues related to fuel level sensing and display in aircraft than anyone out there. They have a first rate solution and if I were building an RV today or any other aircraft with wing dihedral, I would seriously consider putting two of their sensors in each tank. I believe that there is probably not a electrical fuel level instrument/display out there that they cannot interface to.

If they can indeed deliver fuel sending units to non TSO installations for $148 per sensor I would consider that a deal. Not a $12 Delco wirewound resistor constantly bathed in fuel. Eyeballs in the tank, timing legs, and monitoring fuel flow will always be the gold standard but if you want to reduce the uncertainty of what is displayed on your $6k to $30k panel take a look.

https://www.ciescorp.net/vans-rv-fuel-level.html

I don't have any interest in CiES beyond a technical interest in the technology they are using and believing that they have a good product and an interest in making aviation a bit safer for all of us.

-Larosta

[scsmith]

It seems odd to me that they would work so hard to solve the dihedral problem where the inboard sensor shows the tank is at 16 gallons for any fuel level between 16 gallons and full (21 gallons).

WHO CARES! If my gauge reads 16 gallons, I know that I have somewhere between 16 and 21 gallons. The fuel flow/fuel totalizer will tell me what the level is.

Look, what you want is a robust (meaning accurate and reliable) fuel level indication when the tank is between half full and empty, so that you have a second, redundant indication in addition to the fuel flow/fuel totalizer. If they EVER disagree, you should seek to find out why. Leaky fuel drain, missing fuel cap, fuel going somewhere it is not supposed to go, whatever. That is why you want the gauge. If the gauge shows 16 gallons, you know you are safe.

So, what we should care about is that the gauge is accurate when it matters. And the CiES sensors seem to deliver that. Great. I want them. But to add a second sensor at the outboard end of the tank to solve a non-problem just introduces the potential for other problems.

[czechsix]

Originally Posted by scsmith

It seems odd to me that they would work so hard to solve the dihedral problem where the inboard sensor shows the tank is at 16 gallons for any fuel level between 16 gallons and full (21 gallons).

WHO CARES! If my gauge reads 16 gallons, I know that I have somewhere between 16 and 21 gallons. The fuel flow/fuel totalizer will tell me what the level is.

Look, what you want is a robust (meaning accurate and reliable) fuel level indication when the tank is between half full and empty, so that you have a second, redundant indication in addition to the fuel flow/fuel totalizer. If they EVER disagree, you should seek to find out why. Leaky fuel drain, missing fuel cap, fuel going somewhere it is not supposed to go, whatever. That is why you want the gauge. If the gauge shows 16 gallons, you know you are safe.

So, what we should care about is that the gauge is accurate when it matters. And the CiES sensors seem to deliver that. Great. I want them. But to add a second sensor at the outboard end of the tank to solve a non-problem just introduces the potential for other problems.

Personally I am only interested in a more reliable sensor at the inboard standard fuel sender location. Agree it seems like overkill in an RV to add a second sender at the outboard end of the tank. I hope that isn't what is keeping CiES from getting the probe to market for RVs. Let us buy the inboard unit and if they really think there's enough demand to build an outboard unit for RV tanks then do that as a follow-on product...