Fuel flow monitor

@Timbeck2 - If you're choosing between tank level and fuel flow monitoring I would lean toward fuel flow.

I can check the accuracy of the (flow X time) calc every time I stick the tanks (like every flight, yah?)

If a leak drained one tank (outboard of the fuel selector) the fuel flow monitor and engine would tell me about it really quickly after switching to the effected tank. If the leak was between the selector and the sensor I'd know that because I'd have low flow on whichever tank is selected. If it was between the sensor and the carb (or FI) the engine will tell me it's not getting fuel.

Just some thoughts.
 
Noted, but with a tank level gauge, I'd know I had a leak without switching anything at all. Fuel flow with all the bells and whistles including taking out my tach and installing the new gauge in it's place really appealed to me. But after a lot of thought and comparing exactly what I want to do with my ~$30K airplane in the way of upgrades, I've decided that a lot of these were nice to have items. To me an accurate way to tell how much fuel I have left in each tank at any given time is more important. I've flown in a situation where I felt like I had to follow a road on the way to the (Winkler County) airport because my factory installed fuel gauges were scaring the crap out of me. On paper and the charts, with the fuel I had on board when I left Tucson, I could have easily made it but looking at the factory fuel gauges installed in the aircraft, it was iffy at best. After I landed and stuck the tanks, I realized that I had enough fuel for at least another hour and a half of flying, but I had to physically look in the tanks, not at the fuel gauges for that piece of mind. I never want to go through that again.
 
WannFly said:
so that will come from an analog sender?
Click to expand...

The FL202 uses the existing resistive fuel senders. Either already installed in your aircraft (OEM) or if they need it, overhauled.

The FL202D requires the CiES senders and these must be purchased directly from CiES.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Shane please stick around because I'm sure to have more questions. I've decided to go with the Aerospace Logic gauge with the Cies senders, both analog. Just how much "less accurate" will they be vs digital?
Click to expand...

Your accuracy "should" be the same however I would strongly recommend the digital over voltage. Signal loss is almost non-existant and there always seems to be some issue with the analog install/configuration as it is not the standard install. Don't take my comment wrong, all will work, it just may be a little more difficult to get it to work.
 
Here's what I have in the RV: https://buy-ei.com/portfolio/fl-2/ with fuel check LT for fuel monitoring
Here's what is in the Cardinal: http://www.aerospacelogic.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=249 with Shadin for fuel monitoring
The Cherokee Six is in crack land with the JPI full boat EDM900

The flow and countdown from the known launch quantity is better information than the fuel senders. It doesn't care about pitch, it doesn't care about the contours of the bottom of the tank, it's just accurate math.

The leakage issue is a real concern, but your standard mechanical gauges are equally valuable when that is the issue.
 
Aerospacelogic customer service on our install was questionable.

They initially faulted our A&P for a manufacturing defect but it got straightened out once the defect unit arrived in Canada.

Kept the plane off-line for an extra week.

Hopefully that isn't the norm.
 
AerospaceLogic said:
Your accuracy "should" be the same however I would strongly recommend the digital over voltage. Signal loss is almost non-existant and there always seems to be some issue with the analog install/configuration as it is not the standard install. Don't take my comment wrong, all will work, it just may be a little more difficult to get it to work.
Click to expand...

dumb question... but to change the senders does the fuel tank needs to come off? I have to take off the fuel tanks anyway to change the hose and take care a SB, wondering if I should plan to get the sender installed at this time or does it not matter?
 
AerospaceLogic said:
Your accuracy "should" be the same however I would strongly recommend the digital over voltage. Signal loss is almost non-existant and there always seems to be some issue with the analog install/configuration as it is not the standard install. Don't take my comment wrong, all will work, it just may be a little more difficult to get it to work.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "digital over voltage"? I was planning on the analog ASL FL202 gauge and the analog Cies senders. Are you saying it will be difficult to get it to work?
 
Timbeck2 said:
What do you mean by "digital over voltage"? I was planning on the analog ASL FL202 gauge and the analog Cies senders. Are you saying it will be difficult to get it to work?
Click to expand...
There are three possible outputs from the CiES sender:

1. Digital (actually a frequency modulated waveform). This is the default output and works with our FL20xD instrument,
2. Voltage - optional. Not sure on the exact range - check with CiES on this but people use either our FL21x or FL25x products with this,
3. Resistance - optional. Again, not sure on the exact range - check with CiES. Our FL20x "should" work with this but check with CiES

For option (1) our STC covers the installation of FL20xD and the CiES fuel sender/s, for (2) and (3) our STC covers installation of the instrument only. If you go (2) or (3) make sure the CiES STC covers your aircraft and that the (licensed) person doing the install (AI or A&P) will sign off that they are compatible with one another, in other words that after install everything works as it should.

Our only supported and STC'd combination is the FL20xD and the CiES senders with digital output.

The FL202 is only STC'd to work with true resistive senders (OEM).

End of the day check all CiES related information with them. Things change and what we know may not always be correct. As far as our products go, no questions there.
 
I have an EDM830 and after you go through the iterations of calibrating it, it is reasonably accurate. I've had fellow Navioneers extort the virtues of the new EI fuel gauges as well.
 
flyingron said:
I have an EDM830 and after you go through the iterations of calibrating it, it is reasonably accurate. I've had fellow Navioneers extort the virtues of the new EI fuel gauges as well.
Click to expand...
i have EDM 830 too and its pretty darn close. like .3 gal close. but this thread brings a very valid point... EDM/Fuel Flow measures how much fuel is going to through it, it will not tell you if you are loosing fuel from a hose somewhere and the stock fuel gauges are notoriously incorrect. i guess with Piper, at least if you run one tank dry, you *should* have enough to land on the other tank
 
AerospaceLogic said:
There are three possible outputs from the CiES sender:

1. Digital (actually a frequency modulated waveform). This is the default output and works with our FL20xD instrument,
2. Voltage - optional. Not sure on the exact range - check with CiES on this but people use either our FL21x or FL25x products with this,
3. Resistance - optional. Again, not sure on the exact range - check with CiES. Our FL20x "should" work with this but check with CiES

For option (1) our STC covers the installation of FL20xD and the CiES fuel sender/s, for (2) and (3) our STC covers installation of the instrument only. If you go (2) or (3) make sure the CiES STC covers your aircraft and that the (licensed) person doing the install (AI or A&P) will sign off that they are compatible with one another, in other words that after install everything works as it should.

Our only supported and STC'd combination is the FL20xD and the CiES senders with digital output.

The FL202 is only STC'd to work with true resistive senders (OEM).

End of the day check all CiES related information with them. Things change and what we know may not always be correct. As far as our products go, no questions there.
Click to expand...

Appreciate you taking the time to explain that and it prevents me from making a mistake so I'm glad I asked. I'll get the digital on both. Thank you.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top