Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

CiES fuel senders now EASA STC

Slightly off topic, but I think the above fuel gauge can be used with them.
Has anyone heard from CIES fuel senders ?
https://www.ciescorp.net

For those of you with at least one foot solidly in the 21st century, Cies has received EASA STC approval for their non-contact fuel level sensors (actual OEM on the Cirrus planes).

www.ciescorp.net

Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:

For those of you with at least one foot solidly in the 21st century, Cies has received EASA STC approval for their non-contact fuel level sensors (actual OEM on the Cirrus planes).

They are not non-contact sensors but float sensors. The advantages compared to traditional float fuel sensors seem to be that they don’t use potentiometers but some kind of magnetic detection of sensor position and that the transmission is digital rather than analogue. Also Cies claims to have “designed a aviation grade fuel sender from the outset. We addressed the moisture and corrosion issues, we addressed fuel motion in all axis and we designed a system to give excellent resolution less than (1/10 of a gallon) for fuel tanks that can hold hundreds of gallons of fuel.”

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 01 Nov 15:09
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Okay so let me rephrase.. there is a float that is driving a non-contact magnetic field angular position sensor versus the old version that involved a potentiometer where two parts came in mechanical contact (the moving arm and variable resistance plate – replace with proper technical terms as needed).

In the auto industry (e.g. throttle-by-wire) they are called commonly called contactless or non-contact position sensors… but apparently aviators aren’t happy with the term, so let’s settle for “float sensor with magnetic detection of sensor position”.

Last Edited by Shorrick_Mk2 at 01 Nov 20:04

A reduction in sarcasm might help to get the message across, Shorrick.

It sounds like they have replaced the pot with an encoder, but how they have solved the sealing and liquid sloshing issues is interesting…

A digital interface adds nothing in reliability, compared with 3 wires to a pot.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

A float + lever that is physically connected to a pot is difficult (= impossible over a long period of time) to seal. A contactless transmission is easy to seal.

When did cars move to this technology? 30 years ago?

Are cars totally contactless ie the sensor in the tank is inductively powered?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Italic
They are not non-contact sensors but float sensors.
Technically to the application they are non-contact
as there is “No electrical contact” with the fuel volume – as contrast to resistive or capacitive
actually there is nothing wrong with float sensors – they actually work best for the aviation application.
This advantages are plane to see (SIC) if you are running tests on a visible fuel tank

floats only have the reputation – due to the contact method of measurement employed

The advantages compared to traditional float fuel sensors seem to be that they don’t use potentiometers but some kind of magnetic detection of sensor position and that the transmission is digital rather than analogue.
The advantages are far greater – it just isn’t obvious
The advance over all other technologies are as follows
Highest reliability in fuel sensing technologies – over 300,000 hrs mean time to failure
(even if it has a moving part – it isn’t wearing out)
Note: Interesting to the design it looses no accuracy related to pivot sloppiness
Highest accuracy of any fuel quantity system- better than 0.1% with no measurable hysteresis – capacitive is 3% and 1% with compensation
No need for redundancy
No need to limit sensor range height due to Lightning strike considerations – like capacitive
each sensor has a microprocessor to locally correct for fuel movement or to add slave sensors

Also CiES claims to have “designed a aviation grade fuel sender from the outset. We addressed the moisture and corrosion issues, we addressed fuel motion in all axis and we designed a system to give excellent resolution less than (1/10 of a gallon) for fuel tanks that can hold hundreds of gallons of fuel.”

We don’t claim anything, we have credibility in the market – we are on most (over 80%) of all worldwide new manufactured GA aircraft below 5,000 kg. We are on the Airbus AS350B3 Helicopter crashworthy retrofit tank, Quest Kodiak, Cirrus SF50 Jet Vulcanair, Tecnam. We have delivered over 17,000 fuel senders since 2012

This is A jet capable fuel quantity system available for light GA aircraft

& Always a curmudgeon in every aviation forum

Autos still use resistive systems in the fuel tanks – though VDO Continental had a magnetically driven wiper system.

Last Edited by fuellevel at 01 Nov 22:50

@fuellevel wrote:

Always a curmudgeon in every aviation forum

I don’t doubt that you make a good product. I’ve actually already considered it for retrofit in my club aircraft. If you want sales you should refrain from that kind of comment.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

@fuellevel Do you make non-certified versions ?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
23 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top