Testimonials

I bought sensors for my Cessna 185 a few months ago and had some difficulties with the installation. Much of it was [due to an] incorrect schematic and wiring bundles from another company. Other issues were created by incomplete information in the Garmin 275 EIS installation manual.

Enter Daniel, your excellent customer support representative. Daniel did a great job of helping me through the many issues I encountered, and we finally got the installation completed and flown. He even invited me to call him on his mobile, should I need help outside business hours. That’s unheard of these days.

There are a lot of companies that can build a better mousetrap; but those which build that better mousetrap AND have great customer support are quite rare. You have that combination.

I did the CIES-G3X calibration with my A&P, and we were able to get 39 gal into the tanks after putting in 3 gallons of unusable fuel (this was 0.0 in the calibration table). If you still have capacity beyond 37 gallons, you have to decide what to do. You can either flatten off the calibration curve at 37 or you can add another point or two. I added points for 38 and 39 gallons. If you do the former, you’ll have to burn a couple of gallons before you see any movement on the G3X gauge. Sounds like your shop did exactly the same as I did. 

The digital senders connected to a glass panel offer precision that was unimaginable when my bonanza rolled off the assembly line with resistive floats and a small analog gauge. 

As it turns out 74 gallons was conservative and we can actually get more in the tanks on a cool day. Whether you account for the extra weight (36 pounds for my situation) at station 75 in you W&B is up to you. I rarely operate near the boundaries of the envelope so I usually ignore the extra few gallons in my W&B (plus I have Foreflight W&B set up with 74 gallons [444 lbs] and have never changed it). 

Bottom line, my fuel order is to the tabs, slots, or to the top, and I almost always top them off. Consistency of gauge readings and fuel totalizer/flow meter gives confidence in readings and fuel onboard during flight. Before resetting the Fuel Calculator, I’ll note the fuel used and compare to what was added. It is usually within 0.1 gallon. Amazing precision.

My analog resistive gauges were trash, and would often “disappear” 10+ gallons per side in the dead zone. Not super comforting when they’re off by that much, even when the totalizer is correct. I also like the fact that I can sync the totalizer to the gauges, so on start up as long as the gauges match what I put in / dipsticked, it’s as simple as hitting a single button to load the gauge totals to the totalizer. I can finally trust my fuel gauges.

If your airplane is down for an upgrade, I would send your old fuel senders to CiES. This will ensure that the senders are appropriately set up the first time. Beechcraft, in all of their wisdom, made numerous different senders, inverting the bolt patterns on some, etc.

Maybe I am an oddball. I just cannot imagine why any pilot would not want super accurate fuel gauges. Putting dollars aside, that seems like a no-brainer to me. My brother, Kurt and I met with Scott and got the pitch at Oshkosh last summer. I think he has done a tremendous service to GA with the development of CiES fuel senders and have put them on my list of "to-dos" for my Baron. Kurt has already put them in his Bonanza and is very happy with the result.

The Aerospace Logic 'FL20xD' gauges and CiES sender combo is a superior and accurate solution to fuel level monitoring. Very happy with my install!

I've flown 30 hours with the new units and they're awesome. I am much more confident stretching my flights to five hours knowing the fuel on board accurately and partial fueling is much more precise.

Installation, in the end, was not overly problematic. It did take the guys a long time to figure out where and how to run the wires. Charged labor was 76 hours. No hiccups once calibrated, but that process also was poorly outlined. Overall installation was not straightforward, but I suspect it will be with practice.

The cost to retrofit CiES senders to a pre-74 B55 is around $3200 (plus installation). That may seem "outrageous," but it's only about 50% more than what it costs to have the eight (2 per tank * 4 tanks) senders "overhauled." And my experience with overhauled senders is not very good. At best, the overhauled senders will perform as good as when new for a few years – which is to say they're accurate to within about +/- 5 gallons.

Properly calibrated the CiES senders appear to be within one gallon. In a Bonanza with two 40 gallon tanks, or a post 1973 Baron, there are only four senders so that cost is cut in half.

The last time I checked, new (1940s technology based) senders from Beech were around $1,600 each or over four times what CiES charges.

CiES senders can work by resistance, voltage or frequency. I would choose at a minimum voltage, if you can. Frequency is even better.

Just did a new install of CiES fuel senders to JPI indicator. The difference between the Cessna floats and CiES is nothing short of amazing. Highly recommend the product.

I was the first sender/gauge install for my shop. Charged 40 hrs. labor for install. (They said it was very simple and straight forward).

I asked every member of the shop to watch the YouTube video from Aerospace Logic for the calibration process. It's actually easy to do. As with everything, garbage in = garbage out.

One of my most valuable installs. Nothing better than knowing, DOWN TO THE 1/10th gallon, how much gas you have.

As far as Aerospace Logic goes... Outstanding product. Aerospace Logic service is interesting. Overall, no regrets.

Great upgrade. Gave me confidence to fly to the Bahamas and know exactly how much fuel I have before the next fuel stop.

I put in the JPI 930 and went ahead and bit the bullet on the CiES senders. When you a looking at spending a fair bit on money on the panel, it's really not that expensive. It's very reassuring to have the totalizer and the gauge agree within a couple of gallons.

You can get yourself in trouble with total reliance on the totalizer. It's a garbage in, garbage out device and you can get it out of sync with reality. I have personal experience with this, which is probably why I didn't balk at the price.

My old gauges were terrible. The JPI with the CiES senders always agrees with the totalizer within a couple of gallons. And it's within a gallon when the total fuel in the mains gets below around 30 gallons.

Is it an absolutely must have? No. But the new technology is clearly better and it's certainly an upgrade that I'm happy is available for my old plane.

Accuracy... It's a totally new experience. I have two fuel totalizers; one in my Shadin and one in my G4. Maybe having accurate fuel gauges is overkill... But it's an overkill that I like.

Two years ago, I had four CiES senders and Aerospace Logic display installed in my Bonanza and I love them. Very accurate and easy to read. Reliable and reasonably priced.

Yesterday, at 8500 AGL, I ran both R&L Auxiliary tanks down to 0.0 gals, at 47:35 on the clock, precisely as expected... A few seconds later... Fuel pressure begins to fall, immediately switched back to left main.

I have the CiES frequency senders, with matching Aerospace Logic gauges. Working with Aerospace Logic requires patience, but in the end, the result is really spectacular.

Amazing technology. After 35 years flying my 182, I installed CiES senders and G275 EIS and the fuel shown and pumped is always accurate to the gallon. Wonderful!

Recently installed CiES fuel senders in my Mooney M20E. Accuracy is great even though I have four bladders cells and only one CiES sender per wing.

I didn't know going in that we needed to change out the fuel senders, so it was a pleasant surprise seeing the accuracy once it was complete. With the CiES fuel senders, it is amazing how accurate they are.

We tried a number of resistive float senders with terrible accuracy. With CiES senders, our indicated fuel is within 0.5 gallons of the EDM830 totalizer every time!

I have installed CIES fuel senders on my Twin Comanche in conjunction with a JPI960. I am very pleased. They work great. I am confident in my fuel gauges for the first time since I have owned the plane. (1991).

Six thousand feet above the coastal route from Ketchikan, Alaska to Friday Harbor, it’s never been more important to know exactly how much fuel you have! Thankful for the accuracy and reliability of our CiES fuel senders. Love them.

I installed a JPI EMD900 in my 1972 177B last year when I put the overhauled engine in, and was not able to make the original Cessna fuel senders work with it. I ordered a set of CiES senders and finally got them installed in February. I have put a few tanks of fuel through since, and they have indicated within a liter or two of both the fuel consumption (as measured by the JPI) and the amount needed to refill the tanks. I am very pleased with the result, and it is a huge sense of peace of mind when flying in places where fuel sources are several flying hours apart.

Just got the upgrade done. I test flew it for two hours yesterday putting it through its paces and fortunately came out squawk free.

Garmin G500 and JPI EDM 930 were replaced with the Garmin G500 TXi and the new integrated Engine Information System (EIS). Also had CiES Fuel Senders installed for increased accuracy since one negative of the Garmin EIS on the single 10.6" screen is that it does not show remaining fuel based on the fuel flow transducer, but rather what the fuel senders show in the tanks. So I wanted to have good accurate instrumentation with this setup. The remaining fuel flow based on the fuel flow transducer data is available, but you have to bring up the Engine page on the MFD screen to see it.

I will say that the CiES integration with the Garmin EIS was pretty seamless and Garmin's interface for calibrating the senders was superb.