This topic can apply to several aircraft types but I'm mostly thinking about Cessnas.

Currently my airplane is indicating fuel quantity on the screen of an MVP-50 via information sent from the original resistive senders. As one might expect this information is somewhat inconsistant.

For those out there who have converted to some sort of magnetic sender (CiES, Electronics International, Etc.) did you find an acceptable level of accuracy/consistency?

Trying to decide if I want to invest another AMU.

I put CiES senders on my 182 with Aerospace Logic gauge. Nice to have truly accurate quantity reading.

CiES senders with Aerospace Logic gauges makes a world of difference, they are very reliable , accurate and you can program your low fuel alarm to whatever are your personal limits.

The EI senders are very accurate as well. Easily calibrated. You send them your old and they copy to match the geometry. Check lead time. I’ve had them about 5 years now and no issues.

If you need to swap senders, I’d say go with the EI senders if you plan on keeping the MVP-50 long term. I had EI senders on my MVP-50 install and they were always reliable.

The shop I have been working with about doing my 310’s panel likes the EI fuel senders more than the CIES senders. At least on the Twin Cessnas the senders are mounted at the rear of the mains which will allow a pitch change to cause unreliable fuel quantity indications. Until Garmin and CIES can work out a polling rate fix for that issue, I might be sticking with the PennyCaps.

The good news is that the fuel senders mount to the tank in a completely different way in our high wing Cessnas and aren’t susceptible to these kinds of issues. Can’t go wrong with either!

Well, my experience with the cies senders has been mixed. I love having a digital indication, but it appears to only be accurate when the plane is on the ground with the engine not running. On a recent flight that I plotted from my EI data, both tanks were close to 10 to 12 gallons as I approached the airport. Then while maneuvering to land, they fluctuated wildly. Just before engine shutdown, left gauge was at 4.1 gallons and the right gauge was at 19.1 gallons. After shutdown, the left gauge was 0 and the right gauge was at 19.6. The left tank was indeed bone dry.

Needless to say, I’m not happy with this inaccuracy. I talked to the cies team at Oshkosh and they think it is because I have a P-Ponk engine with an 86” Mac 401 prop. They think the senders are in the prop arc and are distorting the fuel level. Their thinking was longer arms on the sending unit might be the answer, but so far they have been unresponsive to my requests for the new senders.

Nice to hear that others are happy with the digital accuracy, but so far my experience is less than satisfactory.

Ross