Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:11 AM - Re: More testing with OAT and Static Ports. (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
2. 06:47 AM - Re: More testing with OAT and Static Ports. (Tim Olson)
3. 07:35 AM - Testing the Static Ports. (LessDragProd@AOL.COM)
4. 08:58 AM - Test - change of email address (John Jessen)
5. 12:46 PM - Re: Re: Electric Rudder Trim (Richard Gurley)
6. 03:10 PM - Garmin 496 Wiring (Albert Gardner)
7. 04:10 PM - Re: Garmin 496 Wiring (SteinAir, Inc.)
8. 04:46 PM - Re: Garmin 496 Wiring (Albert Gardner)
9. 04:51 PM - Re: More testing with OAT and Static Ports. (John W. Cox)
10. 07:33 PM - Re: More testing with OAT and Static Ports. (William Curtis)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | More testing with OAT and Static Ports. |
The common theme here is that the static ports must extend out approx .010 in
order to clear the boundary layer and give accurate readings. Van's do this
from the shear fact that they are a domed pop rivet. A lot of people are concerned,
and I believe a few have experienced, that the van's pop rivet doesn't
hold the static tubing on with any type of long term positive grip. Other than
that thousands are flying with the pop rivet.
With the -10 many people just didn't like the idea of a cheesy pop rivet static
port and just as many are planning on using the -10 for IFR so it would seem
prudent to use something better like the Cleaveland or SafeAir. Back when I
made my decision there was a lot of conjecture on why people would see various
errors and I discussed this briefly with SafeAir and went with their package
anyway knowing I might have to replace the ports (I mainly was interested in
the tubing and connectors). It was acknowledged back then that there was a potential
for problems but most people didn't seem to care that they might have
an error as they fly for fun.
So we now know, with some hard data, that you probably need at least a .010 protuberance
for accurate readings. I would be interested to know if .015 would
clear up that additional 1-2 knot discrepancy. If your ports are flush you
will probably have an error. If you use Van's pop rivet method or anything else
that sticks out a bit you will probably be ok.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Limbo.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: More testing with OAT and Static Ports.
Good question, I installed the Safe Air ports. I second. Any known errors?
Dave Leikam
40496
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Testement" <jwt@roadmapscoaching.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 6:27 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: More testing with OAT and Static Ports.
> <jwt@roadmapscoaching.com>
>
> Does anyone know if the ports from SafeAir have the same errors that the
> Cleveland flat ports have?
>
> John Testement
> jwt@roadmapscoaching.com
> 40321
> Richmond, VA
> Paint prep and interior
> do not archive
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10builder
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:15 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: More testing with OAT and Static Ports.
>
>
> I know Mike follows this list...he can probably answer.
>
> BTW Mike...can you have a supply of the new static ports on hand at
> OSH'08?
>
> Brian
> #40308
> Nashville, TN
>
> Bob Leffler wrote:
>> --> <rvmail@thelefflers.com>
>>
>> It doesn't appear that Cleaveland has updated their web site. What's
>> the new part number? I'm assuming they are the same price as the old
> ones?
>>
>> Has anyone measured the ones from Rivethead-Aero yet? Do they exhibit
>> similar issues?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr, Ray
>> R [NTK]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:48 AM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RV10-List: More testing with OAT and Static Ports.
>>
>> <Ray.R.Doerr@sprint.com>
>>
>> Over the weekend I changed out my flat faced static ports from
>> Cleveland Tools to there new dome faced ones. When I called them
>> about the error (TAS was 5 - 6 knots low on my Dynon versus 4-way GPS
>> TAS) I was having with the original flat faced ones, they sent me the
>> new dome faced ones at no charge (awesome folks at Cleveland). I also
>> mounted another OAT in my left wing on the wing spar flange right in
>> front of the middle inspection plate, which was connected to a General
>> Purpose input on my Dynon Engine Monitor. My other OAT is mounted in
>> the aft half moon bulkhead under the emp fairing, which is connected
>> to the compass module for the Dynon EFIS.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 10:02 AM
>
>
> 10:02 AM
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: More testing with OAT and Static Ports. |
I'd agree with everything Michael just said. It really is just
sticking the port out a bit that fixes things. I had my old
Cleveland flat ports in, and cut flat washers to tape over the
area and that did the job too as a test...just getting the ports
to stick out a bit. The pop-rivet will do that, and there's
probably many more ways, but as Michael also said, you want
something really good for IFR flight that securely holds
the tubing on, so the pop rivet doesn't cut it from a mechanical
perspective, even if it worked perfectly from an accuracy perspective.
Also, I know, cleveland said that the primer is the cause of the
flat ports not working right. While that may add to the
poor function of the flat ports, IMHO, if the primer is enough
to wreck it's function, then they weren't NEARLY stuck out
enough to begin with. Even the domed ones don't stick out that
far, and if I were building my own, I'd probably want to at
least test them being another .020-.030 stuck out than
the domed ones are. It would be interesting if the additional
~2kt error would then go away.
So I don't think the location is much at fault at all, but it's
absolutely apparent that the static port must stick out from the
skin. If the SafeAir ports do that, then you should be fine.
If not...don't expect much.
Also, if you don't paint the ports, the skin's thickness will
detract from how far the port sticks out, so apparently you
are supposed to paint the ports with the skins. Again though,
I think the ports should just be cut thick enough that they
can go on unpainted and still work.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> The common theme here is that the static ports must extend out approx
> .010 in order to clear the boundary layer and give accurate readings.
> Van's do this from the shear fact that they are a domed pop rivet. A
> lot of people are concerned, and I believe a few have experienced,
> that the van's pop rivet doesn't hold the static tubing on with any
> type of long term positive grip. Other than that thousands are
> flying with the pop rivet.
>
> With the -10 many people just didn't like the idea of a cheesy pop
> rivet static port and just as many are planning on using the -10 for
> IFR so it would seem prudent to use something better like the
> Cleaveland or SafeAir. Back when I made my decision there was a lot
> of conjecture on why people would see various errors and I discussed
> this briefly with SafeAir and went with their package anyway knowing
> I might have to replace the ports (I mainly was interested in the
> tubing and connectors). It was acknowledged back then that there was
> a potential for problems but most people didn't seem to care that
> they might have an error as they fly for fun.
>
> So we now know, with some hard data, that you probably need at least
> a .010 protuberance for accurate readings. I would be interested to
> know if .015 would clear up that additional 1-2 knot discrepancy. If
> your ports are flush you will probably have an error. If you use
> Van's pop rivet method or anything else that sticks out a bit you
> will probably be ok.
>
> Michael Sausen -10 #352 Limbo.
>
> -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> Leikam Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 11:34 PM To:
> rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: More testing with OAT
> and Static Ports.
>
>
>
> Good question, I installed the Safe Air ports. I second. Any known
> errors?
>
> Dave Leikam 40496
>
> do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Testement"
> <jwt@roadmapscoaching.com> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com> Sent:
> Wednesday, July 04, 2007 6:27 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: More testing
> with OAT and Static Ports.
>
>
>> <jwt@roadmapscoaching.com>
>>
>> Does anyone know if the ports from SafeAir have the same errors
>> that the Cleveland flat ports have?
>>
>> John Testement jwt@roadmapscoaching.com 40321 Richmond, VA Paint
>> prep and interior do not archive
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From:
>> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> rv10builder Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:15 PM To:
>> rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: More testing with
>> OAT and Static Ports.
>>
>> <rv10builder@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> I know Mike follows this list...he can probably answer.
>>
>> BTW Mike...can you have a supply of the new static ports on hand at
>> OSH'08?
>>
>> Brian #40308 Nashville, TN
>>
>> Bob Leffler wrote:
>>> <rvmail@thelefflers.com>
>>>
>>> It doesn't appear that Cleaveland has updated their web site.
>>> What's the new part number? I'm assuming they are the same price
>>> as the old
>> ones?
>>> Has anyone measured the ones from Rivethead-Aero yet? Do they
>>> exhibit similar issues?
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From:
>>> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr,
>>> Ray R [NTK] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:48 AM To:
>>> rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: More testing with OAT
>>> and Static Ports.
>>>
>>> <Ray.R.Doerr@sprint.com>
>>>
>>> Over the weekend I changed out my flat faced static ports from
>>> Cleveland Tools to there new dome faced ones. When I called them
>>> about the error (TAS was 5 - 6 knots low on my Dynon versus
>>> 4-way GPS TAS) I was having with the original flat faced ones,
>>> they sent me the new dome faced ones at no charge (awesome folks
>>> at Cleveland). I also mounted another OAT in my left wing on the
>>> wing spar flange right in front of the middle inspection plate,
>>> which was connected to a General Purpose input on my Dynon Engine
>>> Monitor. My other OAT is mounted in the aft half moon bulkhead
>>> under the emp fairing, which is connected to the compass module
>>> for the Dynon EFIS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 10:02 AM
>>
>>
>> 10:02 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Testing the Static Ports. |
Hi All,
This test method was given to me from Dean Hall in testing he had done on
his RV-4.
Rational for the test method. The altimeter is only connected to the static
port.
On the sectional, locate a given height for a mountain peak, or whatever,
near your airport.
Set your altimeter station pressure to the reported station pressure.
Verify that the altimeter reading and the actual field elevation are correct.
Go up and fly past the mountain peak, or whatever, at cruise speed and
report your altimeter reading.
Dean Hall had installed a Piper style pitot/static tube on his RV-4, and the
first flight past the mountain peak he found that his altimeter was off by
800 feet.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Test - change of email address |
Just a test. Email address has changed from jjessen@rcn.com to
N212PJ@gmail.com
John Jessen
40328
do not archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electric Rudder Trim |
Dave -
If I could ask, how did you attach your servo to the plate - with what
type
of harware?
Dick Gurley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Dsyvert@aol.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electric Rudder Trim
Bob,
Sorry I can't remember the part number and can't seem to find it.
For
the servo I'm using the Ray Allen Co. T3-12A like Vic. You need to be
aware
that the arm is not centered on the servo but offset. This is why you
should
have the parts before cutting so you can lay it out. As far as the servo
arm
being perpendicular, both mine and his are. On his it looks like he put
his
plate parallel to the ground and then attached the servo to plate at an
angle so the arm is perpendicular to the trailing edge. Also the servo
would
be parallel to the trailing edge. I did mine a bit different. I
installed
the access plate parallel to the trailing edge and not to the ground.
Either
way works.
I'm still putting mine together whereas Vic's flying so I may have a
hick up, but I think it will work.
Dave Syvertson
40625
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Garmin 496 Wiring |
Has anyone wired up their 496 and solved these problem I have encountered? I
am installing my 496 using the Air-Gizmos adaptor and Garmin's Power/Data
cable. I want to connect the 496 to my Tru-Trak autopilot, the Dynon 180
EFIS, and the PMA8000 audio panel. The Garmin cable has 9 wires while the
manual indicates only 7 (page 158). The manual says the yellow and blue
wires are "Data in and out" but the tag on the cable labels these as "Port 1
in and out". In addition, the cable has 2 wires not mentioned in the manual,
a green and violet pair labeled "Port 2 in and out".
Questions:
1. What signal will be present on the Voice output? I want the XM radio
signal to go to the audio panel, is this the right output to wire into an
entertainment input? Do any of the alarm outputs appear here?
2. The PMA8000 has 4 unswitched audio inputs available. I wired the Dynon
EFIS and EMS alarms into #1. I plan on wiring the Garmin alarm output into
#2. I am assuming that XM music will not be present on this 496 output.
3. Would you wire the Dynon EFIS and EMS alarms together and into a single
audio input (like Dynon suggests) or split them and wire into different
audio inputs, IE, #1 (EFIS) and #2 (EMS) with the Garmin going into #3?
4. What is the difference between the 496 output labeled Port 1 and Port 2?
I can find no mention of ports in the manual. Is there different information
on them? In the setup screens on the 496 I don't see any mention of Ports. I
am assuming I should wire the Port 1 in and out to the autopilot but the
Dynon EFIS needs that input also. Do I send it to both or should Port 1 go
to one and Port 2 to the other?
5. Apparently the 496 can tune the SL-30 Nav/Comm. If I choose to do this,
the SL-30 need a data output from the 496. How is this done?
6. There is an audio mini-jack on the back of the 496 in addition to the
wire in the wire in the cable assembly. If I wire the Alarm output into a
audio panel audio input and the Voice output into an entertainment input
have I separated the two signals so that the pilot gets the alarms and the
passengers get only the XM radio signal? I assume then that this jack is
only used when I remove the 496 from the plane.
Albert (lost in space) Gardner
Yuma, AZ
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Garmin 496 Wiring |
Hi Albert,
I'll take these in order the best I know how.
1) The voice output is useless (in my opinion, so don't hook it up)...even
the alarm output is marginally usefull - but that's just my personal
opinion.
2) Run the XM output from the 496 (use a stereo jack in the music output
port from the GPS - not part of the power/data cable) into an "entertainment
input" for the PMA.
3) Put the Dynon's together as they suggest.
4) Leave port 2 alone for now. Just split the port 1 wire to the various
components.
5) When you set the serial port 1, you choose "Aviation In/NMEA & VHF OUT".
6) You'll need that jack to send the music to the audio panel. In the
PMA8000, the Entertainment 1 is for front seaters and/or passengers and
Ent#2 is for passengers only. You can decide how to configure them by
pressing certain buttons on the panel - which will dictate who can hear what
when! Basically we suggest wiring the XM to to ENT #1 unless you're using
it for something else. We normally install the ENT#2 jack for the rear
seaters in case they bring along their own IPOD or DVD player or such.
Hope that helps!
Cheers,
Stein.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Albert Gardner
>Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:13 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Garmin 496 Wiring
>
>
>
>Has anyone wired up their 496 and solved these problem I have
>encountered? I
>am installing my 496 using the Air-Gizmos adaptor and Garmin's Power/Data
>cable. I want to connect the 496 to my Tru-Trak autopilot, the Dynon 180
>EFIS, and the PMA8000 audio panel. The Garmin cable has 9 wires while the
>manual indicates only 7 (page 158). The manual says the yellow and blue
>wires are "Data in and out" but the tag on the cable labels these
>as "Port 1
>in and out". In addition, the cable has 2 wires not mentioned in
>the manual,
>a green and violet pair labeled "Port 2 in and out".
>
>Questions:
>1. What signal will be present on the Voice output? I want the XM radio
>signal to go to the audio panel, is this the right output to wire into an
>entertainment input? Do any of the alarm outputs appear here?
>
>2. The PMA8000 has 4 unswitched audio inputs available. I wired the Dynon
>EFIS and EMS alarms into #1. I plan on wiring the Garmin alarm output into
>#2. I am assuming that XM music will not be present on this 496 output.
>
>3. Would you wire the Dynon EFIS and EMS alarms together and into a single
>audio input (like Dynon suggests) or split them and wire into different
>audio inputs, IE, #1 (EFIS) and #2 (EMS) with the Garmin going into #3?
>
>4. What is the difference between the 496 output labeled Port 1 and Port 2?
>I can find no mention of ports in the manual. Is there different
>information
>on them? In the setup screens on the 496 I don't see any mention
>of Ports. I
>am assuming I should wire the Port 1 in and out to the autopilot but the
>Dynon EFIS needs that input also. Do I send it to both or should Port 1 go
>to one and Port 2 to the other?
>
>5. Apparently the 496 can tune the SL-30 Nav/Comm. If I choose to do this,
>the SL-30 need a data output from the 496. How is this done?
>
>6. There is an audio mini-jack on the back of the 496 in addition to the
>wire in the wire in the cable assembly. If I wire the Alarm output into a
>audio panel audio input and the Voice output into an entertainment input
>have I separated the two signals so that the pilot gets the alarms and the
>passengers get only the XM radio signal? I assume then that this jack is
>only used when I remove the 496 from the plane.
>
>Albert (lost in space) Gardner
>Yuma, AZ
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Garmin 496 Wiring |
Hey Stein, I would have called you but I thought you were all on vacation
this week. Thanks for the info, it was mucho needed. BTW, I think the
air-Gizmo bracket is going to work fine, it really makes a nice setup just
below the PMA8000 and above the SL-30 and 40.
Albert Gardner
Yuma, AZ
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | More testing with OAT and Static Ports. |
Before Dr. Carl Cadwell built the first Epic LT Kitbuilt Single Engine
Turbo-prop, he finished a beautiful Lancair (N25CL) that used the
boundary layer disrupter in the attached picture. This might help
clarify why the pickup port should Not be flush with the skin. Notice
the accent color pinstripe on the lower red to bring out the clarity.
One Shot - lettering paint was used.
Just a Trivia Note: It was the completion of Dr. Cadwell's Epic that
caused Comp Air of Florida to whine about the competition and trigger
the secret 51% Committee Meetings. Has anyone seen any progress from
the private committee? I will wager Mass Produced Kit Build is here to
stay with non American QB labor.
John Cox - KUAO
#600
PS - I hear that the RV-12 with a new wing is ready for "Prime Time" OSH
'07
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: More testing with OAT and Static Ports.
I'd agree with everything Michael just said. It really is just
sticking the port out a bit that fixes things. Even the domed ones
don't stick out that far, and if I were building my own, I'd probably
want to at
least test them being another .020-.030 stuck out than
the domed ones are. It would be interesting if the additional
~2kt error would then go away.
So I don't think the location is much at fault at all, but it's
absolutely apparent that the static port must stick out from the
skin. If the SafeAir ports do that, then you should be fine.
If not...don't expect much.
Also, if you don't paint the ports, the skin's thickness will
detract from how far the port sticks out, so apparently you
are supposed to paint the ports with the skins. Again though,
I think the ports should just be cut thick enough that they
can go on unpainted and still work.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | More testing with OAT and Static Ports. |
I don't know about boundary layer disruptor but these are stock S-Tec (Meggit)
static ports used on their autopilots. I know this cause I have two of these
on the tailcone sides of my Cardinal feeding the S-Tec 30 altitude hold. Ironically,
the stock static ports on the Cardinal are flush and forward of the cabin
door.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>
> Before Dr. Carl Cadwell built the first Epic LT Kitbuilt Single Engine
> Turbo-prop, he finished a beautiful Lancair (N25CL) that used the
> boundary layer disrupter in the attached picture. This might help
> clarify why the pickup port should Not be flush with the skin. Notice
> the accent color pinstripe on the lower red to bring out the clarity.
> One Shot - lettering paint was used.
>
> Just a Trivia Note: It was the completion of Dr. Cadwell's Epic that
> caused Comp Air of Florida to whine about the competition and trigger
> the secret 51% Committee Meetings. Has anyone seen any progress from
> the private committee? I will wager Mass Produced Kit Build is here to
> stay with non American QB labor.
>
> John Cox - KUAO
> #600
>
> PS - I hear that the RV-12 with a new wing is ready for "Prime Time" OSH
> '07
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 6:47 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: More testing with OAT and Static Ports.
>
>
> I'd agree with everything Michael just said. It really is just
> sticking the port out a bit that fixes things. Even the domed ones
> don't stick out that far, and if I were building my own, I'd probably
> want to at
> least test them being another .020-.030 stuck out than
> the domed ones are. It would be interesting if the additional
> ~2kt error would then go away.
>
> So I don't think the location is much at fault at all, but it's
> absolutely apparent that the static port must stick out from the
> skin. If the SafeAir ports do that, then you should be fine.
> If not...don't expect much.
>
> Also, if you don't paint the ports, the skin's thickness will
> detract from how far the port sticks out, so apparently you
> are supposed to paint the ports with the skins. Again though,
> I think the ports should just be cut thick enough that they
> can go on unpainted and still work.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|