![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I was told by one of the top Polish pilots that the ASG-29 used by Polish Team was using electronic compensation and they felt it was as good or better than using a TE probe.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That I what I have heard as well, but just don’t know if my leaking TE line acting as a static will give me any reasonably accurate electronic TE compensation
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That is extremely unlikely to work as even if the TE tube is completely detached in the fin you have no idea how closely the pressure inside the fin is following true static. The reason for having co-located ports is to minimise differences in time response. Electronic TE compensation requires really accurate pitot and static inputs with simultaneous signals to work properly. If you have them there is a better chance getting it to work (even if not well) by using aft fuselage static ports, which are usually fairly accurate, than a completely unknown source inside the fin.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lx9070 V80 and Butterfly electronic and pnuemantic compensation | Jonathan St. Cloud | Soaring | 2 | May 5th 16 06:47 PM |
Electronic versus Pneumatic compensation (conclusions) | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | September 26th 05 05:02 PM |
Electronic versus Pneumatic compensation (follow-up) | [email protected] | Soaring | 4 | September 20th 05 06:21 PM |
Electronic versus Pneumatic compensation (follow-up) | [email protected] | Soaring | 2 | September 20th 05 06:04 AM |
Electronic versus Pneumatic compensation in LX7000 | [email protected] | Soaring | 8 | September 15th 05 02:49 AM |