![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
JJ Sinclair wrote:
Just a bit of information for all the *rule-followers*, out there. Your ships manufacturer specifies the pitot and static sources that must be used in order to make the airspeed read the same as it did when the design was certified. The computer manufacturers tell us to use the same pitot and static that our airspeed indicator uses. SO, we should use the same one that is specified by the sailplane manufacturer. This applies to type certificated ships as well as those licenced in the experimental category. Because, your experimental airworthiness certificate says something like, This ship will be operated in accordance with its flight and maintenance manuals, and that specifies the source of pitot and static. JJ, not sure how to interpret what you wrote but suspect you may have been thinking that my ASI/altimeter were connected to the triple (TE) probe coming out of the stabilizer, which was not the case. My ship was set up (as it came to me, not from any change by me) with the ASI/altimeter connected to the forward pitot/static ports (which I believe are the "correct" ones) and the Cambridge computer being connected to the triple probe and the only connection to it. (The mechanical vario was connected to the altimeter static port, not to the TE probe) Having the computer on its own probe set into the free-stream flow seemed like a good idea to me offhand (assuming the air speed adjustment was done correctly), but I now gather there are differences of opinion as to what the "best" setup is. My response whenever I see something like "the computer manufacturers tell us to use the same pitot and static that our airspeed indicator uses" is to ask why, to make sure the reasons are those which apply in my case, but in this case I don't know enough to answer that question. Will write a separate post regarding present status, as am presently in triage status. Jack |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jack,
The computer manufactures want you to be making airspeed changes ( directed by the *speed to fly* information) with the same pitot & static sources that the computer is using, Because you could get into a situation (like you now have) where the computer may be telling you to constantly *speed up*, when actually that information is incorrect My only point was; If you want to follow the computer set-up info, you should be using the same pitot & static info that your airspeed indicator is using. BTW, I'm not saying the tripple probe isn't the most accurate, but we don't really know if it is, because it hasn't been certified on your ship. I have seen probes constantly dancing in flight. I wonder just how accurate the information from a *dancing* probe is? JJ Sinclair |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USFJ commander defends US response to, probe of helo crash | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 28th 04 12:29 AM |
US military rejects Japan police request for chopper probe | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 19th 04 02:58 AM |
landing gear cleaning | Bob Miller | Owning | 4 | July 5th 04 09:24 PM |
Follow-up probe ordered into June 'friendly-fire' hit | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | March 3rd 04 03:46 AM |
Broken line to Oil Temperature Probe, Repairable? | rkane33 | Owning | 2 | July 25th 03 03:19 AM |