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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Kage,
let's try again, shall we? Assume close to a standard atmosphere. Engine off. Case 1: We're at a sea level airfield. 1. The MP will read the ambient pressure at field elevation, which is 29.92. 2. The altimeter, when set to the altimeter setting of the day of 29.92, will read the field elevation of 0 feet. 3. When the altimeter is set to indicate 0 feet at the field elevation, the altimeter's Kollsmann window will read the ambient pressure at field elevation, which is 29.92. Case 2: We're at an airfield at 2000 feet elevation. 1. The MP will read the ambient pressure at field elevation, which is 27.92. 2. The altimeter, when set to the altimeter setting of the day of 29.92, will read the field elevation of 2000 feet. 3. When the altimeter is set to indicate 0 feet at the field elevation, the altimeter's Kollsmann window will read the ambient pressure at field elevation, which is 27.92. Thus, when you set the altimeter as described in 3. (i.e. to indicate the field elevation) it will show the same as the MP gauge. FWIW, the altimeter setting that produces an indication of 0 feet at the field elevation is called QFE in ICAO speak (which the US isn't good at ;-)). The "altimeter setting" you guys in the US know is called QNH elsewhere in the world. This setting is what I was trying to describe in my posts. Where, pray, tell, is that "not even close" and "completely erroneous"? On the contrary, your "It [the MP gauge] should be close to the setting [on the altimeter] seen when field elevation is dialed in." is definitely wrong. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Robert,
I thought you were referring to zero MSL but it would be zero AGL. Yep. I tried to explain in detail in another post to kage. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas,
(i.e. to indicate the field elevation) Oops, messed up there. That should read "i.e. to indicate 0 feet at the field elevation". -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"kage" wrote in message ...
Thomas, Well it might be wrong, but it will be close, like I said----not exact. And it is a good preflight check to see if there are gross errors in the instruments. True, but atmospheric pressure isn't involved in this test at all. You are comparing altimeter setting with altimeter reading. You are just verifying the altimeter setting. Pressure really has nothing to do with it. They should never have labeled the altimeter with numbers like 29.92. They should have just called them 123, etc. If the actual pressure did change, it would change both your altimeter reading and altimeter setting, so pressure isn't really relevant to testing your altimeter against the altimeter setting. -Robert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Special prop to increase manifold pressure | Fly | Owning | 7 | December 2nd 04 07:23 PM |
Cabin Pressure Altitude | Greg Esres | Piloting | 4 | March 24th 04 08:35 PM |
Manifold pressure gauge problem | Dave Russell | Aerobatics | 3 | January 29th 04 03:46 AM |
Wanted clever PA32 engineer's thoughts - Gear extention problem on Piper Lance | [email protected] | Owning | 5 | July 22nd 03 12:35 AM |
Pressure Differential in heat Exchangers | Bruce A. Frank | Home Built | 4 | July 3rd 03 05:18 AM |