Dear All,
I have seen several posts about how to share the TE line between
e-vario and mechanical one. Maybe I am wrong but I can not see any
post about sharing the pitot pressure (dynamic) between ASI, e-vario
(computer) and and the only one static port between e-vario, altimeter
and mechanical vario.
Any good advice or this is not a problem at all ?

On 7 Mar 2005 00:08:47 -0800, Istvan Csonka wrote:

> Dear All,
> I have seen several posts about how to share the TE line between
> e-vario and mechanical one. Maybe I am wrong but I can not see any
> post about sharing the pitot pressure (dynamic) between ASI, e-vario
> (computer) and and the only one static port between e-vario, altimeter
> and mechanical vario.
> Any good advice or this is not a problem at all ?

The altimeter doesn't need to be connected to a static port unless you
plan on pressurising your glider ;-)
The most important instrument on the static port is the ASI, as this
measures very small changes in pressure, and the fluctuations in
cockpit pressure will make the ASI reading almost useless.
A vario on the static port will give you a completely uncompensated
vario. This is sometimes done for motorgliders to provide a VSI for
climbing under power, but would be unusual these days in a pure
glider. A vario using a capacity on the static line could give
transient errors on the ASI due to resistance in the tubing. If you
really want to do this, separate the tubes for ASI and vario as close
to the static port as possible to reduce common impedance.
Sharing the pitot line seems to be less of a problem, particularly if
the "e-vario" is a pressure one rather than a capacity type. However
if the e-vario is a flow-meter type with a typical 1 pint capacity, it
would be a good idea to separate the tubes as close to the pitot tube
as possible, for the same reason as separating the tubes to different
instruments from the static port or TE probe.
Cheers, John G.

I have run in to problems sharing a pitot between ASI and Cambridge
302, resulting in several very frustrating days at Hobbs one year where
it seemed as if I had forgotten to thermal. Separate pitots for the two
instruments solved the problem. Luckily, I have a tail pitot and a nose
pitot so each can have its own. The 302 seems particularly fussy about
having its own pitot and static sources however.

John Cochrane

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:34:32 -0500, T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> John Giddy > wrote:
>
>>The altimeter doesn't need to be connected to a static port unless you
>>plan on pressurising your glider ;-)
>
> Recognize, however, that opening the window or vent, etc.
> can vary your indicated altitude by a few hundred feet, not
> to mention any regulatory compliance issues in your country.

Would need to be a very well sealed cockpit to show such a change in
pressure IMHO. I have never seen such a change, but I have seen ASI
errors of 5 or so knots (say 10 km/hr) with window/vent operation.
Compliance issues are not a problem in Australia.
Cheers, John G.

BB wrote:
> I have run in to problems sharing a pitot between ASI and Cambridge
> 302, resulting in several very frustrating days at Hobbs one year
where
> it seemed as if I had forgotten to thermal. Separate pitots for the
two
> instruments solved the problem. Luckily, I have a tail pitot and a
nose
> pitot so each can have its own. The 302 seems particularly fussy
about
> having its own pitot and static sources however.
>
> John Cochrane

John,
I'm flying a 302 in my LS8 and cannot recall any problems in having it
attached to the same pitot that supplies pressure to the ASI. How
would you describe the behavior of the 302, just weird
deflections/audio signals?

Herb, J7

I went through that learning curve with the 302 in Hobbs last summer.
The working combination was to have the 302's static and TE/static
ports connected to the same source, and (very important!) changing the
302's internal setup to use electronic TE. Once I did that, the 302's
vario and my B-40 danced to the same tune.

2NO

BB wrote:
> I have run in to problems sharing a pitot between ASI and Cambridge
> 302, resulting in several very frustrating days at Hobbs one year where
> it seemed as if I had forgotten to thermal. Separate pitots for the two
> instruments solved the problem. Luckily, I have a tail pitot and a nose
> pitot so each can have its own. The 302 seems particularly fussy about
> having its own pitot and static sources however.

Based on my experience with my 302, I don't think it was the 302. On my
ASH 26 E, I went from a tail mounted TE feed to the 302 to using the ASI
pitot/static (electronic TE) with no detectable change in ASI or 302
operation. Just guessing: perhaps your connection involved a leak, or
maybe the 302 was not happy using a nose pitot and a TE probe and static
at the rear of the glider.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Hello,
Maybe there was a misunderstanding.
I am asking advices for the following:
On a PIK20D, there are 4(four) tubes comming up from the cockpit at the panel:
1. Pitot from the nose
2. TE from the fin
3. Left rear fuselage static
4. Right rear fuselage static
What would be the best (optimal) tubing for the following instruments ?
1. Simple ASI
2. Simple Altimeter
3. Simple PZL mech vario
4. Peschges VP9

On the Pik-20D that I had there were 2 static holes on each side of the
boom, 4 holes total. IIRC, one left and one right hole pair were connected
to one tube toward the panel and the other left and right pair went to the
other tube. It was a good static system with very small position errors.
-Bob Korves

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> (Istvan Csonka) wrote:
>
> >I am asking advices for the following:
> >On a PIK20D, there are 4(four) tubes comming up from the cockpit at the
panel:
> >1. Pitot from the nose
> >2. TE from the fin
> >3. Left rear fuselage static
> >4. Right rear fuselage static
>
> On all gliders I've looked at, the right and left tail boom
> fuselage statics are hooked together with a T (in the tail)
> to produce a single static signal that is insensitive to yaw
> angle. I can't say if that's right for a PIK, but I'd be
> surprised if it wasn't. You might also want to verify that
> there are no under wing static holes. If not, it looks to
> me like you have one static, one TE and one pitot.
>
> The ASI needs static and pitot, the VP9 needs the TE. I
> know of no reason not to hook altimeter to static with the
> ASI, so that leaves the PZL and its capacity. In theory,
> you can hook it to either static or TE. There is the
> potential to interfere with other instruments when hooking
> it either way, so I'd ignore it (leave it disconnected or
> not installed) until after I was sure the other instruments
> were working well. Then you can try hooking it to the
> static or TE. My mechanical vario goes to my extra static
> (I've got a pair under the wings, a pair on the boom and one
> on the fin).
>
>
>

While on the matter of line sharing, the following is relevant to sharing
the Total Energy line between a number of flow variometers, mechanical
(Winter, PZL, etc.) and / or electrical (Cambridge CAV II etc.)

Each of the variometers fed by the one TE source have flow through the
instrument to their own flask.

All flasks running off one TE source must be the same physically and
thermodynamically. If you mix flasks with different characteristics then
you will get cross flow between the instruments. You can try this test on
the bench provided you do it carefully. Get two identical pneumatic varios
(with hopefully little inherent instrument error) and two diferent flasks,
say one vacuum flask with heat sink material inserted and the other a same
type vacuum flask without heat sink material inside. Apply a signal via a
Tee junction to the two variometers. Note the variometer readings of the
two variometers at different flow rates, ie calibrate one vario relative to
the other. They won't read the same! Then swap the flasks between the
variometers and repeat the calibration. The relative calibration will swap
over between the varios showing that the flasks are influencing things
strongly due to their different characteristics. Install identical flasks
and the varios will resume responding together.

So use identical flasks to avoid cross flow when using a common TE source.

Roger Druce

"Istvan Csonka" > wrote in message
om...
> Dear All,
> I have seen several posts about how to share the TE line between
> e-vario and mechanical one. Maybe I am wrong but I can not see any
> post about sharing the pitot pressure (dynamic) between ASI, e-vario
> (computer) and and the only one static port between e-vario, altimeter
> and mechanical vario.
> Any good advice or this is not a problem at all ?

Roger Druce wrote:
> While on the matter of line sharing, the following is relevant to sharing
> the Total Energy line between a number of flow variometers, mechanical
> (Winter, PZL, etc.) and / or electrical (Cambridge CAV II etc.)
>
> Each of the variometers fed by the one TE source have flow through the
> instrument to their own flask.
>
> All flasks running off one TE source must be the same physically and
> thermodynamically. If you mix flasks with different characteristics then
> you will get cross flow between the instruments. You can try this test on
> the bench provided you do it carefully. Get two identical pneumatic varios
> (with hopefully little inherent instrument error) and two diferent flasks,
> say one vacuum flask with heat sink material inserted and the other a same
> type vacuum flask without heat sink material inside. Apply a signal via a
> Tee junction to the two variometers. Note the variometer readings of the
> two variometers at different flow rates, ie calibrate one vario relative to
> the other. They won't read the same! Then swap the flasks between the
> variometers and repeat the calibration. The relative calibration will swap
> over between the varios showing that the flasks are influencing things
> strongly due to their different characteristics. Install identical flasks
> and the varios will resume responding together.
>
> So use identical flasks to avoid cross flow when using a common TE source.

If you have to worry about the flasks cross-flowing, you have another
problem: your TE source isn't good enough to supply the flow the two
flasks need, and both your varios will operate more slowly than they
would alone. The TE system must be able to supply the TE pressure to the
vario tee, regardless of the flow the varios require. If it does this,
then the flasks can't affect the pressure at the tee, and it won't
matter what size each is. This might require a probe with a larger
hole(s) in it, shorter or larger diameter tubing from the TE probe to
the tee for the varios, or varios that use smaller flasks (i.e., require
less flow).

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:33:57 -0800, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Roger Druce wrote:
>> While on the matter of line sharing, the following is relevant to sharing
>> the Total Energy line between a number of flow variometers, mechanical
>> (Winter, PZL, etc.) and / or electrical (Cambridge CAV II etc.)
>>
>> Each of the variometers fed by the one TE source have flow through the
>> instrument to their own flask.
>>
>> All flasks running off one TE source must be the same physically and
>> thermodynamically. If you mix flasks with different characteristics then
>> you will get cross flow between the instruments. You can try this test on
>> the bench provided you do it carefully. Get two identical pneumatic varios
>> (with hopefully little inherent instrument error) and two diferent flasks,
>> say one vacuum flask with heat sink material inserted and the other a same
>> type vacuum flask without heat sink material inside. Apply a signal via a
>> Tee junction to the two variometers. Note the variometer readings of the
>> two variometers at different flow rates, ie calibrate one vario relative to
>> the other. They won't read the same! Then swap the flasks between the
>> variometers and repeat the calibration. The relative calibration will swap
>> over between the varios showing that the flasks are influencing things
>> strongly due to their different characteristics. Install identical flasks
>> and the varios will resume responding together.
>>
>> So use identical flasks to avoid cross flow when using a common TE source.
>
> If you have to worry about the flasks cross-flowing, you have another
> problem: your TE source isn't good enough to supply the flow the two
> flasks need, and both your varios will operate more slowly than they
> would alone. The TE system must be able to supply the TE pressure to the
> vario tee, regardless of the flow the varios require. If it does this,
> then the flasks can't affect the pressure at the tee, and it won't
> matter what size each is. This might require a probe with a larger
> hole(s) in it, shorter or larger diameter tubing from the TE probe to
> the tee for the varios, or varios that use smaller flasks (i.e., require
> less flow).

If the varios all require the same sized flask, why not connect the
varios in series to a single flask ? The small additional volume seen
by the early instruments in the chain, due to the volume of the later
varios will be a source of error, but shouldn't be a large error
unless a small flask is used.
Cheers, John G.

There are two problems with electronic pitot/static TE. The magnitude of
the compensation signal and its phase.

The first is commonly adjustable on the instrument, the second isn't.

Your pressure port and the combined flow resistance and capacity of
the tubing form a low pass filter. If the pitot and static system
filter time constants are greatly different you can get large transient
indications on the vario during pull ups or push overs.

So if you have a system that works adding another instrument and
connecting it to the static system will usually cause a problem.

Leaks will also cause problems, as would partially blocking the static
port with wax.(flow resistance increases.)

For optimum performance of electronic TE the pitot and static should be
on the same side of the TE(nose or tail) and the pitot should be twice
as far from the TE as the static is. (Former World champion Stig Oye
told me of this and a couple of minutes thought convinced me)

A combined pitot/static probe on the fin does not fulfill this
condition and still results in "g" change effects the same as a TE
probe but is more sensitive to pitch and sideslip than the common two
hole Irving pattern probe.

If you aren't having apparent problems with electronic TE you are lucky
or you've got your vario on a very slow response speed where the
unwanted transients are heavily damped.

If you are having problems you want to get a good handle on the physics
of what is going on

in order to fix the problem.

Mike Borgelt


--
mborgelt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

mborgelt wrote:

> For optimum performance of electronic TE the pitot and static should be
> on the same side of the TE(nose or tail) and the pitot should be twice
> as far from the TE as the static is. (Former World champion Stig Oye
> told me of this and a couple of minutes thought convinced me)

Mike, could you elaborate on this? It the vario is using electronic TE,
it's not using a TE probe, so I'm confused about the "pitot and static
should be on the same side of the TE(nose or tail)". What is TE
referring to in your statement?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA