Static Ports question

[C2[_2_]]

What would happen if 2 sets of static ports (under the wing and on the tail boom) were connected to my ASI?

[[email protected]]

Airspeed doubles and then an irreversable black hole will form swallowing the ASI, glider, you and eventually the entire planet. Please...don't do it.

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

Advice from scohpilot may be wrong, but after some risk and cost-
benefit analysis, I would say do not even try. I want to fly next
summer.

At 17:26 15 November 2013, wrote:
>Airspeed doubles and then an irreversable black hole will form
swallowing
>the ASI, glider, you and eventually the entire planet.
Please...don't do
>it.
>

[[email protected]]

On Friday, November 15, 2013 12:20:19 PM UTC-5, C2 wrote:
> What would happen if 2 sets of static ports (under the wing and on the tail boom) were connected to my ASI?

1- You lose the benefit of 2 sources that can be used for differing needs like airspeed, altimetry, glide computing, electronic TE.
2- You won't be using the static system that was calibrated and used when establishing the operating limits in your flight manual.
3 You would lose the option to switch to root statics to avaoid the effects of water getting in aft statics when dumping.
4 Others I did not think of quickly
UH

[Dave Nadler]

On Friday, November 15, 2013 12:20:19 PM UTC-5, C2 wrote:
> What would happen if 2 sets of static ports (under the wing and on the tail boom) were connected to my ASI?

It will generate huge static electricity and shock you severely.

[Dave Nadler]

On Friday, November 15, 2013 2:06:40 PM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Friday, November 15, 2013 12:20:19 PM UTC-5, C2 wrote:
>
> > What would happen if 2 sets of static ports (under the wing and on the tail boom) were connected to my ASI?
>
>
>
> It will generate huge static electricity and shock you severely.

PS: That's why they are called STATIC ports.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, November 15, 2013 1:06:40 PM UTC-6, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Friday, November 15, 2013 12:20:19 PM UTC-5, C2 wrote:
>
> > What would happen if 2 sets of static ports (under the wing and on the tail boom) were connected to my ASI?
>
>
>
> It will generate huge static electricity and shock you severely.

Thanks for the smart ass answer to a simple question. Would it adversely affect my airspeed reading?

[Dave Nadler]

On Friday, November 15, 2013 4:41:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Would it adversely affect my airspeed reading?

Using anything other than the certificated pitot-static configuration
can greatly affect your ASI reading, and your safety.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, November 15, 2013 4:41:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Friday, November 15, 2013 1:06:40 PM UTC-6, Dave Nadler wrote: > On Friday, November 15, 2013 12:20:19 PM UTC-5, C2 wrote: > > > What would happen if 2 sets of static ports (under the wing and on the tail boom) were connected to my ASI? > > > > It will generate huge static electricity and shock you severely. Thanks for the smart ass answer to a simple question. Would it adversely affect my airspeed reading?

Answered in the 4th message containing no smart ass answers.
UH

[John Firth[_4_]]

Inthe good old days, when stall speed was less than 30kt,2 seaters
had an open cockpit, no one bothered with static ports; even in a modern
sailplane the cockpit static is usually within a knot or two
of nominal. it is useful to have a tap which opens the static line
to cockpit in case , (as often happens to me, the static ports have sent
water into the line, creating an offset, or the tape to prevent this has
not been removed) you want the ASI to show something meaningful.
However, from a practical test I can tell you that an air extractor
will add 4-6 kts to the reading at approach speeds if you use cockpit
static.
AS has happened to me on a number off occasions, the
ASI shows something ridiculous, some practicebeforehand without itcan
reduce the anxiety.

John F

At 22:50 15 November 2013, wrote:
>On Friday, November 15, 2013 4:41:58 PM UTC-5,
>wro=
>te:
>> On Friday, November 15, 2013 1:06:40 PM UTC-6, Dave Nadler wrote: > On
>Fr=
>iday, November 15, 2013 12:20:19 PM UTC-5, C2 wrote: > > > What would
>happe=
>n if 2 sets of static ports (under the wing and on the tail boom) were
>conn=
>ected to my ASI? > > > > It will generate huge static electricity and
>shock=
> you severely. Thanks for the smart ass answer to a simple question.
Would
>=
>it adversely affect my airspeed reading?
>
>Answered in the 4th message containing no smart ass answers.
>UH
>

[Dan Marotta]

We were taught in the USAF to take the canopy breaker tool off the canopy
rail and break the glass in the VVI (vertical velocity indicator) in case of
a static malfunction. When it happened in my ASW-19b, as a result of a
colony of ants taking up residence in the static lines, I reached up under
the panel and unplugged the line from the altimeter. It's such a
non-problem that I won't bother with an air valve to vent to the cockpit.


"John Firth" > wrote in message
...
> Inthe good old days, when stall speed was less than 30kt,2 seaters
> had an open cockpit, no one bothered with static ports; even in a modern
> sailplane the cockpit static is usually within a knot or two
> of nominal. it is useful to have a tap which opens the static line
> to cockpit in case , (as often happens to me, the static ports have sent
> water into the line, creating an offset, or the tape to prevent this has
> not been removed) you want the ASI to show something meaningful.
> However, from a practical test I can tell you that an air extractor
> will add 4-6 kts to the reading at approach speeds if you use cockpit
> static.
> AS has happened to me on a number off occasions, the
> ASI shows something ridiculous, some practicebeforehand without itcan
> reduce the anxiety.
>
> John F
>
> At 22:50 15 November 2013, wrote:
>>On Friday, November 15, 2013 4:41:58 PM UTC-5,
>>wro=
>>te:
>>> On Friday, November 15, 2013 1:06:40 PM UTC-6, Dave Nadler wrote: > On
>>Fr=
>>iday, November 15, 2013 12:20:19 PM UTC-5, C2 wrote: > > > What would
>>happe=
>>n if 2 sets of static ports (under the wing and on the tail boom) were
>>conn=
>>ected to my ASI? > > > > It will generate huge static electricity and
>>shock=
>> you severely. Thanks for the smart ass answer to a simple question.
> Would
>>=
>>it adversely affect my airspeed reading?
>>
>>Answered in the 4th message containing no smart ass answers.
>>UH
>>
>

[John Firth[_4_]]

I agree it is a non problem for safety of flight, but , if the static line
is really plugged and there are no leaks (improbable)
the ASI could well be seriously damaged with increasing altitude
reversing the pitot pressure.
That is a few $$$s.
JMF

At 16:15 17 November 2013, Dan Marotta wrote:
>We were taught in the USAF to take the canopy breaker tool off the canopy

>rail and break the glass in the VVI (vertical velocity indicator) in case
>of
>a static malfunction. When it happened in my ASW-19b, as a result of a
>colony of ants taking up residence in the static lines, I reached up under

>the panel and unplugged the line from the altimeter. It's such a
>non-problem that I won't bother with an air valve to vent to the cockpit.
>
>
>"John Firth" wrote in message
...
>> Inthe good old days, when stall speed was less than 30kt,2 seaters
>> had an open cockpit, no one bothered with static ports; even in a
modern
>> sailplane the cockpit static is usually within a knot or two
>> of nominal. it is useful to have a tap which opens the static line
>> to cockpit in case , (as often happens to me, the static ports have
sent
>> water into the line, creating an offset, or the tape to prevent this
has
>> not been removed) you want the ASI to show something meaningful.
>> However, from a practical test I can tell you that an air extractor
>> will add 4-6 kts to the reading at approach speeds if you use cockpit
>> static.
>> AS has happened to me on a number off occasions, the
>> ASI shows something ridiculous, some practicebeforehand without itcan
>> reduce the anxiety.
>>
>> John F
>>
>> At 22:50 15 November 2013, wrote:
>>>On Friday, November 15, 2013 4:41:58 PM UTC-5,
>>>wro=
>>>te:
>>>> On Friday, November 15, 2013 1:06:40 PM UTC-6, Dave Nadler wrote: >
On
>>>Fr=
>>>iday, November 15, 2013 12:20:19 PM UTC-5, C2 wrote: > > > What would
>>>happe=
>>>n if 2 sets of static ports (under the wing and on the tail boom) were
>>>conn=
>>>ected to my ASI? > > > > It will generate huge static electricity and
>>>shock=
>>> you severely. Thanks for the smart ass answer to a simple question.
>> Would
>>>=
>>>it adversely affect my airspeed reading?
>>>
>>>Answered in the 4th message containing no smart ass answers.
>>>UH
>>>
>>
>
>

[Dan Marotta]

Good point. In the flight I described, I noticed the problem just at
liftoff and, after a bit of trying to thermal without statics, I opened the
line rather quickly. Getting the ants out was quite an ordeal and I finally
resorted to opening the stat line as far from the panel as possible, hanging
it in a large bottle, and pumping water into the static port with a large
syringe until all the ants, grass, and other junk were flushed. Then I used
compressed air to blow out the line before reconnecting it to the panel.
Problem solved.


"John Firth" > wrote in message
...
>I agree it is a non problem for safety of flight, but , if the static line
> is really plugged and there are no leaks (improbable)
> the ASI could well be seriously damaged with increasing altitude
> reversing the pitot pressure.
> That is a few $$$s.
> JMF
>
> At 16:15 17 November 2013, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>We were taught in the USAF to take the canopy breaker tool off the canopy
>
>>rail and break the glass in the VVI (vertical velocity indicator) in case
>>of
>>a static malfunction. When it happened in my ASW-19b, as a result of a
>>colony of ants taking up residence in the static lines, I reached up under
>
>>the panel and unplugged the line from the altimeter. It's such a
>>non-problem that I won't bother with an air valve to vent to the cockpit.
>>
>>
>>"John Firth" wrote in message
...
>>> Inthe good old days, when stall speed was less than 30kt,2 seaters
>>> had an open cockpit, no one bothered with static ports; even in a
> modern
>>> sailplane the cockpit static is usually within a knot or two
>>> of nominal. it is useful to have a tap which opens the static line
>>> to cockpit in case , (as often happens to me, the static ports have
> sent
>>> water into the line, creating an offset, or the tape to prevent this
> has
>>> not been removed) you want the ASI to show something meaningful.
>>> However, from a practical test I can tell you that an air extractor
>>> will add 4-6 kts to the reading at approach speeds if you use cockpit
>>> static.
>>> AS has happened to me on a number off occasions, the
>>> ASI shows something ridiculous, some practicebeforehand without itcan
>>> reduce the anxiety.
>>>
>>> John F
>>>
>>> At 22:50 15 November 2013, wrote:
>>>>On Friday, November 15, 2013 4:41:58 PM UTC-5,
>>>>wro=
>>>>te:
>>>>> On Friday, November 15, 2013 1:06:40 PM UTC-6, Dave Nadler wrote: >
> On
>>>>Fr=
>>>>iday, November 15, 2013 12:20:19 PM UTC-5, C2 wrote: > > > What would
>>>>happe=
>>>>n if 2 sets of static ports (under the wing and on the tail boom) were
>>>>conn=
>>>>ected to my ASI? > > > > It will generate huge static electricity and
>>>>shock=
>>>> you severely. Thanks for the smart ass answer to a simple question.
>>> Would
>>>>=
>>>>it adversely affect my airspeed reading?
>>>>
>>>>Answered in the 4th message containing no smart ass answers.
>>>>UH
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, November 17, 2013 5:02:11 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>... Then I used
> compressed air to blow out the line before reconnecting it to the panel.
> Problem solved.

Using compressed air to clear static lines is a REALLY BAD IDEA.
Many times, this has resulted in the (expanding) static lines
blowing off the ports inside the fuselage. Then, on many gliders,
where this area is inaccessible, you get to cut an expensive
hole in the fuselage just to reattach the static lines.

This has happened:
- after the refinish job plugged the statics
- trying to get water and debris out of the lines

Please don't try this at home...
Or if you do, make a video for our appreciation!

Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave

PS: OK, the cutting the hole is cheap, repairing it, not so much.

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks for the advice, Dave. I used low pressure air, more for circulation
than for volume/velocity. This was in the late 80s and caused no problem.
I did not think of the consequence you mentioned and am glad I had no
problems.


"Dave Nadler" > wrote in message
...
> On Sunday, November 17, 2013 5:02:11 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>... Then I used
>> compressed air to blow out the line before reconnecting it to the panel.
>> Problem solved.
>
> Using compressed air to clear static lines is a REALLY BAD IDEA.
> Many times, this has resulted in the (expanding) static lines
> blowing off the ports inside the fuselage. Then, on many gliders,
> where this area is inaccessible, you get to cut an expensive
> hole in the fuselage just to reattach the static lines.
>
> This has happened:
> - after the refinish job plugged the statics
> - trying to get water and debris out of the lines
>
> Please don't try this at home...
> Or if you do, make a video for our appreciation!
>
> Hope that helps,
> Best Regards, Dave
>
> PS: OK, the cutting the hole is cheap, repairing it, not so much.

[Dave Nadler]

On Monday, November 18, 2013 6:53:33 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Thanks for the advice, Dave. I used low pressure air, more for circulation
> than for volume/velocity.

Right, its the high-pressure nozzle that usually does the damage !
In your situation, a vacuum cleaner would have been safest...

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

[WAVEGURU]

Ah yes... How many times do we have to say it? Suck, don't blow!

Boggs ;-)

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 16:15 17 November 2013, Dan Marotta wrote:
>We were taught in the USAF to take the canopy breaker tool off the canopy

>rail and break the glass in the VVI (vertical velocity indicator) in case
>of
>a static malfunction. When it happened in my ASW-19b, as a result of a
>colony of ants taking up residence in the static lines, I reached up under

>the panel and unplugged the line from the altimeter. It's such a
>non-problem that I won't bother with an air valve to vent to the cockpit.
>
>
>"John Firth" wrote in message
...
>> Inthe good old days, when stall speed was less than 30kt,2 seaters
>> had an open cockpit, no one bothered with static ports; even in a
modern
>> sailplane the cockpit static is usually within a knot or two
>> of nominal. it is useful to have a tap which opens the static line
>> to cockpit in case , (as often happens to me, the static ports have
sent
>> water into the line, creating an offset, or the tape to prevent this
has
>> not been removed) you want the ASI to show something meaningful.
>> However, from a practical test I can tell you that an air extractor
>> will add 4-6 kts to the reading at approach speeds if you use cockpit
>> static.
>> AS has happened to me on a number off occasions, the
>> ASI shows something ridiculous, some practicebeforehand without itcan
>> reduce the anxiety.
>>
>> John F
>>
>> At 22:50 15 November 2013, wrote:
>>>On Friday, November 15, 2013 4:41:58 PM UTC-5,



>>>wro=
>>>te:
>>>> On Friday, November 15, 2013 1:06:40 PM UTC-6, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On
>>>Fr=
>>>iday, November 15, 2013 12:20:19 PM UTC-5, C2 wrote: > > > What
would
>>>happe=
>>>n if 2 sets of static ports (under the wing and on the tail boom) were
>>>conn=
>>>ected to my ASI? > > > > It will generate huge static electricity and
>>>shock=
>>> you severely. Thanks for the smart ass answer to a simple question.


>> Would
>>>=
>>>it adversely affect my airspeed reading?
>>>
>>>Answered in the 4th message containing no smart ass answers.
>>>UH
>>>
>>
>
If you decide to blow the tube clean best to use nitrogen as it does not
support moisture.


>