Cleaning a 3-way TE probe

[Jack Glendening]

I have a vertical-stabilizer mounted TE probe of the type that has 3
ports: ram, static, and venturi. I have been having problems with my
varios and LNAV and had previously checked out the plumbing but had
only looked at the "outside" end of the TE probe itself, which I
remove after each flight. Today I finally thought to look at the butt
end of the TE probe and discovered "junk" (uncertain whether its dried
grease or animal reside/excretion or what) on the ram and static port
outlets! I have cleaned them off as mcuh as possible from the outside
using an unbent paper clip, and air now moves through all 3 ports.
However it's probable that the same "junk" is on the inside of the
female attachment, into which the TE probe is inserted so I feel I
should clean that also. But I can't see much inside it and have no idea
what is in there and if there is something to watch out for in doing
that cleaning. Is it as simple as using a Qtip and denatured alcohol
as I was planning on doing? If anyone has had experience cleaning out
that receptacle I'd appreciate hearing about it.

[John Morgan]

"Jack Glendening" > wrote in message
news:5o5gb.4451 But I can't see much inside it and have no idea
> what is in there and if there is something to watch out for in doing
> that cleaning. Is it as simple as using a Qtip and denatured alcohol
> as I was planning on doing? If anyone has had experience cleaning out
> that receptacle I'd appreciate hearing about it.
>

Yup, it's that simple. Cut a Q-tip and find a short length of stiff tubing
that will be a tight fit on the cut-off Q-tip shaft. This will allow you to
reach down all the way into the probe hole. There are several (at least 3)
O-rings down there, so go gently.

When done cleaning, I like to put a small amount of either silicone spray or
synthetic grease (very small amount!) on the probe shaft base so as to
lubricate the O-rings when it's inserted. If the probe is now easy to insert
(it should be), it'll also be easy to remove . . . maybe even in flight due
to vibration, so it's a good idea to tape around the fin fitting and probe
when installing it.

If you regularly remove your probe, consider a plug for the hole on the
vertical fin to keep dirt out. I also use a tubular cover for the base end
of the probe to keep it clean too.
--
bumper - ZZ >
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003

[Marc Ramsey]

"John Morgan" > wrote...
> If you regularly remove your probe, consider a plug for the hole on the
> vertical fin to keep dirt out. I also use a tubular cover for the base end
> of the probe to keep it clean too.

Make sure that plug isn't airtight (put in pinhole in it, or something), or
you'll probably be in the market for some new varios in the near future...

Marc

[JJ Sinclair]

Dr. Jack,
Good stuff from Marc & John, also There ia a possibility that bugs have made a
home in the female hole (was that crude?) I have found an insect known as a
"Leaf-roller" in my probe holes (like that better?) Plug it when not in use,
with a small bleeder hole.

Now, if a leaf-roller has been at work in your hole, you may have shoved its
home way down inside your probe hole. Very bad news, you need to take your
probe hole to a hole checking (gynecologist) They masquerade as
glider-repairmen, but they are all just a bunch of hole checkers at heart. They
will flush out your hole by carefully applying pressure from the other end of
all the tubes that are attached to your hole. They know that ALL instruments
must be disconnected BEFORE giving your hole and associated tubing any
pressure. They also know that over-pressure can result in an aneurysm or even
worse, a blow-out deep inside your precious little darling.
JJ Sinclair

[Jack Glendening]

Thanks to Bumper (John), Marc, and JJ for passing on your knowledge. I
am going out to work on this today and test the pluming and see what I
find. Hopefully I'm get everything working early as it looks like an
excellent soaring day. I went flying yesterday but with, in retrospect,
the pitot and static TE ports blocked had no working vario or computer
so was not able to take much advantage of the conditions then - I was
wondering why my LNAV kept telling me I had a 50 kt tailwind! I might
have already damaged the mechanical vario per Marc's comment as I went
up to 8000 ft with the static port apparently blocked.

Regarding "leaf rollers", a few weeks ago I had to work on my
motorglider's (bear with me here JJ, stop gnashing your teeth) motor
retraction and the motor was extended for a long period. I happened to
notice an insect which seemed to be periodically flying in and out of
the motor, near the metal cooling fins on the cylinder. Finally when I
again saw it disappear in there I went and looked and found way back a
bug's eyes looking out at me! That thing did not want to budge, as I
tried poking in with a screwdriver (which could not fit all the way in
to the hole) and the bug stubbonly remained. Finally I found a long
very thin screwdriver and managed to kill it, but the fact that this bug
was seeming to want to make a hole in my engine certainly made an
impression! So perhaps this was one of those "leaf rollers". I had
been putting some white tape over the TE probe hole between uses, but
one time I noticed that the tape had not stayed attached so it is
certainly possilbe that something got in there, particularly since there
have been long periods when the plane has not been flown. Anyway, will
see what I find today.

[Jack Glendening]

I spent 4 hours today cleaning out junk from my TE tube "hole", didn't
get to fly. I had to use both mechanical and liquid means to get out
a lot of what must be insect byproduct - reminds me of yellow/orange
ear was. Final status is that the static port of the hole is no longer
blocked but the pitot port remains blocked. Using a bicycle pump I put
some pressure on that port and it help air nicely at 10 psi (mindful of
JJ's warning I didn't put any more pressure on it). Time now to find
a "hole" expert - I will first see if the mechanic at the local
gliderport has any "holy" experience. JJ, one thing that bothers me
is that it seems possible that _no_ amount of reasonable pressure
might not open the port - in which case I think I am in for a lot of
trouble. In the meantime I plan to get a T fitting and put the LNAV
on the airspeed pitot pressure as being better than nothing and
getting me back up in the air. And allowing me to test the LNAV since
I have never had it working correctly since I bought the plane and I
hope this might explain why. I had thought the problem lay in the
LNAV itself but perhaps it lay in the TE probe.

One thing I noticed while I was working was that there were a whole
lot of ants (about 30 at one time) crawling in a line up the front
of the vertical stabilizer to the top of the elevator (just above the TE
hole) where they milled around acting like they were looking for
something. They did this for about an hour, then disappeared for an
hour, then re-appeared for another hour. I couldn't see ants elsewhere
on the plane, which made me wonder whether they might be associated with
the insect "junk" in the TE hole - I had swabbed out the hole with
alcohol by that time and since ants rely on leaving chemical messenges
those would have been "erased" inside the hole itself. Likely there is
another explanation (possibly the ants are just like glider plots and
like to climb and stay high) but it did make me wonder if anyone else
had ever experienced problems caused by ants entering their glider.

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

"Jack Glendening" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
In the meantime I plan to get a T fitting and put the LNAV
> on the airspeed pitot pressure as being better than nothing and
> getting me back up in the air. >

Not quite sure what you meant by the above comment. The pitot for the L-Nav
should always be connected to the same pitot port as the airspeed indicator.
If you use the L-Nav for speed-to-fly info, it should come from the same
source as supplied to the airspeed indicator that you fly by. Of course
this is not necessary. You can have L-Nav info based on one pitot reading
and airspeed indicator based on another. But, it would be nice to have the
info correlated. Hopefully both pitot reading would be the same, but, that
is not always true.

Duane

[JJ Sinclair]

Welcome to the insect world, Dr. Jack. I once had the little buggers fill my
hole in one afternoon, as I attended to some routine items on the ship. I
religiously keep the hole covered, now.

You can apply reverse pressure to your pitot, static and TE lines from the
instrument panel. be sure to remove ALL connections to your instruments first.
Then I give each line, short bursts, of compressed air, as I watch the hole for
debris exiting.

Your L-Nav should be on the ships pitot & static system, also check the ASI
calibration page for correct numbers (see manual) the constant tail-wind sounds
like a pitot problem, L-Nav not generating a good TAS, so it must drive in a
big tail wind to make things equal out with the GS its getting fron thr GPS.

Its only October, you got all winter to work on this. Don't you just love a
challenge? :>)
JJ Sinclair

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

"Jack Glendening" > wrote in message
.net...
> Duane Eisenbeiss wrote:
> > Not quite sure what you meant by the above comment. The pitot for the
L-Nav
> > should always be connected to the same pitot port as the airspeed
indicator.
>
> Right now the LNAV pitot and static info is taken from the TE probe
> while the airspeed/altimeter values are taken from different probes. It
> was my understanding that using a separate pilot+static for the LNAV was
> better since the pitot and static measurments are then closer to the
> free-stream values than those taken by the "normal" probes, which are
> closer the fuselage.
>
Use whichever ports (pitot & static) suit you, however, it is best to have
both instruments connected to the same ports.

Duane

[Mike Borgelt]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 03:52:39 GMT, "Duane Eisenbeiss"
> wrote:

>"Jack Glendening" > wrote in message
.net...
>> Duane Eisenbeiss wrote:
>> > Not quite sure what you meant by the above comment. The pitot for the
>L-Nav
>> > should always be connected to the same pitot port as the airspeed
>indicator.
>>
>> Right now the LNAV pitot and static info is taken from the TE probe
>> while the airspeed/altimeter values are taken from different probes. It
>> was my understanding that using a separate pilot+static for the LNAV was
>> better since the pitot and static measurments are then closer to the
>> free-stream values than those taken by the "normal" probes, which are
>> closer the fuselage.
>>
>Use whichever ports (pitot & static) suit you, however, it is best to have
>both instruments connected to the same ports.
>
>Duane
>

Actually the pitot/static from a dual or triple probe is probably the
best you are going to get on a glider. The Prandtl (combined
pitot/static) well forward of the LE of the fin and stab will have
small errors which you most likely won't have to correct in your
computer. This makes the computer easier to install and tune.

The ASI must be connected to the pitot/static sources specified in the
flight manual as all placarded limits are based in these. The ASI may
have quite large errors as a result as it helps the advertising
writers(stalls slow, runs real fast)


Mike Borgelt

Borgelt Instruments

[John Morgan]

A length of nylon "string trimmer" line may be of use in helping to dislodge
or break up debris from the pitot lines - along with the use of low pressure
air as previously suggested by others. After cutting the nylon, briefly hold
the end to a flame to round over any sharp edges. This will remove any risk
of nicking or cutting the O-rings in the probe fitting. Unfortunately, this
probably won't help at all with the TE or static as those connections, at
least on fittings I've seen, leave the probe socket at right angles.
--
bumper - ZZ >
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left

"Jack Glendening" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Mike Borgelt wrote:
> > Actually the pitot/static from a dual or triple probe is probably the
> > best you are going to get on a glider. ...
>
> I thank the expert for clarifying that point.
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/25/2003

[John Morgan]

"Jack Glendening" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> While asleep last night I came up with the idea of trying to soften the
> buildup in the TE female hole, to allow it to be removed more easily
> when applying back pressure, by filling the pitot part of the TE probe
> with denatured alcohol prior to a flight - my idea is that some alsohol
> will remain in the probe during flight and be forced by positive air
> pressure into the buildup to help soften it (of course the pitot tubing
> will be disconnected at the panel end). Anything wrong with trying
> this? I am assuming that denatured alcohol would not have a damaging
> effect on the tubing should it get past the buildup.
>

Jack,

You may be on the right track, but alcohol will evaporate too quickly to be
of much help I think. Instead, give it a short squirt of WD-40. The small
amount used could not migrate all the way to the instruments in flight, but
I would still try to blow it out beforehand.

Along with my previous suggestion re string trimmer line, you can try
bending the end of the nylon line enough so that it may catch and "spring
into" the 90 degree ports in the fitting. Couldn't hurt to try. Also a probe
fashioned from a length of soft aluminum wire (if you have such) may be
useful.

Down at the barn, I've learned to aim all air guns and air chucks away from
me before hitting the trigger. Getting shot with high velocity earwig body
parts is the consequence doing otherwise.
--
bumper - ZZ >
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/25/2003

[Jack Glendening]

John Morgan wrote:
> You may be on the right track, but alcohol will evaporate too quickly to be
> of much help I think. Instead, give it a short squirt of WD-40. The small
> amount used could not migrate all the way to the instruments in flight, but
> I would still try to blow it out beforehand.

Your're probably right on the evaporation, I will bring some WD40 along.
In any case the tubing will be disconnected on the panel end. I am
going to blow both before and after.


> Along with my previous suggestion re string trimmer line, you can try
> bending the end of the nylon line enough so that it may catch and "spring
> into" the 90 degree ports in the fitting. Couldn't hurt to try. Also a probe
> fashioned from a length of soft aluminum wire (if you have such) may be
> useful.
>
> Down at the barn, I've learned to aim all air guns and air chucks away from
> me before hitting the trigger. Getting shot with high velocity earwig body
> parts is the consequence doing otherwise.

Thanks for your ideas. In all of this I expect I may have to try
multiple things and times before either succeeding or giving up. I
think that insects are going to be the ones to eventually inheret the
earth !

Am now leaving to do battle, and hopefully fly as well.

Jack

[Jack Glendening]

Today while working on my glider I watched a line of ants continually
going to and fro, from the tiedown rope along the front of the
vertical stabilizer and into the glider, the second day in a row that
this has happened. I finally took off the elevator and found them
entering/exiting a hole into the rudder compartment, where I can't
see. What are those buggers doing there?? Paranoia is kicking in.
Next time I go out I'm taking a can of ant killer and spraying it
inside that hole.

[JJ Sinclair]

Dr. Jack,
Did you solve your plugged up *hole*, problem?

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 Sinclair

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> 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 Sinclair

Pardon me for changing the subject of this thread, but, I have to ask a
question of your above statement.
The Limitations of the Experimental Certificate on my current sailplane
(Ventus 2 Bx) does not state anything about operating in accordance with
flight/maintenance manuals. Also, I do not remember any such wording in any
of the other "Experimental" sailplanes that I have had in the last 30 years.
Do your Experimental Limitations really have such a requirement? Just
curious.

As an aside to which static ports to use, I agree that normally the ports
prescribed in the Flight Manual should be used. However, due to a very
early placement of an order, I received the first Discus to come to the U.S.
This aircraft had static ports both under the wing and in the tailboom.
Later models had only the tailboom static ports and that is what the ship
was eventually certified with. Klaus Holighaus, however, advised me to use
the under wing static ports because they "worked better for thermalling"
even though they were not as accurate. How is that for decision making;
follow the manual or follow an expert who designed the sailplane.

Duane

[Jack Glendening]

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

[Marc Ramsey]

"Duane Eisenbeiss" > wrote...
> Pardon me for changing the subject of this thread, but, I have to ask a
> question of your above statement.
> The Limitations of the Experimental Certificate on my current sailplane
> (Ventus 2 Bx) does not state anything about operating in accordance with
> flight/maintenance manuals. Also, I do not remember any such wording in any
> of the other "Experimental" sailplanes that I have had in the last 30 years.
> Do your Experimental Limitations really have such a requirement? Just
> curious.

Here's an example from some Operating Limitations circa 1998:

7. This aircraft shall not be flown unless it is inspected, maintained and
operated in accordance with appropriate technical publications as
follows:

Flight Manual for the ELAN/GLASER-DIRKS, DG-300 ELAN ACRO,
dated 5/92, as revised and the Maintenance Manual for the
ELAN/GLASER-DIRKS, DG-300 ELAN ACRO, dated 5/92, as
revised.

I've owned four experimental gliders over the past 10 years, and they all had
this same basic wording. It is apparently part of the boiler plate Ops Lims in
whatever Advisory Circular the FSDO uses to put these things together...

Marc

[Jack Glendening]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Here's an example from some Operating Limitations circa 1998:
> 7. This aircraft shall not be flown unless it is inspected, maintained and
> operated in accordance with appropriate technical publications as
> follows:
> Flight Manual for the ELAN/GLASER-DIRKS, DG-300 ELAN ACRO,
> dated 5/92, as revised and the Maintenance Manual for the
> ELAN/GLASER-DIRKS, DG-300 ELAN ACRO, dated 5/92, as
> revised.
> I've owned four experimental gliders over the past 10 years, and they all had
> this same basic wording. It is apparently part of the boiler plate Ops Lims in
> whatever Advisory Circular the FSDO uses to put these things together...

FWIW mine - circa 1986 from TX - has no such statement, only "no person
may operate
this aircraft unless within the preceding 12 calendar months it has had
a condition inspection performed in accordance with Appendix D of FAR
Part 43 and was found to be
in a condition safe flight".

[JJ Sinclair]

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

[JJ Sinclair]

>The Limitations of the Experimental Certificate on my current sailplane
>(Ventus 2 Bx) does not state anything about operating in accordance with
>flight/maintenance manuals.

Yes I have those limitations on both the ASH-25 and the Genesis 2 and all the
experimental airworthiness limitations that I have seen for the last 10 years
has had them also. Its contained in a 4 page document that is stapled to my
airworthiness certificate. You don't have 4 pages? I would quote them, but
their in the ship, in the trailer and in the barn.
JJ Sinclair

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
m...
> "Duane Eisenbeiss" > wrote...
>
> Here's an example from some Operating Limitations circa 1998:
>
> 7. This aircraft shall not be flown unless it is inspected, maintained
and
> operated in accordance with appropriate technical publications as
> follows:
> Flight Manual for the ELAN/GLASER-DIRKS, DG-300 ELAN ACRO,
> dated 5/92, as revised and the Maintenance Manual for the
> ELAN/GLASER-DIRKS, DG-300 ELAN ACRO, dated 5/92, as
> revised.
> I've owned four experimental gliders over the past 10 years, and they all
had
> this same basic wording. It is apparently part of the boiler plate Ops
Lims in
> whatever Advisory Circular the FSDO uses to put these things together...
>
> Marc
>

My older sailplanes Operation Limitations were sort of "hand written" (ie:
much simpler). The Limitations for my current ship was directly out of a
"boiler plate" on the FAA inspector's desktop computer. I watched as he
composed it. I guess that different offices use different criteria. Thanks
for filling me in on what is happening out West.

Duane

[James]

The latest research out of Stanford University suggest that ant
infestations are the result of weather, especially cold and wet
conditions, and unusually hot and dry spells (probably bec they're
trying to find shelter from extreme weather). According to the
researchers, insecticides are also ineffective at controlling the
infestations. The best thing to do is to close up entrances the ants
are using, and wipe down the ant trail with Windex to eliminate their
scent trail. Read about this at
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/01/ants45.html

[Jack Glendening]

James wrote:
> The latest research out of Stanford University suggest that ant
> infestations are the result of weather, especially cold and wet
> conditions, and unusually hot and dry spells (probably bec they're
> trying to find shelter from extreme weather). According to the
> researchers, insecticides are also ineffective at controlling the
> infestations.

One can certainly learn a lot on RAS! My home is in an area conducive
to ants and I can attest to the close relationship of ant invasion and
weather, but I've found that a spray insecticide at the entry point will
stop ants from invading a specific area (though my ants will crawl right
over bait I leave out). So I will still use the insecticde on my plane
but will also plug the hole in question. Thanks for the info, which I
had not seen before.

[Mark Navarre]

Ants are effective scavengers, and may in fact be consuming a rat or mouse
inside your tailboom that died there after eating your pitot, vario, or static
tubing. It might be better to leave the ants alone until they finish off
whatever is attracting them to the inside of your glider, and then continue
with the pneumatic system fixes. Not to depress you any further or
anything.....

-
Mark Navarre
ASW-20 OD
California, USA
-

[Jack Glendening]

Mark Navarre wrote:
> Ants are effective scavengers, and may in fact be consuming a rat or mouse
> inside your tailboom that died there after eating your pitot, vario, or static
> tubing. It might be better to leave the ants alone until they finish off
> whatever is attracting them to the inside of your glider,

At this point I am more concerned with what _live_ ants might be doing
than with an already _dead_ rodent remaining in there, which I could live
with! What worries me is that the last time I was out there I tried
to wash off much of where they had been with the idea of erasing their
chemical tracks - yet the next day were again back in that hidden
hole, which would not seem like an easy thing to do. So I have begun
to wonder if the ants are coming from the outside in or whether there
is already some sort of colony _inside_ (since then they would find
that hole rather easily, from from the inside). My lack of detailed
knowledge of what ants can do and my imagination has produced a paranoia
level which wants those ants out _now_!

[Martin Gregorie]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:55:11 GMT, Jack Glendening
> wrote:

>Mark Navarre wrote:
>> Ants are effective scavengers, and may in fact be consuming a rat or mouse
>> inside your tailboom that died there after eating your pitot, vario, or static
>> tubing. It might be better to leave the ants alone until they finish off
>> whatever is attracting them to the inside of your glider,
>
>At this point I am more concerned with what _live_ ants might be doing
>than with an already _dead_ rodent remaining in there, which I could live
>with! What worries me is that the last time I was out there I tried
>to wash off much of where they had been with the idea of erasing their
>chemical tracks - yet the next day were again back in that hidden
>hole, which would not seem like an easy thing to do. So I have begun
>to wonder if the ants are coming from the outside in or whether there
>is already some sort of colony _inside_ (since then they would find
>that hole rather easily, from from the inside). My lack of detailed
>knowledge of what ants can do and my imagination has produced a paranoia
>level which wants those ants out _now_!
>
That seems entirely reasonable paranoia to me.

Some years back I met some fellow Landrover travellers in Goa who
warned me about the local army ants: two evenings later I spotted a
column headed for my back wheel and was able to nip the invasion in
the bud with a few kettles of boiling water, but I digress.

The other group had found ants living inside the box girders that form
their Landrover's chassis. They drove them from one end of the vehicle
to the other three times, using boiling water and insecticide and
completely stripping their stuff out each time, before they were able
to get rid of them.

Are you sure your ants are confined to your tail group and not getting
into the wheel box or under the seat pan?

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Jack Glendening]

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Are you sure your ants are confined to your tail group and not getting
> into the wheel box or under the seat pan?

My paranoia has now reached a new high! No I'm not sure - though I have
not noticed the ants elsewhere I will now be paying extra attention. I
do appreciate the info that the ants _can_ colonize in such artificial
conditions, since I normally associate them with forming colonies in the
soil and did not know how realistic it might be for them to invade a glider.

[Stewart Kissel]

Dr. Jack-

It could be worse. A coworker of mine was very intrigued,
but also very nervous about glider flying. We went
through a very thorough briefing and I promised no
thermalling or steep turns.
She seemed to be doing okay in the front seat of the
L-13 on tow, so I did not have the heart to tell her
about the mouse that was perched on her left shoulder.
He eventually ambled back to his abode somewhere in
the ship and the flight continued.






At 18:18 10 October 2003, Jack Glendening wrote:
>Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> Are you sure your ants are confined to your tail group
>>and not getting
>> into the wheel box or under the seat pan?
>
>My paranoia has now reached a new high! No I'm not
>sure - though I have
>not noticed the ants elsewhere I will now be paying
>extra attention. I
>do appreciate the info that the ants _can_ colonize
>in such artificial
>conditions, since I normally associate them with forming
>colonies in the
>soil and did not know how realistic it might be for
>them to invade a glider.
>
>

[Tony Verhulst]

> She seemed to be doing okay in the front seat of the
> L-13 on tow, so I did not have the heart to tell her
> about the mouse that was perched on her left shoulder.
> He eventually ambled back to his abode somewhere in
> the ship and the flight continued.

When a student opened the air vent on a 2-33 at about 3K, a wasp was
blasted out and landed on his crotch right, at the seat level. He din't
get stung but his dance, as seen from the back deat, was interesting.

Tony V.

[Ray Lovinggood]

Dr. Jack,

How about this suggestion:

Disassemble the glider, put it in the trailer, and
spray insecticide in the trailer. Or, leave one of
the 'insecticide bombs' in the closed trailer. After
a couple of days, shouldn't that take care of them?
Assuming the insecticide doens't damage the ship or
trailer...

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 19:00 10 October 2003, Tony Verhulst wrote:
>
>> She seemed to be doing okay in the front seat of the
>> L-13 on tow, so I did not have the heart to tell her
>> about the mouse that was perched on her left shoulder.
>> He eventually ambled back to his abode somewhere
>>in
>> the ship and the flight continued.
>
>When a student opened the air vent on a 2-33 at about
>3K, a wasp was
>blasted out and landed on his crotch right, at the
>seat level. He din't
>get stung but his dance, as seen from the back deat,
>was interesting.
>
>Tony V.
>
>

[Jack Glendening]

Stewart Kissel wrote:
> It could be worse.

I hope to someday get the chance to be able to say those same words to
_you_ ;-)

[John Morgan]

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:55:11 GMT, Jack Glendening
> > wrote:
> The other group had found ants living inside the box girders that form
> their Landrover's chassis. They drove them from one end of the vehicle
> to the other three times, using boiling water and insecticide and
> completely stripping their stuff out each time, before they were able
> to get rid of them.
>
> Are you sure your ants are confined to your tail group and not getting
> into the wheel box or under the seat pan?
>
> --
> martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> gregorie : Harlow, UK


NEWS FLASH!

UPI, Normally disingenuous but otherwise unreliable sources report that a
glider pilot
has been eaten alive by an army of army ants while flying in wave at Minden.

The FAA has issued emergency AD-101003-ANT-1 grounding all gliders until
spring (PW5s were excluded for cosmetic reasons as they were deemed unlikely
to attract ants).
..

--
bumper - ZZ >
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003

[Mark Navarre]

Getting off the topic a lttle bit, there was a grade B Sci-Fi movie in the
early 70's called "Phase Four" or "Phase IV" about an ant colony that developed
heightened intelligence and was adapting rapidly to poisons used to eradicate
it. Each poison in turn was a different color and resulted in ants breeding to
match that color, the movie ended with the hero scientist being eaten by the
ants he was trying to destroy. The feeling of paranoia pervades the entire
movie, definitely worth a rental.

-
Mark Navarre
ASW-20 OD
California, USA
-

[Kizuno]

Dr. Jack,
Having fought the ant wars at my trailer about 50 feet away from your ship, I
was only able to eliminate them (for the time being) by throwing a (thin) layer
of Diazanon around the areas where they entered. Those being the 5 ground
contact points (2 wheels, one front wheel and the two rear jacks.

They have plagued my trailer since June. I had used many things against them
before but only the Diazanon worked. Plus I sprayed the weeds around the
trailer with Roundup to prevent other access means. Terribly politically
incorrect, but hey, it's them or me.

I believe they are attracted not to any food I've left in the cockpit (although
that has happened before), but to the condensation around the trailer upper
half lid.

The bug wars never end. A couple months ago, I flew the glider from Tonopah to
Santa Barbara, stayed for three days, then flew back to Hollister. Upon
lifting my seat cushion to wipe out the dust, there sat one of those 4 inch
long nasty semi-scorpion Tonopah spiders. After killing it, I flashed on the
ending scene of the first "Alien" when Sigourney Weaver though she was rid of
the monster, only to find it was traveling with her. Ack!

But I digress.........

Kemp

[PKHahn]

Living in Southern California we gets lots of ants looking for water.
They will go hundreds of feet for water. No amount of caulking is
sufficient to keep them out.

Being an avid ant hater, I have found the only way to have a shot a
chasing them off is to apply a residual insecticide like Ortho Home
Defense which includes a long lasting agent. These agents work by
having the ants get the agent on their feet which they then track back
to the colony where it kills the carrier (and their cleaners) and it
disrupts reproduction.

It is of course not environmentally friendly. So use it
sparingly--which to me means anywhere the ants might walk. I would
put it outside the trailer at all points where the ants might approach
the trailer or climb up. I would also put it all over the floor of
the trailer (while the ship is outside). I don't think I would put it
in the ship itself or on the ship as I have no idea what it would do t
the finish. Even though they say it lasts six months, I would apply
it monthly until the ants don't come back, and then every 2-3 months.

The only other solution is to move north where the ants get killed by
the cold and they don't regroup for the two months you have good
soaring.

Happy hunting!


(Kizuno) wrote in message >...
> Dr. Jack,
> Having fought the ant wars at my trailer about 50 feet away from your ship, I
> was only able to eliminate them (for the time being) by throwing a (thin) layer
> of Diazanon around the areas where they entered. Those being the 5 ground
> contact points (2 wheels, one front wheel and the two rear jacks.
>
> They have plagued my trailer since June. I had used many things against them
> before but only the Diazanon worked. Plus I sprayed the weeds around the
> trailer with Roundup to prevent other access means. Terribly politically
> incorrect, but hey, it's them or me.
>
> I believe they are attracted not to any food I've left in the cockpit (although
> that has happened before), but to the condensation around the trailer upper
> half lid.
>
> The bug wars never end. A couple months ago, I flew the glider from Tonopah to
> Santa Barbara, stayed for three days, then flew back to Hollister. Upon
> lifting my seat cushion to wipe out the dust, there sat one of those 4 inch
> long nasty semi-scorpion Tonopah spiders. After killing it, I flashed on the
> ending scene of the first "Alien" when Sigourney Weaver though she was rid of
> the monster, only to find it was traveling with her. Ack!
>
> But I digress.........
>
> Kemp

[PKHahn]

Living in Southern California we gets lots of ants looking for water.
They will go hundreds of feet for water. No amount of caulking is
sufficient to keep them out.

Being an avid ant hater, I have found the only way to have a shot a
chasing them off is to apply a residual insecticide like Ortho Home
Defense which includes a long lasting agent. These agents work by
having the ants get the agent on their feet which they then track back
to the colony where it kills the carrier (and their cleaners) and it
disrupts reproduction.

It is of course not environmentally friendly. So use it
sparingly--which to me means anywhere the ants might walk. I would
put it outside the trailer at all points where the ants might approach
the trailer or climb up. I would also put it all over the floor of
the trailer (while the ship is outside). I don't think I would put it
in the ship itself or on the ship as I have no idea what it would do t
the finish. Even though they say it lasts six months, I would apply
it monthly until the ants don't come back, and then every 2-3 months.

The only other solution is to move north where the ants get killed by
the cold and they don't regroup for the two months you have good
soaring.

Happy hunting!


(Kizuno) wrote in message >...
> Dr. Jack,
> Having fought the ant wars at my trailer about 50 feet away from your ship, I
> was only able to eliminate them (for the time being) by throwing a (thin) layer
> of Diazanon around the areas where they entered. Those being the 5 ground
> contact points (2 wheels, one front wheel and the two rear jacks.
>
> They have plagued my trailer since June. I had used many things against them
> before but only the Diazanon worked. Plus I sprayed the weeds around the
> trailer with Roundup to prevent other access means. Terribly politically
> incorrect, but hey, it's them or me.
>
> I believe they are attracted not to any food I've left in the cockpit (although
> that has happened before), but to the condensation around the trailer upper
> half lid.
>
> The bug wars never end. A couple months ago, I flew the glider from Tonopah to
> Santa Barbara, stayed for three days, then flew back to Hollister. Upon
> lifting my seat cushion to wipe out the dust, there sat one of those 4 inch
> long nasty semi-scorpion Tonopah spiders. After killing it, I flashed on the
> ending scene of the first "Alien" when Sigourney Weaver though she was rid of
> the monster, only to find it was traveling with her. Ack!
>
> But I digress.........
>
> Kemp

[Jack Glendening]

I hadn't gotten a chance to update this thread previously, in part
because I'm actually spending time soaring again after an enforeced
hiatus! But I later found a water bottle on its side behind the pilot's
seat, half full up to its nozzle, with dozens of dead ants floating
inside and now theorize that the water leaked out and was found by the
ants (as suggested by another poster) with the water likely flowing back
to the lowered tail. The animals do seem to love my glider. On my last
visit I arrived to find one wing loose. I first thought I might not
have tied it down correctly or that its stake had pulled out, but
instead I found that its rope had been severed in three places, fairly
cleanly as with a knife. All I can think is that one of the rodents out
there thought it might be good to eat and started chomping on it with
his teeth.