"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