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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USFJ commander defends US response to, probe of helo crash | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 28th 04 12:29 AM |
US military rejects Japan police request for chopper probe | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 19th 04 02:58 AM |
landing gear cleaning | Bob Miller | Owning | 4 | July 5th 04 09:24 PM |
Follow-up probe ordered into June 'friendly-fire' hit | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | March 3rd 04 03:46 AM |
Broken line to Oil Temperature Probe, Repairable? | rkane33 | Owning | 2 | July 25th 03 03:19 AM |