A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cleaning a 3-way TE probe



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 7th 03, 06:05 PM
John Morgan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 7th 03, 06:05 PM
John Morgan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old October 7th 03, 06:25 PM
Jack Glendening
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 8th 03, 05:49 AM
Jack Glendening
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 8th 03, 02:06 PM
JJ Sinclair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 03, 01:54 AM
Duane Eisenbeiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old October 9th 03, 02:35 AM
Jack Glendening
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 03, 02:40 AM
Marc Ramsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old October 9th 03, 02:50 AM
Jack Glendening
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 03, 02:55 AM
JJ Sinclair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:46 AM
Broken line to Oil Temperature Probe, Repairable? rkane33 Owning 2 July 25th 03 03:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.