PrescottB787
Active Member
Can anyone point me in the right direction for a flush mounted static port. Chose not to go with Vans static port. Seem to me that with a flush mounted port there is less error.
Thanks
Thanks
I would like to see substantiated data on that statement versus other machined options such as the safe air 1 ports or any of the other machined ports.
Not trying to be difficult but I am a numbers guy (engineer) and am partial to substantiated data. Searching these boards I find a bunch of anecdotal evidence supporting every different opinion. Usually the guys that use the pop rivet say it works great and the same can be said of the guys using machined products.
Though I am not flying yet, I chose a machined product that has the same exterior profile as the pop rivet. There should, therefore, be no discenable difference in accuracy between the two...we will see.
Just seems like a really hokey way to put a static port on a $160k plane...pop rivet with stem removed and a blob of proseal...whatever works, I guess...
A guy asks for substantiated data between the two and gets attacked immediately. Glad I didn?t ask about priming!
But I was also not quite happy to live with the pop rivet head as per Vans instructions.
However, there was no need for me to see numbers to believe that the shape of a protruded rivet head was in fact the most accurate static port known to RVs.
I used one of the flush versions after market static ports attached with 4 rivets and a proper female 1/8 NPT
on the inside.
I Enlarged the static port to accept a solid AN470 rivet head with the center of the rivet drilled for the static port. Glued in with Pro seal or JB weld.
Looks beautiful and I can't detect a static error.
Yeah, attacked was not the right word. What I was after was someone who had actually tested the two and documented the resulting differences. Like I said, I’m kind of a numbers guy...
Some here are content with the “That’s the way it has always been done, so it’s the best, cheapest, and safest way” mentality. That is great and it is your opinion, however, consider this: If Van himself subscribed to that mentality, would there even be an RV-anything.?
You will certainly not get into any “hot water” building strictly to the plans but that doesn’t necessarily mean there aren’t better ways to accomplish things...
Yeah, attacked was not the right word. What I was after was someone who had actually tested the two and documented the resulting differences. Like I said, I?m kind of a numbers guy...
As simple as I can say it:
1. I am not disputing the field data that the pop rivet works, it does. NOT ALWAYS - YOU MUST TEST
2. I am using a machined static port WITH THE SAME PROFILE as the rivet. MEANS NOTHING - YOU MUST TEST
3. I am using the machined part to take advantage of the NPT fitting inside. GREAT - THAT IS WHAT WE THOUGHT AND DID
4. I wondered if anyone had documented data for differences between the two. DATA FROM ANYONE, I HAVE A SPREADSHEET, BUT IT JUST PROVES WHAT I EXPLAINED IN THE PREVIOUS POST. THE NUMBERS WERE ONLY USEFUL TO ME ON MY PLANE, MAY NOT APPLY TO YOURS.
5. I am curious, from an engineer's perspective, what the difference is, that's all. UNLESS YOU WIND TUNNEL TEST IT IS HARD TO SAY
To your point about researching, no, I did that before I decided on the ports that I have already installed (several years ago). That research is the reason that the ports I selected have the same 3D profile as the rivet they replace. There should be no discernible difference between these ports and the rivets. SAME SIZE, SHAPE AND UNDETECTABLE TO THE HUMAN EYE THE SAME?
I do appreciate the advice and knowledge available on this forum and it has saved me many, many hours of build time and an unknown amount of dollars saved...
Hopefully, I will soon join the ranks of flying RVs... YOU WILL BUT THE TEST FLIGHT PERIOD IS WHERE YOU IRON OUT THE BUGS. BOEING AND AIRBUS DO THE SAME.