VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-10
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-01-2017, 08:41 AM
PrescottB787 PrescottB787 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 29
Default Flush mounted static port

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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-01-2017, 08:44 AM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 9,672
Default

It has been shown time after time that Van's "rivet" static port is the most accurate.

Doesn't have to be the "pop rivet" as such, but the same basic configuration. i.e. Not "flush".
__________________
Mel Asberry..DAR since last century
A&P/EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Specializing in Amateur-Built and Light-Sport Aircraft
<n168tx(at)flytx.net>
North Texas (8TA5)
RV-6 Flying since 1993
175hp O-320
3-Blade Catto (since 2003)
FRIEND of the RV-1
Eagle's Nest Mentor

Last edited by Mel : 10-01-2017 at 09:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-01-2017, 09:45 AM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 736
Default Data?

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...
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
Structure - 90% Done
Cabin Top - Aaarrghhh...
Doors - Done
On Gear
290 HP Barrett Hung
ShowPlanes Cowl with Skybolts Fitted - Beautiful

Dues Paid 2017,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-01-2017, 09:52 AM
db1yg's Avatar
db1yg db1yg is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 574
Default Flush Static

Hi Ken,

I used some beautiful flush mounted static ports that included some really neat "O" Ring sealed connectors on my last RV9a build. If memory serves, they were from a company out of the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. It was a mistake! The airspeed was way off using these and, after much trial and error, I found that moving the port out from the skin about .040 gave me the accuracy that I needed---and not coincidentally .040 is about the height of the Vans pop rivet system. Just my experience and consistent with the experience of many other folks-- as Mel points out!

Cheers,

db
__________________
Dave B.
RV9a/ECiIO360/James Cowl/Catto Prop
Flying since 3/06 and still smiling!!!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-01-2017, 09:59 AM
BillL BillL is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central IL
Posts: 4,006
Default So you want three quotes, and a background check?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman1988 View Post
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...
The information is here within VAF -

After many hours of research and gathering - I used the SafeAir one, but cut off the tip in a lathe and used the Vans (baffle) rivet (lots of proseal) to attach it to the skin. So got the external profile and internal 1/4 NPT attach. There is a rivet profile copy now- Cleaveland I think.
__________________
Bill

Op Lims in hand 12-7-17
Prep for 1st flight underway.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-01-2017, 10:08 AM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 736
Default Wow, that didnít take long...

A guy asks for substantiated data between the two and gets attacked immediately. Glad I didnít ask about priming!
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
Structure - 90% Done
Cabin Top - Aaarrghhh...
Doors - Done
On Gear
290 HP Barrett Hung
ShowPlanes Cowl with Skybolts Fitted - Beautiful

Dues Paid 2017,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-01-2017, 10:17 AM
N427EF N427EF is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,510
Default Not an engineer

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.
__________________
Ernst Freitag
RV-8 finished (sold)
RV-10 Flyer 400 plus hours
Over 2500 Gallons of E10 mogas burned
Don't believe everything you know.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-01-2017, 11:03 AM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 9,672
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman1988 View Post
A guy asks for substantiated data between the two and gets attacked immediately. Glad I didnít ask about priming!
I don't think anyone is "attacking" you. They're simply pointing out that there is much substantiated data to be found by searching past posts.
__________________
Mel Asberry..DAR since last century
A&P/EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Specializing in Amateur-Built and Light-Sport Aircraft
<n168tx(at)flytx.net>
North Texas (8TA5)
RV-6 Flying since 1993
175hp O-320
3-Blade Catto (since 2003)
FRIEND of the RV-1
Eagle's Nest Mentor
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-01-2017, 11:20 AM
az_gila's Avatar
az_gila az_gila is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 8,857
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by N427EF View Post
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.
Exactly what I did with an old Cleavland (?) flush static port, except mine had a metal barbed attachment on the inside.

I used a 3/16 AN470 rivet and kept sanding it down until I got within 1 kt of error. I ended up at about 0.050" protrusion above the skin.
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-01-2017, 11:50 AM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 736
Default Yes

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, Iím kind of a numbers guy...
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
Structure - 90% Done
Cabin Top - Aaarrghhh...
Doors - Done
On Gear
290 HP Barrett Hung
ShowPlanes Cowl with Skybolts Fitted - Beautiful

Dues Paid 2017,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:37 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.