X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 06:16:21 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from carbinge.com ([69.5.27.218] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with SMTP id 5345417 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:43:22 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.5.27.218; envelope-from=jbarrett@carbinge.com Received: (qmail 10413 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2012 06:42:46 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; h=X-Originating-IP:Reply-To:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; s=default; d=carbinge.com; b=CSIHE740AE8OXnF2Qef3nT1iJuoptYtXKRUncYp6fdYz9nEgj/umKVko0Paeb1+1LWSN/KUIHrwXYJrRfYNTIMDYCL4y6zuFk4z5T6K7gMReBsvNqnsjtKRngvJHRiu0qF2F9CDyLgvmOZAFya+DDbIBY3JWeT2DTInddghklLE=; X-Originating-IP: [24.143.115.170] Reply-To: From: "John Barrett" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Pitot static checks X-Original-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:42:53 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: <04ab01ccd02c$3f381440$bda83cc0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_04AC_01CCCFE9.3114D440" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AczP4E0YbKIxP6mvQC6HnErc7TJMKQAS7rXQ Content-Language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_04AC_01CCCFE9.3114D440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yeah. You have described my dilemma and what I want to accomplish. Problem is I need to figure out HOW to do that. That's why I'm looking for equipment or way to put things together myself. Thanks, John From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of paul miller Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:39 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Pitot static checks John: I had a similar experience when doing IFR testing up at Rocky Mountain Avionics in Kalispell after the WAAS upgrade. It took them a long time to isolate that the actual fitting was leaking and they replaced the fitting. This was not obvious and caused all kinds of delays. If you can isolate the lines in question from the fittings and pressure test lines only and rule out the lines then you might have a better chance of finding the culprit. On 2012-01-10, at 12:55 PM, John Barrett wrote: I am having trouble with leaking Pitot system on my IVP. Attempts to perform IFR cert for first flight indicate that leaks in the standby altimeter and airspeed indicator are producing 750 fpm leaks -- not acceptable. ------=_NextPart_000_04AC_01CCCFE9.3114D440 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yeah. You have described my dilemma and what I want to = accomplish. Problem is I need to figure out HOW to do that. = That’s why I’m looking for equipment or way to put things = together myself.

Thanks,
John

From:= = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = paul miller
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:39 = PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: = Pitot static checks

John: I had = a similar experience when doing IFR testing up at Rocky Mountain = Avionics in Kalispell after the WAAS upgrade. It took them a long time = to isolate that the actual fitting was leaking and they replaced the = fitting. This was not obvious and caused all kinds of delays. If = you can isolate the lines in question from the fittings and pressure = test lines only and rule out the lines then you might have a better = chance of finding the culprit.

On 2012-01-10, at 12:55 PM, John Barrett = wrote:

I am = having trouble with leaking Pitot system on my IVP. Attempts = to perform IFR cert for first flight indicate that leaks in the = standby altimeter and airspeed indicator are producing 750 fpm leaks -- = not acceptable.

=

------=_NextPart_000_04AC_01CCCFE9.3114D440--