X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:07:01 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c1) with ESMTP id 5718631 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:24:31 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.39; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.77]) by imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 33BA43800ACCC for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:22:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-mtd003a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mtd003.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.235.201]) by mtaomg-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id E0340E000086 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:22:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com Full-name: Sky2high X-Original-Message-ID: <3789.58c4af43.3d6288f6@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Question about TAS Error (and Winds Calculation) based on OAT (... X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3789.58c4af43.3d6288f6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 168 X-Originating-IP: [67.175.156.123] x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:474310144:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294d50312ef641d4 --part1_3789.58c4af43.3d6288f6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If your static port is off, so is your indicated altitude - by a lot................. Grayhawk In a message dated 8/19/2012 1:19:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Tim@myrv10.com writes: Could it be static error...maybe port location, or other? Mine was off by 8 kts (reading low). A rework of the port to a domed one and my error is now 2kts low. But, depending on your particular port issue if any, yours could be reading high. Tim On Aug 19, 2012, at 8:36 AM, jeffrey liegner wrote: > Recall my question (same subject) about the accuracy of OAT, and its efect on TAS and Winds. SInce I rendere pireps including winds and OAT, the accuracy of this report is now in question. Many have suggested reloacting the OAT to another place, different from the Lancair recommendation along the fuselage. This is not an easy thing, putting the probe out on the wing, wiring coming into and through the wing root, into the pressure vessel (different from the current OAT location). > > I performed the flight TAS calculation recommended by several. Whether three measurements with headings 120 degrees apart, or three orthogonal headings, the results are the same. > > > The Chelton presents a TAS 216 and the calculator renders TAS 205 based on the n flight measurement. > > I wonder if I can change the compressibility quotient used by Chelton to adjust the OAT reading. > > Suggestions? > > Jeff L > N334P > > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html --part1_3789.58c4af43.3d6288f6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If your static port is off, so is your indicated altitude - by a=20 lot.................
 
Grayhawk
 
In a message dated 8/19/2012 1:19:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 Tim@myrv10.com writes:
= Could it=20 be static error...maybe port location, or other?  Mine was off by 8 = kts=20 (reading low). A rework of the port to a domed one and my error is now 2k= ts=20 low.  But, depending on your particular port issue if any, yours cou= ld be=20 reading high.
Tim


On Aug 19, 2012, at 8:36 AM, jeffrey lieg= ner=20 <liegner@ptd.net> wrote:

> Recall my question (same subje= ct)=20 about the accuracy of OAT, and its efect on TAS and Winds.  SInce I= =20 rendere pireps including winds and OAT, the accuracy of this report is no= w in=20 question.  Many have suggested reloacting the OAT to another place,= =20 different from the Lancair recommendation along the fuselage.  This = is=20 not an easy thing, putting the probe out on the wing, wiring coming into = and=20 through the wing root, into the pressure vessel (different from the curre= nt=20 OAT location).
>
> I performed the flight TAS calculation=20 recommended by several.  Whether three measurements with headings 12= 0=20 degrees apart, or three orthogonal headings, the results are the same.>=20
>
> The Chelton presents a TAS 216 and the calculator rende= rs=20 TAS 205 based on the n flight measurement.
>
> I wonder if I= can=20 change the compressibility quotient used by Chelton to adjust the OAT=20 reading.
>
> Suggestions?
>
> Jeff L
>=20 N334P
>
> --
> For archives and unsub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

--
For arc= hives=20 and unsub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html --part1_3789.58c4af43.3d6288f6_boundary--