X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:28:53 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm29-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.91.236] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with SMTP id 5346270 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:45:12 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.91.236; envelope-from=chris_zavatson@yahoo.com Received: from [98.139.91.69] by nm29.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2012 16:44:39 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.11] by tm9.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2012 16:44:38 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1011.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2012 16:44:38 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 975901.7758.bm@omp1011.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 8813 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jan 2012 16:44:38 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JCwWYuJIiQj5TH6wncG5VDbMWOCvkIJbEwKqOLX1rH6Q4+bKjlP/hrBtmQGfFmmllsjOnKmhPcPVUnQ4z3v+0bVIXbEAzKKl2llM6+3oMOImELC/6NN1e7lGRwQZ0Pe0HFLuNLGZld2oYG1At2Lndr8y8I7mYAZJzaKgvYDx8go=; X-YMail-OSG: .cRntHEVM1ndaKqyOsM6YSjovVUOOhoBGhO3o0IbuxDJsHh 6qa7.IX6gnmdhNzSBJh8AeAG4vjeQJ7Viio0a6Nx8jO8mrlR6nz.Bygr2gJu tQ0xBJCbpMiNl3w6gs0KajI4zb_My3meHYDMIK4P9Ar.5mlTMfBydzHDHGI9 Tu3EP5Pi.IX6WrDXLuwZbUsSi2AnPdt4pvTzL.fFNmE0DitPP.ZYqlAzSeDL BiQFxYATVNqJR3VTG277tyfAh.SggmMOoK_9N9HJrdnHlttdkTsDIcHqsRNr uiKN2sdh45i1X_0h6BzuggCLgoNj1qyTd7ugdZ1T9H9WKxRsH1sJ9fVojHUl DtAUKm2CIThrU7hIjuQ8FxD56Atl4WME3K_K40kUSfh0jUx4JWKPLzuXFaI_ 30MQzBkAX0ZJGFpo7vFfDPcCbVQyNVMonqX04hUe0uW4A6KdnjvFgHHl81UR fEta8Qb1iNFXy07UyRneezBgvYCipmGM.Nd8huo1GBuNmKLcTZkiQGm839OB qr2faAlWHzwezBcI1vMrO7nQNoOeGPLcdbL78GSXCPA7TkL4DD7_zjzpk6w- - Received: from [76.246.54.47] by web36903.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:44:38 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.331698 References: X-Original-Message-ID: <1326300278.7188.YahooMailNeo@web36903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:44:38 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Zavatson Reply-To: Chris Zavatson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Pitot static checks X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-2114655128-1567925311-1326300278=:7188" ---2114655128-1567925311-1326300278=:7188 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John,=0AThe leak check for unpressurized aircraft involves pulling a vacuum= equivalent to 1,000 ft above ground and watching the altimeter=C2=A0for on= e minute for any loss in altitude.=C2=A0 (Pressurized aircraft=C2=A0are=C2= =A0a bit different as the values are tied to maximum=C2=A0pressure differen= tial.=C2=A0 see FAR 21.1325). If the loss is less than 100 ft, you're good.= =C2=A0 This test is easy for the owner/builder to perform because one only = needs to pull a vacuum on the static side of the system.=C2=A0=C2=A0 =0ADur= ing the real pitot-static test, it becomes necessary to also control the pr= essure to=C2=A0the pitot side to avoid getting too large of a differential.= =C2=A0=C2=A0For=C2=A0that you'll=C2=A0need the real equipment used for cert= ification.=C2=A0=C2=A0If you were to pull a vacuum to 10,000' without contr= olling the pitot side, the differential pressure could damage things - the = ASI for one, as it would be pegged.=0A=C2=A0=0AChris Zavatson=0AN91CZ=0A360= std=0Awww.N91CZ.net=C2=A0 =0A=0AFrom: John Barrett = =0ATo: lml@lancaironline.net =0ASent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:13 AM= =0ASubject: [LML] Re: Pitot static checks=0A=0A=0AChris,=0A=C2=A0=0AI actua= lly have one of these pumps already.=C2=A0 Is it safe to use on instruments= ?=C2=A0 How do you know max vacuum to apply?=C2=A0 Do you simply read it on= the aircraft altimeter while you=E2=80=99re doing the test?=C2=A0 Can I as= sume that if I don=E2=80=99t go over 10,000 feet, say, that will be suffici= ent and at the same time not destructive?=C2=A0 How to keep from damage whe= n I take the altimeter out of the system?=0A=C2=A0=0AI have Tru Trak autopi= lot, Cheltons and steam gauge backups.=0A=C2=A0=0AThanks,=0AJohn=0A=C2=A0= =0AFrom:Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ch= ris Zavatson=0ASent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:16 AM=0ATo: lml@lancairo= nline.net=0ASubject: [LML] Re: Pitot static checks=0A=C2=A0=0AJohn,=0AI use= a MightyVac hand help vacuum pump to check for leaks.=C2=A0 It is=C2=A0ine= xpensive and available at auto parts stores.=C2=A0=0A-very=C2=A0useful to h= ave around after breaking into lines and=C2=A0especially to verify system i= ntegrity=C2=A0before getting an official check done.=0AChris=0A=C2=A0=0AChr= is Zavatson=0AN91CZ=0A360std=0Awww.N91CZ.net=0A=C2=A0=0A=C2=A0=0AFrom:John = Barrett =0ATo: lml@lancaironline.net =0ASent: Tuesda= y, January 10, 2012 9:55 AM=0ASubject: [LML] Pitot static checks=0A=C2=A0= =0AI am having trouble with leaking Pitot system=C2=A0 on my IVP.=C2=A0 Att= empts to perform IFR cert for first flight=C2=A0 indicate that leaks in the= standby altimeter and airspeed indicator are producing 750 fpm leaks -- no= t acceptable.=C2=A0 =0A=C2=A0=0AHave attempted to repair these with clear f= ingernail polish as advised by Fred Moreno (thanks Fred) and this improved = the situation from about 3-4,000 fpm to the existing 750 fpm. =C2=A0Only tr= ouble is I was not present when the test was done this morning and to date = my only recourse for testing is to have the folks from Lancair avionics do = a test and tell me the results.=C2=A0 I do=C2=A0 not know now if the proble= m is isolated in these two instruments or could be elsewhere because I don= =E2=80=99t know if the techs from Lancair made any=C2=A0 attempts to insure= the current leak was in the instruments noted; only that they isolated the= m previously and felt this was where the leaks were.=0A=C2=A0=0ATo round ou= t my dilemma, I live on the Washington State=C2=A0 Olympic Peninsula and th= e airplane is in Redmond across the field from the old Lancair factory.=C2= =A0 I have a 130 knot Beech Sierra I use to commute and with the winter wea= ther and my work schedule it=E2=80=99s unpredictable when I can get to Redm= ond.=0A=C2=A0=0AMy question is does anyone have a testing system for checki= ng out the pitot static system=C2=A0 and tracking down leaks so that I can = repair them and only=C2=A0 invite Gary Lane back from Lancair avionics when= I know the system to be leak free?=C2=A0 If there is a simple design that = allows one to assemble such a device that would be good.=C2=A0 If someone h= as one made up and would loan or rent it to me that would also be good.=C2= =A0 If I had something like this I could narrow down the source or sources = of leaks and fix them systematically.=0A=C2=A0=0AThanks in advance.=0A=C2= =A0=0ARegards,=0A=C2=A0=0AJohn Barrett, CEO=0ALeading Edge Composites=0APO = Box 428=0APort Hadlock, WA 98339=0A=C2=A0=0Awww.carbinge.com ---2114655128-1567925311-1326300278=:7188 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John,
The leak check for u= npressurized aircraft involves pulling a vacuum equivalent to 1,000 ft abov= e ground and watching the altimeter for one minute = for any loss in altitude.  (Pressurized aircraft are a bit different as= the values are tied to maximum pressure differential.  see FAR 2= 1.1325). If the loss is less than 100 ft, you're good.  This test is e= asy for the owner/builder to perform because one only needs to pull a vacuu= m on the static side of the system.  
During the real pitot-static test, it becomes necessary to also control the pressure to&nbs= p;the pitot side to avoid getting= too large of a differential.  For that you'll need the= real equipment used for certification.  If you were to pull a va= cuum to 10,000' without controlling the = pitot side, the differential pressure could damage things - the ASI for one, as it would be pegged.
 
Chris Zavatson
N91CZ
360std
From:= John Barrett <jbarrett@carbinge.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:13 AM=
Subject: [LML] Re: Pitot static checks
<= BR>
Chris,
 
I actually have one of these pumps alrea= dy.  Is it safe to use on instruments?  How do you know max vacuu= m to apply?  Do you simply read it on the aircraft altimeter while you= =E2=80=99re doing the test?  Can I assume that if I don=E2=80=99t go o= ver 10,000 feet, say, that will be sufficient and at the same time not dest= ructive?  How to keep from damage when I take the altimeter out of the= system?
 
I have Tru Trak autopilot, Cheltons and steam gauge backups.
 
Thanks,
John
 
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of Chris Zavatson
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2= 012 3:16 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re= : Pitot static checks
 
John,<= /div>
I use a MightyVac hand help vacuum pump to ch= eck for leaks.  It is inexpensive and available at auto parts sto= res. 
-very us= eful to have around after breaking into lines and especially to verify= system integrity before getting an official check done.
<= /DIV>
Chris<= /div>
 =
Chris Zavatso= n
N91CZ<= /div>
360std=
 =
 =
From: John Barrett <jbarrett@carbinge.com>
To: lml@lancaironl= ine.net
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:55 AM
Subject: [LML] Pitot static checks
 
I am having trouble with leaking Pitot system  on my IVP.  Attempts to perform IFR cert for first flight  indicate that leaks in the stand= by altimeter and airspeed indicator are producing 750 fpm leaks -- not acceptable. 
 
Have attempted to repair these with clear fingernail poli= sh as advised by Fred Moreno (thanks Fred) and this improved the situation = from about 3-4,000 fpm to the ex= isting 750 fpm.  Only troub= le is I was not present when the test was done this morning and to date my = only recourse for testing is to have the folks from Lancair avionics do a t= est and tell me the results.  I do  not know now if the problem i= s isolated in these two instruments or could be elsewhere because I don=E2= =80=99t know if the techs from Lancair made any  attempts to insure th= e current leak was in the instruments noted; only that they isolated them p= reviously and felt this was where the leaks were.
 
To round out my dilemma, I live on the Washington State&n= bsp; Olympic Peninsula and the airplane is in Redmond across the field from= the old Lancair factory.  I have a 130 knot Beech Sierra I use to com= mute and with the winter weather and my work schedule it=E2=80=99s unpredic= table when I can get to Redmond.
 
My question is does anyone have a testing system for chec= king out the pitot static system=   and tracking down leaks so that I can repair them and only  inv= ite Gary Lane back from Lancair avionics when I know the system to be leak = free?  If there is a simple design that allows one to assemble such a = device that would be good.  If someone has one made up and would loan = or rent it to me that would also be good.  If I had something like thi= s I could narrow down the source or sources of leaks and fix them systemati= cally.
 
Thanks in advance.
 
Regards,
 
John Barrett, CEO
Leading Edge Composites
PO Box 428
Port Hadlock, = WA 98339
 
 
 
=


---2114655128-1567925311-1326300278=:7188--