Flush mounted static port

[PrescottB787]

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

[Mel]

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".

[rocketman1988]

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...

[db1yg]

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

[BillL]

Originally Posted by rocketman1988

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.

[rocketman1988]

A guy asks for substantiated data between the two and gets attacked immediately. Glad I didn?t ask about priming!

[N427EF]

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.

[Mel]

Originally Posted by rocketman1988

A guy asks for substantiated data between the two and gets attacked immediately. Glad I didn?t 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.

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by N427EF

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.

[rocketman1988]

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...