VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Avionics / Interiors / Fiberglass > Engine Monitors
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-30-2020, 08:53 PM
j_omega j_omega is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: -
Posts: 14
Default Accuracy of the GRT EIS airspeed indicator

Does anyone have a rough idea of how accurate the airspeed indicator is on the GRT EIS, especially at lower speeds? Is there a way to calibrate out the error?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-30-2020, 11:47 PM
rv8ch's Avatar
rv8ch rv8ch is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LSGY
Posts: 3,198
Default Good

I just had an "official" test done by an A&P on my field of my altimeters airspeed indicators, both analog and GRT, and it was very accurate. The GRT does have a calibration which I played with, but didn't quite understand. Didn't seem to be needed or make much difference.

For example, here are my readings for 200kts from the GRT:

Code:
198.2
199.2
199.6
199.8
199.9
199.9
199.9
199.8
199.9
199.9
199.8
199.8
199.8
199.8
199.8
199.7
199.7
199.7
199.7
199.6
199.6
199.6
199.6
199.7
We hesitated longer here than at other speeds to confirm no leaks, so I have more readings at this speed.

His calibrated machine was not digital, so I think that the tolerances of a few knots are about as accurate as you could even read on his gauges.
__________________
Mickey Coggins
http://rv8.ch
"Hello, world!"
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-01-2020, 12:21 AM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
Default

As indicated above, my pitot-static tests also show the IAS to be very accurate. However, this does not address static port placement errors, nor pitot errors at high angle of attack.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-01-2020, 12:28 AM
j_omega j_omega is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: -
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv8ch View Post
I just had an "official" test done by an A&P on my field of my altimeters airspeed indicators, both analog and GRT, and it was very accurate. The GRT does have a calibration which I played with, but didn't quite understand. Didn't seem to be needed or make much difference.

For example, here are my readings for 200kts from the GRT:

Code:
198.2
199.2
199.6
199.8
199.9
199.9
199.9
199.8
199.9
199.9
199.8
199.8
199.8
199.8
199.8
199.7
199.7
199.7
199.7
199.6
199.6
199.6
199.6
199.7
We hesitated longer here than at other speeds to confirm no leaks, so I have more readings at this speed.

His calibrated machine was not digital, so I think that the tolerances of a few knots are about as accurate as you could even read on his gauges.
I'm particularly interested with what you came up with at the lower end of the range closer to stall speeds. This is where I would expect to see the larger measurement errors.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-01-2020, 12:44 AM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
Default

Quote:
I'm particularly interested with what you came up with at the lower end of the range closer to stall speeds. This is where I would expect to see the larger measurement errors.
These low speed errors are mostly due to the pitot tube no longer pointing straight into the relative wind. You can buy an expensive pitot mount on gimbals and fins that always points into the wind. Or, most GRT efis units will calculate/show angle of attack, which is actually more useful at low speeds (I prefer the aural warning tones).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-01-2020, 12:57 AM
rv8ch's Avatar
rv8ch rv8ch is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LSGY
Posts: 3,198
Default low speed indications

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_omega View Post
I'm particularly interested with what you came up with at the lower end of the range closer to stall speeds. This is where I would expect to see the larger measurement errors.
The numbers I have in my excel for lower speeds will probably not be that useful, we gradually increased "speed" and called it out as it passed different speeds, not stopping to let the logs write down a stabilized speed. The speeds shown by the GRT at these lower speeds were within the tolerances they have for this test, which I believe is 2.0kts up to 150kts, 2.5kts from 150kts to 180kts, and then 3.0kts up to 280kts. I only tested up to 235kts.
__________________
Mickey Coggins
http://rv8.ch
"Hello, world!"
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-01-2020, 04:20 AM
rzbill's Avatar
rzbill rzbill is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 2,692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_omega View Post
I'm particularly interested with what you came up with at the lower end of the range closer to stall speeds. This is where I would expect to see the larger measurement errors.
Why would you expect GRTs electronic pressure differential sensor to be less accurate than other measurement means such as a mechanical ASI? Yes there could be error at low speed but as noted that is usually the pressure sampling system (static port or less likely pitot) rather than the differential sensor so all ASI indicators would have the same error.
__________________
Bill Pendergrass
ME/AE '82
RV-7A: Flying since April 15, 2012. 850 hrs
YIO-360-M1B, mags, CS, GRT EX and WS H1s & A/P, Navworx
Unpainted, polished....kinda'... Eyeballin' vinyl really hard.
Yeah. The boss got a Silhouette Cameo 4 Xmas 2019.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-01-2020, 08:41 AM
j_omega j_omega is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: -
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rzbill View Post
Why would you expect GRTs electronic pressure differential sensor to be less accurate than other measurement means such as a mechanical ASI? Yes there could be error at low speed but as noted that is usually the pressure sampling system (static port or less likely pitot) rather than the differential sensor so all ASI indicators would have the same error.
Because according to the datasheet, the uncalibrated accuracy of the pressure sensor they use is +/- 7 PSI across the entire range. The equation for pressure vs airspeed is non-linear and is more sensitive to changes at lower speeds.

https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/data-sheet/MPX5010.pdf


Last edited by j_omega : 05-01-2020 at 08:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-01-2020, 01:06 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_omega View Post
Because according to the datasheet, the uncalibrated accuracy of the pressure sensor they use is +/- 7 PSI across the entire range.
That must be a typo. 7 psi is a huge error for IAS.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-01-2020, 01:09 PM
j_omega j_omega is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: -
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner View Post
That must be a typo. 7 psi is a huge error for IAS.
Yeah, sorry, that's supposed to be 0.07 PSI (0.5 kPa). That still correlates to 10s of knots on the lower end of the scale. I guess GRT has just calibrated the error down to a reasonable level. I was just curious how accurately they had calibrated it...


Last edited by j_omega : 05-01-2020 at 01:18 PM.
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 03:02 AM.


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.