T

tonyjohnson

Well Known Member
I am interested in a comparison between the static air ports offered by Safeair and those provided by Vans. I plan to fly IFR, so it is of some importance to have an accurate static air system. I already have the Vans static air ports installed. I am wondering if it is worth it to change to the Safeair product.

Any observations would be appreciated.
 
Mine work...

Tony,

If a sample of "1" is of any use for you, I have the Van's ports, and my static system seems to be pretty accurate....but then, since I have nothing to compare it to - how would I know? :rolleyes:

Actually, when I flew GPS calibration tests for the airspeed system, I ended up with accuracy across the airspeed range of about 1%, which is phenomenal (I think),so I really think the stock static ports are fine.

Paul
 
Safeair1

You owe it to yourself to look at the Safeair1 Pitot/static system. The hardware is top notch. The connectors and T fittings are very easy to use making the install very quick. The price is very reasonable for everything you get. They will also customize the set up for your equipment.

Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
 
If it works, another data point

If they work for one person they should work again, but there is a history of other brands of aftermarket "flush" static ports producing error, and it was felt that being flush was the issue. Van's stock pop-rivet set-up we know works, but a protruding pop rivet head with the center mandrel punched out is cheap, light and works but not sophisticated or handsome, may be some would call crude, OK. The bottom line the protruding part seems important.

My RV-4 had an aftermarket port. Before I installed it I machined it a little to allow it to protrude a little. Some time people put so much paint and primer these ports become "too flush" and will produce error, and quite a bit. The fix is bring it out so it protrudes a little or put a little bead or ridge of epoxy just in front of the port, to break up the boundry flow, like a little VG (vortex generator).

I can see why folks want to install a machined aluminum fitting because a prop rivet is not super slick, but it does work. The big hang up is putting a hose on the back side, which is a bit of jury rig. I like to keep it to plans, simple and light but I also want something different.

What I have is "The Possum Works" static ports which work like the Pop rivets but is made from stainless steel screws. They are machined to protrude just a little and go in a single 3/16 hole, and also have a small hole drilled thru the length, which is a good trick. RV builder [email protected] sells them and they cost $(I forgot, less than $20). The nice thing is they are easier to attach the tube and look nice, all stainless steel and look like the original but better. The tube just slides on and a little safety wire wrap to secure or however you want to clap it on. You could use some adhesive to secure it. It is not like some machined units with fancy threaded fittings, but heck, its a static port. As long as there is no leak that is all that matters. You could make these yourself but I don't have a lathe and they looked nice for the price. Also the straight hole going thru the length is not easy to make I am sure.

I am sure Safair is good, just another data point. G
 
Last edited:
The Safeair ports are slightly proud of the skin when installed. You just have to make sure not to put too much sealant between them and the skin during installation. If you don't want to go for the whole Safeair static/pitot system, you can buy just the ports and use standard Nyloseal-type fittings.
IMG_4123.jpg
 
tonyjohnson said:
I am interested in a comparison between the static air ports offered by Safeair and those provided by Vans. I plan to fly IFR, so it is of some importance to have an accurate static air system. I already have the Vans static air ports installed. I am wondering if it is worth it to change to the Safeair product.

Any observations would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Each aircraft is a bit different, as they are all hand made. The accuracy of the sensed static pressure is very sensitive to the countours around the static ports. So the results from someone else aren't necessarily applicable to your aircraft.

Wait until you get flying, then do the testing to see if you are getting an accurate static pressure from Van's system. If they are accurate for you, then don't change a thing. If you find unacceptable errors then we can look at what mods are needed to reduce the error.

You can find details on how to determine the accuracy of your static system at:

http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/rvlinks/ssec.html
 
Not that sensitive, build to plans

Kevin Horton said:
Each aircraft is a bit different, as they are all hand made. The accuracy of the sensed static pressure is very sensitive to the contours around the static ports. So the results from someone else aren't necessarily applicable to your aircraft.
Click to expand...
Kevin I totally agree but it is not that sensitive.

We know Van's Pop rivet works, so if you emulate that exact "conficuration" the results should be predictable and accurate, i.e., built it to plans.

As far as the flush after market static ports, variations in brand and manufacturing, plus as I said folks get crazy with paint, sealant and other things, can make the "flush" static port, Sub-flush. That is guaranteed to produce poor results.

Yes the shape or surface waviness around the port may affect it, but most RV's with pre-made parts are pretty close. With that said all error in a Pitot-static is usually attributed to the static side of the system. G
 
I made it from a # 10 ss machine screw no big hole no goop,easy. A drill press will work.
pict4156a9so.jpg

Frank
anodizing parts today
 
A Bit of Everything

Tony,

At first I used the static port off the heated pitot. 190 IAS on the first flight without gear fairings sure looked good, but it wasn't right.

I installed the static fittings Cleaveland sells, which by description are similar (if not the same) as Safeair. Their appeal was direct connectability with hose, avoiding many potential leak paths with the Van's kluge, and looks. Even though slightly proud of the unpainted skin, the error was still 10 mph too high at cruise. So I drilled out the static hole and epoxied in a de-stemed pop rivet (the same Van's uses) and the AI is now reading within 1%. Still happy after painting, too.

My 172's static port is a 1/16 thick disc on top of the skin.

All the above tells me that whatever you use has to stick out into the breeze more than a coupla mills.

John Siebold
 
please call

Tony, or is it Your Honor,

I saw you were a Judge. I'm in Orlando and building a 6. Please call me at 407-616-7764, I would like to come see your project. BTW, where are you building?

Bill Whidden.
 
Bob, I used a very thin layer of RTV, only because I don't have any Proseal around. From what I've read, RTV can interfere with painting later. I was careful to keep it off of the outside of the skin. I used a 4-rivet pattern such that no rivet is directly in front of the port. This is a poor picture, but you can kind of see what I did.

IMG_4122.jpg


Hopefully it works out ok.

Dave
 
fWIW

I bought the SafeAir ports and mounted them on the outside.

The reason is I simply can't read. ;)

The truth is I was hearing a good bit about the location of the static ports and have heard that the flush ports don't always work that great so ... Mine are mounted on the outside just like Cessna and a number of other planes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.