Misplaced static port

[JDA_BTR]

I managed a perfect install of two Showplanes static ports just forward of the F808 bulkhead. Only problem is that it should be one bulkhead further aft. Didn’t think much about it until I fit the aft baggage shelf and see these will be in the aft baggage area.

One choice is to just leave it as a feature of my plane and not change anything.

Another is to put them where they should go and I’m inclined to do that. But the hole is 1/4 and that’s pretty big. I could make a small doubler and install with small head rivets then fill the hole.

I’m looking for ideas on the hole….. if I don’t just leave it as is.

 

[bjdecker]

Patch It.

Personally, I would put the static ports in the recommended/correct location.

For the holes, fabricate a couple of patches, probably .025" - .032"x1.5"x1.5" with 4 AN426AD3.5 rivets at the corners. On the outside of the skin, use a little JB Weld in the recess and sand to match surrounding skin.

I've been chasing airspeed/altitude errors for a while in my RV-7 due to a bad choice of static ports early on -- it's frustrating. At least the static ports are in the correct location, so I know I'm just chasing a shape problem, and not something else.

 

[Tommy123]

I would contact either Showplanes and/or Vans and ask if that location would interfere with static readings.

 

[gasman]

The 1/4 inch hole.... I would JB weld a patch on the back side and fill in the hole with JB weld and finish with filler putty and primer to make it disappear.

 

[planenutz]

You're not the first person to get the location wrong and you won't be the last. I was just looking at an RV-7 on Saturday which had the static ports located much further aft than called for and its flown without issues for a good 12 years now.

Your call at the end of the day however I would be inclined to leave it as is and be prepared to make adjustments later if you experience clearly defined errors. If you have to add another pair of static ports later I would guess nobody will ever notice and, if they did ask - you can just say you have a dual static system. Nobody will be wiser. If you look around at where static ports are located on production aircraft you'll even see them positioned forward of the cabin. This is primarily done for economy - it costs less than running a static line to the aft of the fuselage. This is not to say that location imight not be important for some aircraft, just that location is not necessarily important for all aircraft. Remember that some aircraft have the static ports in the wings too.

If you wanted to be prepared, run the tubes but don't drill the ports and don't connect it to the existing system. If it turns out you need it, you'll be glad its in place and the change is a very simple job. If you don't need it, you can remove the tubes at the next Condition Inspection. No harm no foul.

 

[BillL]

Personally, I would put the static ports in the recommended/correct location.

For the holes, fabricate a couple of patches, probably .025" - .032"x1.5"x1.5" with 4 AN426AD3.5 rivets at the corners. On the outside of the skin, use a little JB Weld in the recess and sand to match surrounding skin.

I've been chasing airspeed/altitude errors for a while in my RV-7 due to a bad choice of static ports early on -- it's frustrating. At least the static ports are in the correct location, so I know I'm just chasing a shape problem, and not something else.

+1 Some Vans aircraft are sensitive to the location. Personally, I had rather not carry an issue into Phase I. There could be more than accuracy that is at stake.