> > > The static system will probably be more challenging as that's where most > > > of the subtle errors seem to crop up. Cessna gives tables relating IAS > > > to CAS (which is largely the static source error). If that's standard > > > practice, incorporating a table read-in and lookup might be a good idea. > > I don't think so. > > [...] > And so, I stand by my statement. Most of the time the static errors > are the ones that you need to worry about. You don't spend alot of time > at either high angles of attack or high sideslip angles.
Well, the tables I've seen have been specifically for IAS to CAS with flap selection as a parameter and no reference to uncoordinated flight. Therefore, I assert that these are correcting for angle of attack only. Angle of attack has very little effect on the static system, but a strong effect on the pitot system, which is why I disagreed with you. I think the Cessna tables are correcting for pitot errors, not static. I've never seen a calibration table that references the effect of slips. The closest I recall is the one that describes the altimeter errors that result from using alternate static sources, which is important when IFR. These errors easily exceed the terrain clearance tolerance that is built into the final section of an approach procedure. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
