Static Port

[SWeidemann]

I'm not sure why you would put one in. The HS, wing to fuse junction, and doors leak in a major way and to my knowledge a static port location analysis has not been performed on any of the fuselages so . . . . . . .?

I agree that a static port in a drafty Kitfox seems unnecessary.

[rv9ralph]

That draftiness in the cockpit will cause varying static port pressures, which makes an external port better for reliable reading on instruments that rely on static input.

In my model 3 the static port is cabin pressure. This makes my airspeed readings vary 5+ MPH while in steady cruise.

[SWeidemann]

That draftiness in the cockpit will cause varying static port pressures, which makes an external port better for reliable reading on instruments that rely on static input.

In my model 3 the static port is cabin pressure. This makes my airspeed readings vary 5+ MPH while in steady cruise.

My experienced Model 5 Vixen (original owner/builder started build in the 90’s & finally flew in 2003…that I did not build), has no plumbing to a pitot static system. Yes, the airspeed reads high but I’m used to it & do not view this deficit as enough of a hazard to retrofit tubes now. If I was a builder, I would put in the optional static port & tubing for sure.

Also, if I was building today, I would figure out a way to close off the tail section, wing roots & cowl sealing (to cockpit) to keep the air calm inside the cockpit. As an example this is possible, a friend restored his dad’s Aeronca and the cabin is draft free because he closed off all the opportunities for air to flow through the cockpit un-invited.