Test data - PECs
 

Does anybody have any test data comparing different methods of airspeed indicator / pitot-static system calibration?

I'm writing a report (towards a PhD mostly rather than for any of my various employers) on the relative merits of diffent methods (GPS, range-course, tower flypast, formation, trailing static, advance pitot-static, etc.) and the thing I bang my head against is that most establishments only have one method and are quite happy with it. Presumably somebody somewhere has compared several different methods on the same aircraft and produced a plot of the different results?

Cheers,

G

Genghis:
We routinely use all methods when teaching students, and have found very good co-relation between the GPS method and the ground course method for airspeed corrections - with the advantage that the GPS method is much faster and less dependent on having calm-ish winds at ground level.

I don't suppose that you have any cross-comparison graphs and data do you Shawn?, I need to prove the point to academics who have probably never flown a PEC run in anything. TPS Gouge II !

Out of interest, do you use BMAA's "racetrack" profile, John Lowry's "L-shape" profile, a simple backup to range-course or some other in GPS runs?

Cheers,

G

If you look at our website: http://www.ntps.edu/downloads.htm you can download papers describing the GPS methods we use.

Wow, yet another new way of flying GPS based PEC calibrations - what fun. Thanks Mike, that's very useful, especially that last graph. I shall contact the author asking if he'd mind my filching one of those graphs for my thesis.

G

Here is another (related) GPS method which uses the aircraft's heading as opposed to the track method used by the NTPS approach. It is fun to watch as it iterates to find the answer. Math details and the source code are also available on the site.

http://www.reacomp.com/

Hank