Static port G3X

[Flybyjim]

I have had a couple other kitplanes and have helped with a few other builds in our club. I, nor have others put a dedicated static port in these other builds, just connect a short tube or non at all on the instruments and all has been well. Have any of you who are using the G3X skipped the static port on the fuselage side?

[PapuaPilot]

Nope, I installed the factory provided static port and added a second one on the opposite side of the fuselage. This setup gives the most accurate static input, especially if you are slipping.

A static port on the inside of the fuselage will work, but is going to be a lot less accurate. Typically the inside of a plane is at a slightly lower pressure than the true static pressure.

[efwd]

I skipped the static ports. I have a pummice stone like filter from a fish tank plugged into the back of the G3X. My data comes out exactly the same as the Citabria Todd was flying a couple weeks ago.

[Delta Whisky]

Jim - after giving it a lot of thought, I went with cockpit static. Right or wrong, I just couldn't convince myself of any real benefit from installing static ports. (On a fuselage of the Kitfox style and a Vno of 107 knots.) Maybe I might be looking at a speed that is a knot or two off but my real concern is repeatability of stall speeds. I've taped a table of pattern speeds (vs weight and flap settings) based on what the ASI in my plane gave during phase I stall tests and use it religiously. As it turned out, GPS based tests revealed that the IAS is accurate enough for glide and climb tests and proved it can be safely used for structural speed limits. I did pressurize the pitot line and verified the mechanical ASI and EFIS speed tape are within one knot of each other up and down a 0 - 100 knot range. To each his own I guess but you asked.