From: Jim Thomas
Date: 10/7/2003 8:22 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: . net

Actually, flight-test nose booms pick up both Pitot (dynamic) and static
pressure. I'll bet the one on the X-1 did, too.

Jim Thomas

I bet the X-1 had a pitot-static tube witch detects pitot and static pressure.
In fact he said "pitot tube" which only detects pitot pressure. There really is
a difference between a pitot and a pitot-static tube. Then tarver came along
and said a pitot tube "produces" pressure. Neither a pitot tube nor a pitot
static tube produces pressure, they simply sense them. If you do a google or
other search on tarver and "P1T0" "pitot ports" and other terms he has made up
you will see he's been arguing for years. He origionally said pitot came form
P1T0 until enough of us told him about Henri Pitot wt which time he started
telling us no jet aircraft had pitot tubes, they use "pitot ports" instead,
that both pitot and staic pressures are measured at "screened over static
ports" that pitot tubes sense air temperature, that mud wasps inhabit pitot
tubes, that pitot tubes measure temerature for use in jet engines ...etc ad
nauseum.

My favourite tarver claim was how no aircraft had pitot tubes until the "Air
Force" had lost those Avengers in the Bermuda triangle.

As I said, start with a google search (he blames Knoyle for all the archives)
and you should be amused. It should amaze you how he knows so much more than
those of us who have provided proof or who have actually worked on pitot static
systems.

If you want to frustate yourself ask him to name a single aircraft with a
"pitot port" or any other of his outlandish claims. Then observe as he resports
to personal insults, vulgarity and personal attacks. He does that so he won't
ever have to back up his claims.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired