![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Jim Knoyle" wrote in message ... Hey, Splaps. Next time you are ever near a DADC or it's diagram, check out what they have at the other end of the tubing connected to the fitting labeled *TOTAL*. Only ONE pitot tube! Yep, the term Total means they added two sensors. Nope, the pitot tube detects static pressure + impact pressure. Read the book(s). [ snip of nonsense ] So, Jimmy, when I call your work an idiot detector, I really mean it. As others have noticed, it never fails to attract you. :-) Your's is a much nicer archive troll, as Miller is completely clueless about the subject. Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment. For anyone who missed it: http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_ta...hronicles.html Jimmy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim Knoyle" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Jim Knoyle" wrote in message ... Hey, Splaps. Next time you are ever near a DADC or it's diagram, check out what they have at the other end of the tubing connected to the fitting labeled *TOTAL*. Only ONE pitot tube! Yep, the term Total means they added two sensors. Nope, the pitot tube detects static pressure + impact pressure. Read the book(s). I have been writing that to you for years, Knoyle. That is why you seem such an idiot when you insist a pitot port is a pitot tube. Total means there is more than one sensor, nothing more. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Jim Knoyle" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Jim Knoyle" wrote in message ... Hey, Splaps. Next time you are ever near a DADC or it's diagram, check out what they have at the other end of the tubing connected to the fitting labeled *TOTAL*. Only ONE pitot tube! Yep, the term Total means they added two sensors. Nope, the pitot tube detects static pressure + impact pressure. Read the book(s). I have been writing that to you for years, Knoyle. That is why you seem such an idiot when you insist a pitot port is a pitot tube. Total means there is more than one sensor, nothing more. You really don't understand how that one little opening on the end of that pointy thing up front can detect static pressure (altitude) as well as impact pressure (airspeed), do you. That's sad! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "Jim Knoyle" Date: 1/17/2004 3:48 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Jim Knoyle" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Jim Knoyle" wrote in message ... Hey, Splaps. Next time you are ever near a DADC or it's diagram, check out what they have at the other end of the tubing connected to the fitting labeled *TOTAL*. Only ONE pitot tube! Yep, the term Total means they added two sensors. Nope, the pitot tube detects static pressure + impact pressure. Read the book(s). I have been writing that to you for years, Knoyle. That is why you seem such an idiot when you insist a pitot port is a pitot tube. Total means there is more than one sensor, nothing more. You really don't understand how that one little opening on the end of that pointy thing up front can detect static pressure (altitude) as well as impact pressure (airspeed), do you. That's sad! The hole on the front only detects pitot pressure. If there are holes on the side are for detecting static pressure. No, sorry Dan, you'll have to refer to a more modern air data computer. When the label at the top of the ADC switched from pitot to total, the definition for Total Pressure (Pt) was given as: "This is a pressure input (from the aircraft pitot probe) which varies both with altitude and aircraft speed. (Range 3.11 to 42.50 in. Hg.)" *This was a direct quote from a Honeywell HG280D DADC guide* The book goes on to explain how the delta Ps is removed to arrive at a more accurate airspeed. The Ps, whether obtained from the static port(s) on the probe or flush mounted ports on the fuselage, is fed through another fitting on the DADC (labeled static) and is something else entirely. It does factor in to the math. JK |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "Jim Knoyle" Date: 1/17/2004 8:00 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "Jim Knoyle" Date: 1/17/2004 3:48 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: [ snip ] The hole on the front only detects pitot pressure. If there are holes on the side are for detecting static pressure. No, sorry Dan, you'll have to refer to a more modern air data computer. When the label at the top of the ADC switched from pitot to total, the definition for Total Pressure (Pt) was given as: "This is a pressure input (from the aircraft pitot probe) which varies both with altitude and aircraft speed. (Range 3.11 to 42.50 in. Hg.)" *This was a direct quote from a Honeywell HG280D DADC guide* The book goes on to explain how the delta Ps is removed to arrive at a more accurate airspeed. The Ps, whether obtained from the static port(s) on the probe or flush mounted ports on the fuselage, is fed through another fitting on the DADC (labeled static) and is something else entirely. It does factor in to the math. JK OK, I see where you are coming from. The pitot pressure DOES vary by altitude. To compensate for that when measuring airspeed you use static pressure to give you altitude. Some aircraft detect static pressure from holes on the side of the pitot tube and others have the static ports located elswhere. In another recent part of this thread that didn't get cross-posted from a.d.a. (is that cheering I hear? ![]() flush mounted static ports whereas the 737, 747 & 767 use the combined pitot/static probe. Since Tarver seems to infer that the combined pitot/static probe is somehow better, I couldn't resist getting in a jab as to how the 777 uses the seperate pitot tubes on the nose and the flush mounted static ports on the fuselage. Seems the Boeing Engineers ignore his mud bee warnings. ![]() They do use analog/digital conversion right at the probe or port and run wiring instead of plumbing. Sounds like a good idea to me. I would be interested in seeing a schematic of your aircraft's pitot-static systems including DADC. I have never worked on DADC. I did work on the CADC abomination on the F-4E. In this long running sparring with Tarver, I've placed a couple diagrams on "his" page: http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_ta...hronicles.html The DC10 plumbing diagram at the bottom of this came from the DADC book mentioned above: http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/mechtest.html There is a 767 plumbing diagram at the bottom of this page: http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/pitot.html Somewhere I came across this great 777 presentation: http://euler.ecs.umass.edu/ece655/Boeing777.ppt JK |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jim Knoyle" wrote:
No, sorry Dan, you'll have to refer to a more modern air data computer. When the label at the top of the ADC switched from pitot to total, the definition for Total Pressure (Pt) was given as: "This is a pressure input (from the aircraft pitot probe) which varies both with altitude and aircraft speed. (Range 3.11 to 42.50 in. Hg.)" *This was a direct quote from a Honeywell HG280D DADC guide* The book goes on to explain how the delta Ps is removed to arrive at a more accurate airspeed. The Ps, whether obtained from the static port(s) on the probe or flush mounted ports on the fuselage, is fed through another fitting on the DADC (labeled static) and is something else entirely. It does factor in to the math. JK Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure' alone. Or did I misunderstand you? I'm sure that you know that lots of pitot tubes have both a static port (flush mount on the side) and a 'ram air port' the hole in the front to collect 'pitot pressure'. -- -Gord. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gord Beaman" wrote in message ... "Jim Knoyle" wrote: No, sorry Dan, you'll have to refer to a more modern air data computer. When the label at the top of the ADC switched from pitot to total, the definition for Total Pressure (Pt) was given as: "This is a pressure input (from the aircraft pitot probe) which varies both with altitude and aircraft speed. (Range 3.11 to 42.50 in. Hg.)" *This was a direct quote from a Honeywell HG280D DADC guide* The book goes on to explain how the delta Ps is removed to arrive at a more accurate airspeed. The Ps, whether obtained from the static port(s) on the probe or flush mounted ports on the fuselage, is fed through another fitting on the DADC (labeled static) and is something else entirely. It does factor in to the math. JK Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure' alone. Or did I misunderstand you? Darn, Gord, I thought it sounded clear to me... still do. It must be getting late. ![]() Ps component of Total Pressure must be taken into account. The Ps from the other DADC fitting (labeled static) is used to accomplish this. That's what I meant by "it does factor in..." Can't tell (the value of) one without the other. I'm sure that you know that lots of pitot tubes have both a static port (flush mount on the side) and a 'ram air port' the hole in the front to collect 'pitot pressure'. The combined pitot/static probe which I referred to by "The Ps, whether obtained from the static port(s) on the probe or flush mounted ports on the fuselage." We all agree, we just don't know it. Sorry if I confused the issue. JK |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Book Review: Converting Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft , Finch | Paul | Home Built | 0 | October 18th 04 10:14 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Hercules Engines | Tarver Engineering | Home Built | 0 | January 19th 04 11:05 PM |
Accident Statistics: Certified vs. Non-Certified Engines | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 23 | January 18th 04 05:36 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |