avionics book reference and question

Tarver Engineering wrote:

That is very nice, scat and go read your book.


Done that John. The book is a standard engineering text at a local
university. Came across it while tutoring a couple of students. Using
it to expand my mind and refresh what I've forgetten over time.

MAH, physics teacher (retired)

B2431 wrote:

Only one person ever to have lived has said otherwise.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Dan,

I know I'm a bad boy, putting a piece of raw meat over the side of the
bridge to see if something snaps at it.

MAH

"mah" wrote in message ...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

That is very nice, scat and go read your book.


Done that John. The book is a standard engineering text at a local
university. Came across it while tutoring a couple of students. Using
it to expand my mind and refresh what I've forgetten over time.

MAH, physics teacher (retired)

That is a good idea, but you may wish to return to the classics, like
Halliday and Resnik where a pitot tube is is described and diagramed. Henri
Pitot's invention measured both static and dynamic pressure and your book is
crap. A pitot tube alone provides the data necessary to instrument IAS.
Books are often written by the ignorant and you may want to have a
discussion with the Engineering chair at the University.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer
California E14066
Washington 31553

Yes, probably way more engineering than anyone at your University.

"mah" wrote in message ...
B2431 wrote:

Only one person ever to have lived has said otherwise.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Dan,

I know I'm a bad boy, putting a piece of raw meat over the side of the
bridge to see if something snaps at it.

It's ok sock, we are acustomed to trolling idiots at ram.

From: mah

B2431 wrote:

Only one person ever to have lived has said otherwise.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Dan,

I know I'm a bad boy, putting a piece of raw meat over the side of the
bridge to see if something snaps at it.

MAH

Just watch, Tarver will now go on and on about P1T0 tubes, pitot tubes,
pitot-static tubes, that a pitot tube without static ports provides pitot,
static and temperature data, that the 2 pin electrical connector attached to a
heated tube is used to convey temperature data and that a pitot tube without
static ports is a "pitot port." You will also find he is the only person ever
born that uses the term "pitot port." Further the temperature, pitot and static
data derived from a single pitot tube provides data for TAS and the engine(s).
You will also find out recips didn't have pitot tubes, that jet aircraft didn't
have pitot or pitot-static tubes until one crashed or got lost or some other
BS. You will find he is convinced pitot tubes are also only good for mud wasps
to hide in which is why they "screened" over static ports.

If you ask him to provide proof or cite an independent source for anything he
says he will respond with personal insults and vulgarity instead. If you Google
or use any other search engine to see what he has said in the past you then
become a "Knoyle troll" for some inexplicable reason.

Try this one on him: IAW 1F-4E-06 the WUC for "pitot-static tube" is 511CA,
that 1F-4E-2-5, 1F-4F-2-13 and 1F-4E-4 also call it a "pitot-static tube." See
if he will say those T.O.s are all wrong too. I have a 1F-4E-06 and will be
more than happy to scan the page in question.

Now just watch, I didn't address this to him yet he will spew his usual filth
in my direction. He may even say I was thrown out of the Air Force after 12
years. I wonder why he chose that number. Actually I don't care. Yawn

I don't supposed you'd like to go meet him and see if he's like this in person,
would you?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired