"I'll spend as much of YOUR money as I want!" - Bu$h's Sunday Presidential Address

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
(B2431) wrote:

From: (Walt BJ)


Gentleman, the F4E does indeed have static ports, two of them. They
are located ON the pitot boom.
snip
Walt BJ

Walt, that's why I referred to it as the "pitot-static" tube. I guess I
could
have been more clear in referring to static ports as a separate entity. I
was
referring to the static ports flush mounted on the fuselage eg; KC-135.
The
KC-135 has pitot tubes and the static ports are elsewhere on the
fuselage. A
pitot-static tube has static ports a few inches back from the inlet as in
F-4E,
T-39 etc.

As for the static ports on the F-4E pitot-static tube there were 4 small
holes
in pairs on opposite sides of the tube IIRC(it's been 23 years since I
last
worked on an F-4E). In any event the ports were all routed to a single
fitting
extending out the back of the pitot-static tube coaxially with the pitot
fitting and heater connector. The pitot and static fittings were -4 and
were
connected to lengths of nylon tubing running aft along the right side of
the
radome.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

That reminds me...there was an odd setup on the C-119 with
respect to static ports...there was one on each side of the big
flat sides of the fuselage which were connected together then
"teed" off to feed the ASI, altimeter and VSI. It was a little
'trick' question as to the reason for this.

Apparently it's purpose was to cancel out the effect of
'skidding' the fuselage. With those huge 'barn door' sides the
effect of skid was quite large. Could this have been why the
F-4E's static ports were 'doubled up'?
--

-Gord.

Yes, Gord, same purpose in both cases though I ran into one
example that showed me it isn't always that critical. later for that

First, I'd like to mention that there are a few examples of the two
types on my site that I've referred to from time to time in this
ongoing idiocy with Splaps. The original Pitot Tube with flush
mounted static ports is used on the B-727, B-757, DC-10 and
probably many others. I've represented it with:
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/pitot57a.gif and
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/pitot10.gif

What we referred to as a Combined Pitot Probe is used on the
B-737, B-747, B-767 etc. That type is shown on:
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/pitot.gif The standby system still
uses flush mount static ports.

Before one concludes that one system is 'newer. i.e. 'better'
check out http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/pitot777.gif
Lots of the plumbing is replaced with wire, though.
I borrowed that diag. from:
http://http--euler.ecs.umass.edu-ece655-boeing777.ppt/

As for that story I promised in para. 1.
One of our top-notch gate mechanics at SFO had to
replace an altimeter on a B-737 for something like a
lighting problem and when the aircraft failed the
required static system leak check, he cancelled the
flight and they drug the sick bird over to me to fix.
I set up and did a static leak test from the right side
probe and darned if the system wasn't perfect.
Since I have great respect for this mechanic and his
work, a phone call was in order. I learn that his leak
test from the *left* side can't even get the needle off
of the peg.
The aircraft had been flying around for months with
the static line disconnected from the left probe and
capped and any error was too small to notice.
JK

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
(B2431) wrote:

From: (Walt BJ)


Gentleman, the F4E does indeed have static ports, two of them. They
are located ON the pitot boom.
snip
Walt BJ

Walt, that's why I referred to it as the "pitot-static" tube. I guess I
could
have been more clear in referring to static ports as a separate entity.
I
was
referring to the static ports flush mounted on the fuselage eg; KC-135.
The
KC-135 has pitot tubes and the static ports are elsewhere on the
fuselage. A
pitot-static tube has static ports a few inches back from the inlet as
in
F-4E,
T-39 etc.

As for the static ports on the F-4E pitot-static tube there were 4
small
holes
in pairs on opposite sides of the tube IIRC(it's been 23 years since I
last
worked on an F-4E). In any event the ports were all routed to a single
fitting
extending out the back of the pitot-static tube coaxially with the
pitot
fitting and heater connector. The pitot and static fittings were -4 and
were
connected to lengths of nylon tubing running aft along the right side
of
the
radome.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

That reminds me...there was an odd setup on the C-119 with
respect to static ports...there was one on each side of the big
flat sides of the fuselage which were connected together then
"teed" off to feed the ASI, altimeter and VSI. It was a little
'trick' question as to the reason for this.

Apparently it's purpose was to cancel out the effect of
'skidding' the fuselage. With those huge 'barn door' sides the
effect of skid was quite large. Could this have been why the
F-4E's static ports were 'doubled up'?

Yes, Gord, same purpose in both cases though I ran into one
example that showed me it isn't always that critical. later for that

Knoyle, village idiot, you have already demonstrated that you don't even
know what a pitot tube is. Hit the bricks, dumbass.

That reminds me...there was an odd setup on the C-119 with
respect to static ports...there was one on each side of the big
flat sides of the fuselage which were connected together then
"teed" off to feed the ASI, altimeter and VSI. It was a little
'trick' question as to the reason for this.

Apparently it's purpose was to cancel out the effect of
'skidding' the fuselage. With those huge 'barn door' sides the
effect of skid was quite large. Could this have been why the
F-4E's static ports were 'doubled up'?
--

-Gord.

On the F-4E it is possible that the doubling was for that purpose. Dunno, never
thought about it.

Many large aircraft like the C-130 have static ports on both sides that are
teed together. On the C-130 there are a pair of static ports on each side
forward of the main gear wells. One is paired with one on the other side for
the pilot's system and the other ones are paired for the co-pilot's and nav's
systems. The pitot tubes only run to one system ie; pilot's side or copilot's
side.

There was a third static port on the right side of some of the C-130s I worked
on. It would have been outboard of the Nav's station. I don't recall what it
went to. AFCS? That would be a long reach since the AFSC amp was near the crew
entrance door on the left as you climb in.

The static ports on most of the aircraft I worked on looked like salt shaker
tops. Maybe that's what tarver meant by "screened over."

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"Jim Knoyle" wrote:


Yes, Gord, same purpose in both cases though I ran into one
example that showed me it isn't always that critical. later for that


Ok, thanks Jim, odd how some situations can go for years before
they're found.

Reminds me of a fire detector fault on a twin jet airliner that
went for a long time undetected. Apparently the fire-detectors
were cross connected and, because the detector test circuit for
both engines was activated by a single switch the problem wasn't
noticed. It was noticed (bigtime) when, after a fire warning on
one engine (which was immediately caged) the other engine failed
(it was the one that actually was on fire).

It seems to me that this happened in the UK but I cannot find it
now in my accident files.
--

-Gord.

"B2431" wrote in message
...

That reminds me...there was an odd setup on the C-119 with
respect to static ports...there was one on each side of the big
flat sides of the fuselage which were connected together then
"teed" off to feed the ASI, altimeter and VSI. It was a little
'trick' question as to the reason for this.

Apparently it's purpose was to cancel out the effect of
'skidding' the fuselage. With those huge 'barn door' sides the
effect of skid was quite large. Could this have been why the
F-4E's static ports were 'doubled up'?
--

-Gord.

On the F-4E it is possible that the doubling was for that purpose. Dunno,
never
thought about it.

Why would you think about it kook. You were never there, Dan.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Jim Knoyle" wrote:


Yes, Gord, same purpose in both cases though I ran into one
example that showed me it isn't always that critical. later for that


Ok, thanks Jim, odd how some situations can go for years before
they're found.

In Jm's case they go on forever, being that he doesn't even know what a
pitot tube is.

(B2431) wrote:


The static ports on most of the aircraft I worked on looked like salt shaker
tops. Maybe that's what tarver meant by "screened over."

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Could be...I hardly ever think about anything that he says.

'Salt shaker tops but flat' right?...they look like a bunch of
small holes drilled through the skin, maybe a dozen or so, always
'flat'.

You do know that he's trolling right?...enjoys getting people
riled up. Best method of all is to studiously ignore
him...
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
(B2431) wrote:


The static ports on most of the aircraft I worked on looked like salt
shaker
tops. Maybe that's what tarver meant by "screened over."

Could be...I hardly ever think about anything that he says.

You have bought off on Knoyle's archive troll havn't you, Gord? That would
mean you know little to nothing about airplane systems, so I can see why you
wiould try to support his bull****. Really now, Gord, once Dan didn't know
there is a static temperature probe in a jet's pitot tube, the chesse was
binding. You can't rehabilitate the idiot. Just have fun bull****ting with
Dan and forget about his technical acumen, 'cause he has none.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
(B2431) wrote:


The static ports on most of the aircraft I worked on looked like salt
shaker
tops. Maybe that's what tarver meant by "screened over."

Could be...I hardly ever think about anything that he says.

You have bought off on Knoyle's archive troll havn't you, Gord? That would
mean you know little to nothing about airplane systems, so I can see why you
wiould try to support his bull****. Really now, Gord, once Dan didn't know
there is a static temperature probe in a jet's pitot tube, the chesse was
binding. You can't rehabilitate the idiot. Just have fun bull****ting with
Dan and forget about his technical acumen, 'cause he has none.


grin

--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
(B2431) wrote:


The static ports on most of the aircraft I worked on looked like salt
shaker
tops. Maybe that's what tarver meant by "screened over."

Could be...I hardly ever think about anything that he says.

You have bought off on Knoyle's archive troll havn't you, Gord? That
would
mean you know little to nothing about airplane systems, so I can see why
you
wiould try to support his bull****. Really now, Gord, once Dan didn't
know
there is a static temperature probe in a jet's pitot tube, the chesse was
binding. You can't rehabilitate the idiot. Just have fun bull****ting
with
Dan and forget about his technical acumen, 'cause he has none.

grin

I thought so. The Knoyle archive troll is a wonderful idiot detector.