Chuck Yeager-pitot tube

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Bill Silvey"


"B2431" wrote in message

From: "Gord Beaman" (

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

snip

Especially when describing what a Pitot tube is and what it does.
;-)

You mean the kind of pitot tube that produces two pressures to make
IAS? The same kind Henri Pitot used to measure water flow?

That would not be the kind the lunes of ram believe in.


John this is getting tiresome...
--

-Gord.

Gord, give up on tarver, now he thinks pitot tubes PRODUCE pressure.
Not only that they produce TWO pressures. The poor man is beyond help.

Dan, U. S. Air Force

Moreover, he thinks they produce two pressures and produce airspeed as
well.

The man's beyond hope, he is.

--
It is obvious he thinks a pitot tube produces pitot and static pressures

Yes Dan, you pathetic moron, that is what a pitot tube does.

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

"B2431" wrote in message
...
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

No, the X-1 had a pitot tube, friggin' moron.

On 08 Oct 2003 05:26:31 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

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.

First, during the period of the X-1, and for many years thereafter,
the common practice was for the pitot tube to provide dynamic pressure
(the ram effect of air created by the forward velocity of the
aircraft) and a static port on the fuselage surface to provide the
static source (undisturbed air around the aircraft). Static ports were
usually paired with one on each side of the fuselage to correct for
sideslip errors. They were round areas, always free of paint with 13
pinholes--we used to ask student pilots how many holes in a static
port.

Since high speed jets often create an artificial pressure around
themselves within the boundary layer, it became the modern practice to
incorporate static port holes in a pitot boom, clear of the turbulence
of the boundary layer. The boom might be on the nose (F-104, F-105D),
on the wing (F-100, F-105B), or on the vertical fin (F-4C, F-4D). As
an experimental aircraft, the X-1 probably incorporated static
measurement from the pitot boom as well as side ports. Some good photo
exam will probably disclose the fact on that.

Second, the pitot tube does not "produce" pressure. It measures it.
I'll give John credit for a typo on that.

Third, the much earlier assertions that pitot tubes were somehow
relevant only to jet engine powered aircraft is absurd. Conventional
(i.e. piston-driven) aircraft has just as much of a requirement for
measurement of pitot pressure. And, even sailplanes, with no engine at
all, use a pitot tube for airspeed indication.

Poor Henri, he probably never would have believed what his invention
has wrought on Usenet.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 08 Oct 2003 05:26:31 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

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.

First, during the period of the X-1, and for many years thereafter,
the common practice was for the pitot tube to provide dynamic pressure

Pitot port, a pitot tube is Henri pitot's invention and it provides both
static and dynamic pressure. Don't get too involved in Dan's mental
illness, Ed.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

[snipped for brevity]


Third, the much earlier assertions that pitot tubes were somehow
relevant only to jet engine powered aircraft is absurd. Conventional
(i.e. piston-driven) aircraft has just as much of a requirement for
measurement of pitot pressure. And, even sailplanes, with no engine at
all, use a pitot tube for airspeed indication.

Yep, we even have 'em on our trikes. Of course, they're not the
complicated (and more accurate) flush type "Y" static systems with
vents on the fuselage as you described, however, they're reasonably
accurate for our purposes (e.g: low & slow in the 25-95 kt. range).

For an ASI that uses a pitot tube to measure the difference between
ram pressure and static pressure, all you need is a pitot tube with
it's opening facing straight into the oncoming air. We found that the
size of the hole is not critical. Usually it's just a short length of
1/4-inch aluminum tubing that can be inserted into plastic tubing
and routed to the fitting on the back of the instrument.

For static pressure, we simply use the "static" fitting which is also
on the back of the ASI guage itself, which can be left open as long
as the instrument is protected from the airstream. Sometimes the
forward edge of the pitot tube is rounded a bit to smooth the flow,
but I doubt that it makes much difference at typical trike speeds.

The main concern for getting accurate readings from a pitot tube
airspeed indicator (as opposed to the even more simple but
accurate "Hall" type ASI that looks like a rain guage) is locating
the tube. It needs to face straight into the flow at cruising speed
(which often means a downward angle when the craft is sitting on the
ground) and it needs to be in "clean air" meaning as far forward as
possible and not in the wake of any obstructions.

For an altimeter, we don't need a pitot tube and just a "static" port
is fine. Again, if the altimeter is in a pod (that's not hermetically
sealed) there's usually no need to connect anything to that little
brass fitting on the back of the altimeter in order to get a decent
altitude reading.

Poor Henri, he probably never would have believed what his invention
has wrought on Usenet.

I'm wondering if Henri would think this neverending, silly thread is
as amusing and entertaining as I think it is.

Mike Marron wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

I'm wondering if Henri would think this neverending, silly thread is
as amusing and entertaining as I think it is.


Don't knock it.

In this politically correct age Tarver presents one of the few remaining
opportunities to bait the mentally impaired for entertainment.

Dave

Dave Holford wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

I'm wondering if Henri would think this neverending, silly thread is
as amusing and entertaining as I think it is.

Don't knock it.

In this politically correct age Tarver presents one of the few remaining
opportunities to bait the mentally impaired for entertainment.

Very true, however, after one peek under the hood, the tarv fish
was so incredibly stupid and ugly and stunk so badly that I quickly
reached for my needlenose pliers, yanked the hook from his bleeding
jaw and tossed the critter back in. Haven't gone tarv fishing since!

"Dave Holford" wrote in message
...


Mike Marron wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

I'm wondering if Henri would think this neverending, silly thread is
as amusing and entertaining as I think it is.

Heni would wonder how you got so ignorant.

Don't knock it.

I have a wonderful time twisting up the idiots of ram.

In this politically correct age Tarver presents one of the few remaining
opportunities to bait the mentally impaired for entertainment.

Yes and I enjoy my idiot catch and release program on usenet.

Pitot port, a pitot tube is Henri pitot's invention and it provides both
static and dynamic pressure. Don't get too involved in Dan's mental
illness, Ed.


Tarver, time to put up or shut up. Cite one verifiable source, other than you,
that defines, uses or decribes a "pitot port." It is evident you think a pitot
tube without integral static ports is a "pitot port." Take a look at the pitot
tube on a C-130, it has no integral static ports. The static ports are mounted
on the sides of the fuselage. The C-130 tech orders call it a pitot tube. Now
take a look at the pitot-static tube on the F-4E, all the relevent tech orders
call it a pitot-static tube. If you want I can scan you a page from the
1F-4E-0-6. I make that offer to anyone who doubts me on this.

I have tried various search engines to find "pitot port" and the only
references ever returned point to you and no one else.

I have worked with far more pitot and pitot static tubes than you have.

How about explaining to us why Pitot needed to measure static pressure when he
was measuring the velocity of water? Since water doesn't compress he didn't
need to know static pressure for velocity.

I bet you will now make a few rude comments having nothing to do with the
subject as is your wont when asked to provide proof.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired