Fine example of Tarver Engineering release for service

[running with scissors]

A fine example of the quality results of Tarver Engineering work. As
singed off by John Tarver with applicable 8130.


http://www.aart-jan.net/images/aart_in_vliegtuigwrak.jpg


photograph courtesy of Aart-Jan, (its not tarver in the pic, it's
Aart's father inspecting the fine work completed by John "the splap"
Tarver).

[Tarver Engineering]

"running with losers" > wrote in
message om...

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still wants
>to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.
>

I know...ain't life a bitch John :) :)

--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Was that before or after the first flight? ;-)

running with scissors wrote:

> A fine example of the quality results of Tarver Engineering work. As
> singed off by John Tarver with applicable 8130.
>
> http://www.aart-jan.net/images/aart_in_vliegtuigwrak.jpg
>
> photograph courtesy of Aart-Jan, (its not tarver in the pic, it's
> Aart's father inspecting the fine work completed by John "the splap"
> Tarver).

[fudog50]

Ummm,
I performed dozens of the old FAR 91.171 (pitot/static annual
checks) and 91.172 (mode 'C' checks) in the early 90's on Pipers,
Cessna, Grumman, Lanceair, Beech, you name it. Also performed all the
calibration and repair necessary, (the lines, indicators, ports, pitot
tubes, etc.) I worked a part time job at a GA avionics shop at Palo
Alto.
IIRC, the only indicator that had both pitot and static inputs
was the VSI/Rate of climb indicator and the internal bellows in the
gauge performed the differential action. Airspeed has pitot inputs
only. Baro Alt. has static port input only. Wish I could draw you a
diagram on here, it would explain everything.


On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:23:23 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"running with losers" > wrote in
>message om...
>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still wants
>>to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.
>>
>
>I know...ain't life a bitch John :) :)

[Tarver Engineering]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...

> Airspeed has pitot inputs
> only.

Fascinating, tell us more.

[Jim Knoyle]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:23:23 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"running with losers" > wrote in
> >message om...
> >
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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?
> >>
> >>Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still
wants
> >>to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.
> >>
> >
> >I know...ain't life a bitch John :) :)
>
> Ummm,
> I performed dozens of the old FAR 91.171 (pitot/static annual
> checks) and 91.172 (mode 'C' checks) in the early 90's on Pipers,
> Cessna, Grumman, Lanceair, Beech, you name it. Also performed all the
> calibration and repair necessary, (the lines, indicators, ports, pitot
> tubes, etc.) I worked a part time job at a GA avionics shop at Palo
> Alto.
> IIRC, the only indicator that had both pitot and static inputs
> was the VSI/Rate of climb indicator and the internal bellows in the
> gauge performed the differential action. Airspeed has pitot inputs
> only. Baro Alt. has static port input only. Wish I could draw you a
> diagram on here, it would explain everything.
>
>
Since posting rubbish like he posted below, no amount of diagrams
have helped. It's a case of "That's my story and I'm sticking to it!"

Revealing that in my 37 years up the road at SFO I had done easily
hundreds of low range pitot/static leak tests resulting in the replacement
of dozens of pitot tubes/probes/masts or whatever Tarver wants to
call those pointy things up front, only brought about months of fraud
claims and all of the other bits splaps is well known for.
Requoting Gord's question to me out of context is only his latest.
Pt *still* equals (altitude pressure) + (impact pressure).

JK
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html

GREAT MOMENTS IN ADA:
"That is the case with all modern transports Gord. Pitot tubes are only
used
for flight test back up instrumentation for modern transports; pitot tubes
have a nasty habbit of atracting mud bees and are therefore not reliable
enough for revenue these past few decades."

-- John Tarver, Skylight Avionics, December 26, 2001

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "running with losers" > wrote in
> message om...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote:
>
> >> 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?
> >
> >Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still wants
> >to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.
> >
>
> I know...ain't life a bitch John :) :)


snipping posts to claim that other people posted waht someone else
entirely posted.

pathetic, childish, immature, and the sure sign of your desparte need
to obfuscate your stupidity

[Dave Holford]

wrote:
>
> Was that before or after the first flight? ;-)
>
> running with scissors wrote:
>
> > A fine example of the quality results of Tarver Engineering work. As
> > singed off by John Tarver with applicable 8130.
> >
> > http://www.aart-jan.net/images/aart_in_vliegtuigwrak.jpg
> >
> > photograph courtesy of Aart-Jan, (its not tarver in the pic, it's
> > Aart's father inspecting the fine work completed by John "the splap"
> > Tarver).


If ever a picture cried out for a caption, this one does.

Dave

[Dan Luke]

"Dave Holford" wrote:
> > > http://www.aart-jan.net/images/aart_in_vliegtuigwrak.jpg
> If ever a picture cried out for a caption, this one does.

good idea for a thread...

[Robert Moore]

fudog50 wrote
> IIRC, the only indicator that had both pitot and static inputs
> was the VSI/Rate of climb indicator and the internal bellows in the
> gauge performed the differential action. Airspeed has pitot inputs
> only. Baro Alt. has static port input only. Wish I could draw you a
> diagram on here, it would explain everything.

Ummmm.....I think that you definately DO NOT recall correctly!
Static Pressure feeds Altimeter, Airspeed, and VSI.
Pitot Pressure feeds only Airspeed.

The Pitot Pressure from the Pitot Tube is a combination of Static
and RAM pressure. The bellows inside the airspeed indicator
uses the ambient static pressure from the static port to cancel
out the static component from the Pitot Tube leaving only the RAM
component to move the airspeed needle.

Bob Moore

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 7...
> fudog50 wrote
> > IIRC, the only indicator that had both pitot and static inputs
> > was the VSI/Rate of climb indicator and the internal bellows in the
> > gauge performed the differential action. Airspeed has pitot inputs
> > only. Baro Alt. has static port input only. Wish I could draw you a
> > diagram on here, it would explain everything.
>
> Ummmm.....I think that you definately DO NOT recall correctly!
> Static Pressure feeds Altimeter, Airspeed, and VSI.
> Pitot Pressure feeds only Airspeed.
>
> The Pitot Pressure from the Pitot Tube is a combination of Static
> and RAM pressure.

You remember wrong, as usual, Bob.

IAS is one pressure subtracted from the other.

Since the 1960s, large airliners have used a pitot port and a static port.

The Bombardier GBX being a notable exception to modern pitot/static systems,
with it's prominent nose boom and pitot tube.

[Phil Miller]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:23:52 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 7...
>> fudog50 wrote
>> > IIRC, the only indicator that had both pitot and static inputs
>> > was the VSI/Rate of climb indicator and the internal bellows in the
>> > gauge performed the differential action. Airspeed has pitot inputs
>> > only. Baro Alt. has static port input only. Wish I could draw you a
>> > diagram on here, it would explain everything.
>>
>> Ummmm.....I think that you definately DO NOT recall correctly!
>> Static Pressure feeds Altimeter, Airspeed, and VSI.
>> Pitot Pressure feeds only Airspeed.
>>
>> The Pitot Pressure from the Pitot Tube is a combination of Static
>> and RAM pressure.
>
>You remember wrong, as usual, Bob.
>
>IAS is one pressure subtracted from the other.

Which is exactly what Robert said in the bit you snipped. To wit:

"The bellows inside the airspeed indicator uses the ambient static
pressure from the static port to cancel out the static component from
the Pitot Tube leaving only the RAM component to move the airspeed
needle."

>Since the 1960s, large airliners have used a pitot port and a static port.

Please provide one reference for this.

>The Bombardier GBX being a notable exception to modern pitot/static systems,
>with it's prominent nose boom and pitot tube.

Ok...So a pitot tube only exists on a nose boom?

And Bombardier GBX? Are you referring to the Bombardier Global Express?
It's the closest I can find on their web site. If so I can't see a
prominent nose boom in the pictures there. Car to enlighten me?

Phil
--
Great Tarverisms #7

Pitot: French word meaning tube.

John

alt.disasters.aviation
25 February 2002

[Tarver Engineering]

"Phil Miller" > wrote in message
...

Robert is being rediculess to claim that a pitot tube produces some total
pressure and then the static port pressure is subtracted twice to make IAS.
The whole point of using a static port is to be able to take the guts out of
a pitot tube and produce only pitot pressure, thus increasing the
reliability of the system.

Perhaps this will help:

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still wants
>to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.
>

I know...ain't life a bitch John :) :)

--

-Gord.

[Phil Miller]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:25:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Phil Miller" > wrote in message
...
>
>Robert is being rediculess to claim that a pitot tube produces some total
>pressure and then the static port pressure is subtracted twice to make IAS.
>The whole point of using a static port is to be able to take the guts out of
>a pitot tube and produce only pitot pressure, thus increasing the
>reliability of the system.
>
>Perhaps this will help:

Yes that does help, because what Robert said and what Gord said are
practically identical.

>>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>>> 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.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:06:41 GMT, Robert Moore
> wrote:

>The Pitot Pressure from the Pitot Tube is a combination of Static
>and RAM pressure. The bellows inside the airspeed indicator
>uses the ambient static pressure from the static port to cancel
>out the static component from the Pitot Tube leaving only the RAM
>component to move the airspeed needle.


Phil
--
Great Tarverisms #2

What is the best selling beer in Oz?

Budweiser.

Another illusion shattered.

John

alt.disasters.aviation
18 August 2002

[Phil Miller]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:33:43 +1100, Phil Miller
> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:25:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Phil Miller" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>Robert is being rediculess to claim that a pitot tube produces some total
>>pressure and then the static port pressure is subtracted twice to make IAS.
>>The whole point of using a static port is to be able to take the guts out of
>>a pitot tube and produce only pitot pressure, thus increasing the
>>reliability of the system.
>>
>>Perhaps this will help:
>
>Yes that does help, because what Robert said and what Gord said are
>practically identical.
>

Oh! And you didn't enlighten me about the Bombardier GBX?


Phil
--
Great Tarverisms #1

> The Air Speed Indicator (ASI) shows

You made that up, didn't you?

The IAS indicator says IAS, not ASI.

Why do you come here pretending to know something
when you don't even know the words?

John

[[email protected]]

Robert Moore > wrote:

>
>The Pitot Pressure from the Pitot Tube is a combination of Static
>and RAM pressure. The bellows inside the airspeed indicator
>uses the ambient static pressure from the static port to cancel
>out the static component from the Pitot Tube leaving only the RAM
>component to move the airspeed needle.
>
>Bob Moore

Of course...exactly...not rocket science after all...
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Moore > wrote:
>
> >
> >The Pitot Pressure from the Pitot Tube is a combination of Static
> >and RAM pressure. The bellows inside the airspeed indicator
> >uses the ambient static pressure from the static port to cancel
> >out the static component from the Pitot Tube leaving only the RAM
> >component to move the airspeed needle.

> Of course...exactly...not rocket science after all...

Not even close. Moore is making the same dumbass claim as Knoyle.

The sole reason for using a static port is so the guts can be removed from
the pitot tube, in order to improve reliability. A pitot port produces no
static pressure datum.

Perhaps this will help:

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still wants
>to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.
>

I know...ain't life a bitch John :) :)

--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Dave Holford > wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>>
>> Was that before or after the first flight? ;-)
>>
>> running with scissors wrote:
>>
>> > A fine example of the quality results of Tarver Engineering work. As
>> > singed off by John Tarver with applicable 8130.
>> >
>> > http://www.aart-jan.net/images/aart_in_vliegtuigwrak.jpg
>> >
>> > photograph courtesy of Aart-Jan, (its not tarver in the pic, it's
>> > Aart's father inspecting the fine work completed by John "the splap"
>> > Tarver).
>
>
>If ever a picture cried out for a caption, this one does.
>
>Dave

How about "I've heard of unimproved strips but this is
ridiculous" ?
--

-Gord.

[Scott M. Kozel]

JL Grasso > wrote:
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >The whole point of using a static port is to be able to take the guts out of
> >a pitot tube and produce only pitot pressure, thus increasing the
> >reliability of the system.
>
> Bwaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwah3wahw!

Keyboard!

[Matthew S. Whiting]

JL Grasso wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:25:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>The whole point of using a static port is to be able to take the guts out of
>>a pitot tube and produce only pitot pressure, thus increasing the
>>reliability of the system.
>
>
> Bwaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwah3wahw!
>
> Jerry
>

Yes, those static ports are pretty unreliable! :-)


Matt

[Rich Ahrens]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

> JL Grasso wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:25:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The whole point of using a static port is to be able to take the guts
>>> out of
>>> a pitot tube and produce only pitot pressure, thus increasing the
>>> reliability of the system.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bwaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwah3wahw!
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>
> Yes, those static ports are pretty unreliable! :-)

All those moving parts...

[[email protected]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote:

>Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>> JL Grasso wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:25:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The whole point of using a static port is to be able to take the guts
>>>> out of
>>>> a pitot tube and produce only pitot pressure, thus increasing the
>>>> reliability of the system.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bwaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwah3wahw!
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
>>
>> Yes, those static ports are pretty unreliable! :-)
>
>All those moving parts...

Can you just imagine how long the tech course must be?...
--

-Gord.

[Scott M. Kozel]

JL Grasso > wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
> > JL Grasso > wrote:
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >The whole point of using a static port is to be able to take the guts out of
> >> >a pitot tube and produce only pitot pressure, thus increasing the
> >> >reliability of the system.
> >>
> >> Bwaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwah3wahw!
> >
> >Keyboard!
>
> Thank tarver!

I've spewed soda on at least a dozen keyboards, from reading Splappy's posts.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> JL Grasso wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:25:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The whole point of using a static port is to be able to take the guts
out of
> >>a pitot tube and produce only pitot pressure, thus increasing the
> >>reliability of the system.

> > Bwaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwah3wahw!

> Yes, those static ports are pretty unreliable! :-)

Pitot tubes are unreliable in comparason to a static port/pitot port
combination.

Do you have trouble reading, Whiting?

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>JL Grasso wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:25:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>>
> >
>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The whole point of using a static port is to be able to take the guts
>>>
> out of
>
>>>>a pitot tube and produce only pitot pressure, thus increasing the
>>>>reliability of the system.
>>>
>
>>>Bwaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwah3wahw!
>>
>
>>Yes, those static ports are pretty unreliable! :-)
>
>
> Pitot tubes are unreliable in comparason to a static port/pitot port
> combination.
>
> Do you have trouble reading, Whiting?
>
>

No, you have trouble writing things that make sense. What is unreliable
about a pitot tube? The heater is likely the least reliable part.
Which airplane(s) have pitot ports? I don't think I've seen one. What
makes them more reliable?


Matt

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...

> Can you just imagine how long the tech course must be?...

A pitot tube is a fairly delicate instrument. There were artilce 15s for
those attepting to clean a pitot tube on our F-106 flightline. The pilots
did not apreciate having their displayed airspeed wrong.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> No, you have trouble writing things that make sense. What is unreliable
> about a pitot tube? The heater is likely the least reliable part.
> Which airplane(s) have pitot ports? I don't think I've seen one. What
> makes them more reliable?

I have no interest in educating you, Whiting.

[[email protected]]

>
> > Do you have trouble reading, Whiting?
> >
> >
>
> No, you have trouble writing things that make sense.

You're being charitable.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>No, you have trouble writing things that make sense. What is unreliable
>>about a pitot tube? The heater is likely the least reliable part.
>>Which airplane(s) have pitot ports? I don't think I've seen one. What
>>makes them more reliable?
>
>
> I have no interest in educating you, Whiting.
>
>

I suspect my education is already well beyond yours, Tarver.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

wrote:
>
>
>>>Do you have trouble reading, Whiting?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, you have trouble writing things that make sense.
>
>
> You're being charitable.
>
>

Yes, I'm just a nice guy. :-)

Matt

[Tarver Engineering]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> Yes, I'm just a nice guy. :-)

You do have that going for you so far.

Your ignorance of pitot static systems is typical, however.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Yes, I'm just a nice guy. :-)
>
>
> You do have that going for you so far.
>
> Your ignorance of pitot static systems is typical, however.

Yes, it seems to match yours, so I guess two of us makes it qualify as
typical. :-)

Matt

[Tarver Engineering]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>Yes, I'm just a nice guy. :-)
> >
> >
> > You do have that going for you so far.
> >
> > Your ignorance of pitot static systems is typical, however.
>
> Yes, it seems to match yours, so I guess two of us makes it qualify as
> typical. :-)

I thought you were disagreeing with me based on ignorance.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, I'm just a nice guy. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>You do have that going for you so far.
>>>
>>>Your ignorance of pitot static systems is typical, however.
>>
>>Yes, it seems to match yours, so I guess two of us makes it qualify as
>>typical. :-)
>
>
> I thought you were disagreeing with me based on ignorance.
>
>

I was. I didn't think you'd admit your ignorance though. Bravo!

Matt

[Tarver Engineering]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Yes, I'm just a nice guy. :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You do have that going for you so far.
> >>>
> >>>Your ignorance of pitot static systems is typical, however.
> >>
> >>Yes, it seems to match yours, so I guess two of us makes it qualify as
> >>typical. :-)

> > I thought you were disagreeing with me based on ignorance.

> I was.

That is what makes you a nice guy.

[Scott M. Kozel]

JL Grasso > wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
> > JL Grasso > wrote:
> >> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
> >> > JL Grasso > wrote:
> >> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >The whole point of using a static port is to be able to take the guts out of
> >> >> >a pitot tube and produce only pitot pressure, thus increasing the
> >> >> >reliability of the system.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bwaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwah3wahw!
> >> >
> >> >Keyboard!
> >>
> >> Thank tarver!
> >
> >I've spewed soda on at least a dozen keyboards, from reading Splappy's posts.
>
> Same here. I think it's time for a class action suit to recoup some
> keyboard money!

Keyboard! (but primarily Splappy's fault)

[running with scissors]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in message >...
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
> > JL Grasso wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:25:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> The whole point of using a static port is to be able to take the guts
> >>> out of
> >>> a pitot tube and produce only pitot pressure, thus increasing the
> >>> reliability of the system.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Bwaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwah3wahw!
> >>
> >> Jerry
> >>
> >
> > Yes, those static ports are pretty unreliable! :-)
>
> All those moving parts...

keyboard !

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Can you just imagine how long the tech course must be?...
>
> A pitot tube is a fairly delicate instrument.

like your sobriety ?

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > No, you have trouble writing things that make sense. What is unreliable
> > about a pitot tube? The heater is likely the least reliable part.
> > Which airplane(s) have pitot ports? I don't think I've seen one. What
> > makes them more reliable?
>
> I have no interest.


got that bir right!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"running with scissors" > wrote in
message om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Can you just imagine how long the tech course must be?...
> >
> > A pitot tube is a fairly delicate instrument.
>
> like your sobriety ?

And in the next message he shows what a brick brain you are.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>
> >Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> >> JL Grasso wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:25:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >>> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> The whole point of using a static port is to be able to take the guts
> >>>> out of
> >>>> a pitot tube and produce only pitot pressure, thus increasing the
> >>>> reliability of the system.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bwaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwah3wahw!
> >>>
> >>> Jerry
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, those static ports are pretty unreliable! :-)
> >
> >All those moving parts...
>
> Can you just imagine how long the tech course must be?...
> --
> -Gord.
>No doubt the "Delicate Complicated Electronics" involved would require a
"Senior EE" to supervise/oversee their design for the best interest of all.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Can you just imagine how long the tech course must be?...
>
> A pitot tube is a fairly delicate instrument. There were artilce 15s for
> those attepting to clean a pitot tube on our F-106 flightline. The pilots
> did not apreciate having their displayed airspeed wrong.
>
What cleaning were they doing on pitot tubes on the flight line, "Using
Emory Cloth & Brasso to Polish the exterior of the tube"?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > No, you have trouble writing things that make sense. What is unreliable
> > about a pitot tube? The heater is likely the least reliable part.
> > Which airplane(s) have pitot ports? I don't think I've seen one. What
> > makes them more reliable?
>
> I have no interest in educating you, Whiting.
>
A typical Tarver response when querried for "Hard Data".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > >>Yes, I'm just a nice guy. :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > You do have that going for you so far.
> > >
> > > Your ignorance of pitot static systems is typical, however.
> >
> > Yes, it seems to match yours, so I guess two of us makes it qualify as
> > typical. :-)
>
> I thought you were disagreeing with me based on ignorance.
>
A prime example of the results of trying to do something you are not
qualified to do, "Like Thinking", IMHO.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Phil Miller]

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:50:27 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
> wrote:

>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Can you just imagine how long the tech course must be?...
>>
>> A pitot tube is a fairly delicate instrument. There were artilce 15s for
>> those attepting to clean a pitot tube on our F-106 flightline. The pilots
>> did not apreciate having their displayed airspeed wrong.
>>
> What cleaning were they doing on pitot tubes on the flight line, "Using
>Emory Cloth & Brasso to Polish the exterior of the tube"?

Internal cleaning with NSN 7215-66-3244-34 Pipe Cleaner, Removal, Mud
Bee. His section was out of jet wash, so the had to make do with rotor
wash from the helo flightline.


Phil
--
Great Tarverisms #1

> The Air Speed Indicator (ASI) shows

You made that up, didn't you?

The IAS indicator says IAS, not ASI.

Why do you come here pretending to know something
when you don't even know the words?

John

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Phil Miller" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:50:27 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Can you just imagine how long the tech course must be?...
> >>
> >> A pitot tube is a fairly delicate instrument. There were artilce 15s
for
> >> those attepting to clean a pitot tube on our F-106 flightline. The
pilots
> >> did not apreciate having their displayed airspeed wrong.
> >>
> > What cleaning were they doing on pitot tubes on the flight line, "Using
> >Emory Cloth & Brasso to Polish the exterior of the tube"?
>
> Internal cleaning with NSN 7215-66-3244-34 Pipe Cleaner, Removal, Mud
> Bee. His section was out of jet wash, so the had to make do with rotor
> wash from the helo flightline.
>
>
> Phil
> --
Is "Prop Wash" an acceptable substitute for "Jet Wash" in this situation, or
is it necessary to use "Jet Wash" on Jet A/C 'Pitot Tubes", "Prop Wash" on
"Pitot Tubes" on A/C using "Propellers", & "Rotor Wash" on Pitot Tubes on
Helo's? TIA
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"JL Grasso" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:50:27 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Can you just imagine how long the tech course must be?...
> >>
> >> A pitot tube is a fairly delicate instrument. There were artilce 15s
for
> >> those attepting to clean a pitot tube on our F-106 flightline. The
pilots
> >> did not apreciate having their displayed airspeed wrong.
> >>
> > What cleaning were they doing on pitot tubes on the flight line, "Using
> >Emory Cloth & Brasso to Polish the exterior of the tube"?
> >Ralph Nesbitt
> >Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
>
> They were likely just burnishing out Tarv's teeth marks...
>
> Jerry
>
Would Tarver try to "Blow" any contaminates out of the "Pitot Tube".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[running with scissors]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
> "running with scissors" > wrote in
> message om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Can you just imagine how long the tech course must be?...
> > >
> > > A pitot tube is a fairly delicate instrument.
> >
> > like your sobriety ?
>
> And in the next message he shows what a brick brain you are.
mmm yeeees.

[The CO]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
<snip>

> IIRC, the only indicator that had both pitot and static inputs
> was the VSI/Rate of climb indicator and the internal bellows in the
> gauge performed the differential action.

Ok, what they taught me was that the VSI ran on static pressure and
*metered* static pressure.

I'm not aware that pitot pressure (which is directly related to
airspeed) would be of use for a VSI.
Can you explain how that would be used in a VSI? I can't see any
connection.

The only time pitot pressure = static pressure is if the aircraft is
stationary and there is no wind.

The difference between static port pressure and static pressure that was
restricted as to the rate it
could alter (inside the VSI) by way of a port that is very small in
comparision to the main static port gives
the rate that pressure (and therefore altitude) is changing, giving you
a rate of climb or descent.

> Airspeed has pitot inputs only.

ISTR that an ASI that can give you a TAS instead of an IAS had static
pressure and temp sensors
in addition to the pitot inputs, *or* it was in some way
coupled to the altimeter, so that it could show a corrected TAS based on
density
altitude, but I've never actually had one in my hand. IIRC, a PA28-180R
I used to fly out
of Broken Hill many years ago had a TAS meter fitted, but I wasn't aware
of exactly how it worked at the time.

> Baro Alt. has static port input only.

Yup. An altimeter is basically an aneroid barometer.

> Wish I could draw you a
> diagram on here, it would explain everything.

It always helps.

The CO

[John R. Copeland]

"The CO" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> "fudog50" > wrote in message
> ...
> <snip>
>=20
> > IIRC, the only indicator that had both pitot and static inputs
> > was the VSI/Rate of climb indicator and the internal bellows in the
> > gauge performed the differential action.
>=20
> Ok, what they taught me was that the VSI ran on static pressure and
> *metered* static pressure.
>=20
> I'm not aware that pitot pressure (which is directly related to
> airspeed) would be of use for a VSI.
> Can you explain how that would be used in a VSI? I can't see any
> connection.
>=20
> The only time pitot pressure =3D static pressure is if the aircraft is
> stationary and there is no wind.
>=20
> The difference between static port pressure and static pressure that =
was
> restricted as to the rate it
> could alter (inside the VSI) by way of a port that is very small in
> comparision to the main static port gives
> the rate that pressure (and therefore altitude) is changing, giving =
you
> a rate of climb or descent.
>=20
> > Airspeed has pitot inputs only.
>=20
> ISTR that an ASI that can give you a TAS instead of an IAS had static
> pressure and temp sensors
> in addition to the pitot inputs, *or* it was in some way
> coupled to the altimeter, so that it could show a corrected TAS based =
on
> density
> altitude, but I've never actually had one in my hand. IIRC, a =
PA28-180R
> I used to fly out
> of Broken Hill many years ago had a TAS meter fitted, but I wasn't =
aware
> of exactly how it worked at the time.
>=20
> > Baro Alt. has static port input only.
>=20
> Yup. An altimeter is basically an aneroid barometer.
>=20
> > Wish I could draw you a
> > diagram on here, it would explain everything.
>=20
> It always helps.
>=20
> The CO
>=20
>=20
You're just trying to be nice, aren't you, CO?
We all know the fudog's memory failed him this time.

One thing -- The pitot pressure isn't "directly related to airspeed",
(and we know you meant IAS, not TAS).
The differential pressure is really related to the airspeed *squared*.
---JRC---

[The CO]

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...

"The CO" > wrote in message
...

>> I'm not aware that pitot pressure (which is directly related to
>> airspeed)

>You're just trying to be nice, aren't you, CO?

:^)

>We all know the fudog's memory failed him this time.

Well, I thought the bit about a VSI using pitot was a bit, um, well,
wrong.

>One thing -- The pitot pressure isn't "directly related to airspeed",
>(and we know you meant IAS, not TAS).

One, sorry didn't mean 'directly' in the physics/math sense, only that
it
was the input for an ASI (compared to static pressure of course)
An airspeed indicator gives you Indicated Air Speed. Q.E.D.

(A TAS indicator can also give you a TAS readout as it can apply a
correction
for the density altitude, but IAS is what you base your flying on (as
opposed to nav).

> The differential pressure is really related to the airspeed *squared*.

Yes.

The CO

[mah]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
> The sole reason for using a static port is so the guts can be removed from
> the pitot tube, in order to improve reliability. A pitot port produces no
> static pressure datum.
>

Just as an example, when the aircraft is sitting still on the ground -
airspeed = 0. Since the pitot and static ports are in the same state,
doesn't that imply that static pressure is present at the pitot port?

MAH

[mah]

Rich Ahrens wrote:

> >
> > Yes, those static ports are pretty unreliable! :-)
>
> All those moving parts...

Yep, I've got a can of static port grease on the shelf next to my bottle
of horn fluid and the box of muffler bearings.

MAH

[[email protected]]

mah > wrote:

>Rich Ahrens wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Yes, those static ports are pretty unreliable! :-)
>>
>> All those moving parts...
>
>Yep, I've got a can of static port grease on the shelf next to my bottle
>of horn fluid and the box of muffler bearings.
>
>MAH

....and the coil of shoreline, the bottle of propwash and the
paint for the last post?...
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

mah > wrote:

>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
>>
>> The sole reason for using a static port is so the guts can be removed from
>> the pitot tube, in order to improve reliability. A pitot port produces no
>> static pressure datum.
>>
>
>Just as an example, when the aircraft is sitting still on the ground -
>airspeed = 0. Since the pitot and static ports are in the same state,
>doesn't that imply that static pressure is present at the pitot port?
>
>MAH

Sure it's there, but it's there only until the a/c starts to
move. It's then no longer 'static pressure' because it's been
raised by the ram effect of the movement.

That's why you now need a 'static port' to supply the static
pressure to use as a reference. Is it really that difficult to
see?!?
--

-Gord.

[running with scissors]

mah > wrote in message >...
> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Yes, those static ports are pretty unreliable! :-)
> >
> > All those moving parts...
>
> Yep, I've got a can of static port grease on the shelf next to my bottle
> of horn fluid and the box of muffler bearings.
>
> MAH

right next to a Splap in an as removed state

[The CO]

"mah" > wrote in message
...

> Just as an example, when the aircraft is sitting still on the ground -
> airspeed = 0. Since the pitot and static ports are in the same state,
> doesn't that imply that static pressure is present at the pitot port?

Sure, unless:
1) The aircraft is moving
2) The wind is blowing
3) Either 1) or 2)
4) Both 1) and 2)

At that point the pressure is no longer static - so you need a static
port.
IIRC in fact, for an aircraft to be certified for IFR it has to have an
alternate
static source *as well*. Pitot pressure ceases to be equal to static
pressure
once the air is in motion relative to the port.
Whether the air moves on its own or the plane moves
through it is irrelevant.

The CO

> MAH

[The CO]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> mah > wrote:

> >Just as an example, when the aircraft is sitting still on the
ground -
> >airspeed = 0. Since the pitot and static ports are in the same
state,
> >doesn't that imply that static pressure is present at the pitot port?
> >
> >MAH
>
> Sure it's there, but it's there only until the a/c starts to
> move. It's then no longer 'static pressure' because it's been
> raised by the ram effect of the movement.
>
> That's why you now need a 'static port' to supply the static
> pressure to use as a reference. Is it really that difficult to
> see?!?

Apparently.

The CO

[The CO]

"mah" > wrote in message
...
> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Yes, those static ports are pretty unreliable! :-)
> >
> > All those moving parts...
>
> Yep, I've got a can of static port grease on the shelf next to my
bottle
> of horn fluid and the box of muffler bearings.

Well the only tiny grain of truth in that statement is that a static
port can be occluded by a
foreign object. On the ground this can be something like an insect
setting up housekeeping
in it, in flight ice is probably the biggest risk factor. Since loss of
the static port will bugger up
3 basic flight instruments (altimeter, ASI and VSI) this is non-trivial.

The CO

[running with scissors]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message >...
> mah > wrote:
>
> >Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The sole reason for using a static port is so the guts can be removed from
> >> the pitot tube, in order to improve reliability. A pitot port produces no
> >> static pressure datum.
> >>
> >
> >Just as an example, when the aircraft is sitting still on the ground -
> >airspeed = 0. Since the pitot and static ports are in the same state,
> >doesn't that imply that static pressure is present at the pitot port?
> >
> >MAH
>
> Sure it's there, but it's there only until the a/c starts to
> move. It's then no longer 'static pressure' because it's been
> raised by the ram effect of the movement.
>
> That's why you now need a 'static port' to supply the static
> pressure to use as a reference. Is it really that difficult to
> see?!?


where are the mud bees?

[Stan Gosnell]

"The CO" > wrote in
:

> Well the only tiny grain of truth in that statement is that a static
> port can be occluded by a
> foreign object. On the ground this can be something like an insect
> setting up housekeeping
> in it, in flight ice is probably the biggest risk factor. Since loss of
> the static port will bugger up
> 3 basic flight instruments (altimeter, ASI and VSI) this is non-trivial.

Or masking tape left in place after maintenance. At least one airliner has
crashed because of this. Many fatalities.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Ray Andraka]

Can you point to a reg tht says that? I don't think it is true. Mine was
IFR certified when I bought it, and it did not have alternate static (I've
since added it). Also the FAA materials for the IFR written mention several
times that breaking the VSI glass is the way to get alternate static on an
airplane that doesn't have a valve. I wouldn't think they'd make such a big
deal about it if an alternate static source was requried for IFR cert.

The CO wrote:

> IIRC in fact, for an aircraft to be certified for IFR it has to have an
> alternate
> static source *as well*.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[John R. Copeland]

"The CO" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
>=20
> Well the only tiny grain of truth in that statement is that a static
> port can be occluded by a
> foreign object. On the ground this can be something like an insect
> setting up housekeeping
> in it, in flight ice is probably the biggest risk factor. Since loss =
of
> the static port will bugger up
> 3 basic flight instruments (altimeter, ASI and VSI) this is =
non-trivial.
>=20
> The CO
>=20
>=20
Well, let me tell you of the time my airplane was released from an =
annual
inspection with the static line open to the air in my pressurized cabin.
Since I'm cautious, I'd waited for MVFR conditions before launching.

My cabin began to pressurize just as I entered the base of the stratus,
and my rate of climb suddenly showed zero, among other annoying signs.
I continued my climb by maintaining attitude until I popped out on top,
and asked for an ILS approach and return for landing.
An airliner ahead of me called out the tops of the clouds, so I had
a pretty good idea of my altitude before intercepting the ILS.

If I hadn't been so close to the airport, I'd probably have thought =
about
dumping pressurization to see if the altimetry would come back,
but in this case it was easy just to return and let the mechanic
re-connect the hose. He was pretty embarrassed.
---JRC---

[[email protected]]

Ray Andraka > wrote:

> Also the FAA materials for the IFR written mention several
>times that breaking the VSI glass is the way to get alternate static on an
>airplane that doesn't have a valve. I wouldn't think they'd make such a big
>deal about it if an alternate static source was requried for IFR cert.
>

It should be mentioned here that this trick only works on an
unpressurized a/c. You won't get much activity on the VSI needle
if you try this with a pressurized aircraft!. :)

--

-Gord.

[The CO]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> Can you point to a reg tht says that? I don't think it is true. Mine
was
> IFR certified when I bought it, and it did not have alternate static
(I've
> since added it). Also the FAA materials for the IFR written mention
several
> times that breaking the VSI glass is the way to get alternate static
on an
> airplane that doesn't have a valve.

That might work if the cabin was unpressurised, depends on whether the
guage face
was vented to the static side of the pressure balance.

> I wouldn't think they'd make such a big
> deal about it if an alternate static source was requried for IFR cert.

Ah, in Australia mate. I can't quote the ANO/R off the top of my head
but
to be certified for Class 1 it needs an alternate static source IIRC.
I'll see if
I can find the ANO/R somewhere.
(ANO= Air Navigation Order ANR= Air Navigation Regulation)

I can't speak for the FAA, so if they don't require alternate static
source for
Class 1 IFR I'm rather surprised, but I guess it could be the case, I
don't know.

Class 4 IFR (NVMC) doesn't require it in Oz.

The CO