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

[B2431]

Have you anything nice to say about anyone?

Your persistant attacks are signs of a weak mind.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> Have you anything nice to say about anyone?
>
> Your persistant attacks are signs of a weak mind.

Pot kettle

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> Have you anything nice to say about anyone?
>>
>> Your persistant attacks are signs of a weak mind.
>
>Pot kettle
>
Tarver, name ONE person in RAM I ever attacked. I have questioned, debated and
discussed, but never attacked.

The same can't be said of you.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Have you anything nice to say about anyone?
> >>
> >> Your persistant attacks are signs of a weak mind.
> >
> >Pot kettle
> >
> Tarver, name ONE person in RAM I ever attacked.

Do you know what a pitot tube is now, Dan? It is a certainty that you have
attacked me, out of your own ignorance.

[B2431]

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Have you anything nice to say about anyone?
>> >>
>> >> Your persistant attacks are signs of a weak mind.
>> >
>> >Pot kettle
>> >
>> Tarver, name ONE person in RAM I ever attacked.
>
>Do you know what a pitot tube is now, Dan? It is a certainty that you have
>attacked me, out of your own ignorance.
>
Tarver, go do a google on YOUR definition of a pitot tube and your insistance
they have been replaced with "pitot ports" and "screened over static ports."
You were the one who insisted the term meant p1t0. You will see where I pasted
a definition of pitot tube from a dictionary. While you are at it please note I
my description of a pitot tube back when you started all this is the same as a
posted a few weeks ago. Once you have done that please stop bringing it up.

In any event I debated with you, taught you a few things and answered every
question you put to me without ever attacking you.

You, on the other hand, accused me of being thrown out of the Air Force, of
lying about my specialty etc.

I am not going to ask you again to come up with a specific example of me
attacking you because you will simple respond with abuse or "I already have" or
"I don't need to" or something vulgar or....

Just remember, YOU brought this up. I didn't.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Have you anything nice to say about anyone?
> >> >>
> >> >> Your persistant attacks are signs of a weak mind.
> >> >
> >> >Pot kettle
> >> >
> >> Tarver, name ONE person in RAM I ever attacked.
> >
> >Do you know what a pitot tube is now, Dan? It is a certainty that you
have
> >attacked me, out of your own ignorance.
> >
> Tarver, go do a google on YOUR definition of a pitot tube

I use Henri Pitot's definition of a pitot tube.

You are an idiot, Dan.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 9/8/2003 3:50 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> >
>> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> Have you anything nice to say about anyone?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your persistant attacks are signs of a weak mind.
>> >> >
>> >> >Pot kettle
>> >> >
>> >> Tarver, name ONE person in RAM I ever attacked.
>> >
>> >Do you know what a pitot tube is now, Dan? It is a certainty that you
>have
>> >attacked me, out of your own ignorance.
>> >
>> Tarver, go do a google on YOUR definition of a pitot tube
>
>I use Henri Pitot's definition of a pitot tube.
>
>You are an idiot, Dan.
>
As I said, you would resort to personal insults rather than answer the question
put to you. You still haven't named a single time I have ever attacked anyone
on RAM let alone you.

I don't expect you ever will.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


"We don't need a pitot tube for that information and there was none on
the first US jets. The first US jets used a Carburetor, until several
were lost off Florida. A pitot tube was added for Pressure one
Temperature zero engine instrumentation; to run the hydraulic computer
known as a fuel controller. Since that time pitotstatic information has
been P1T0. When there is not a tube and P1T0 is produced, this is
called a pitotstatic port."

-- John Tarver, Skylight Avionics, July 23, 2001

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dennis Jensen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Dennis Jensen" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in
message
> > > > > m...
> > > > > > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > > > > > > Well now Tarver is ignorant about everything
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is after all the self proclaimed avionics
> > > > > > > engineer who stated categorically that the pitot
> > > > > > > tube has nothing to do with measuring airspeed
> > > > > > > but was invented to stop jet engines flaming out in
> > > > > > > the rain :(
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did he really write that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope, Wilshaw is just being a lying idiot.
> > > > >
> > > > > The pitot tube was added to the first American jets to prevent the
kind of
> > > > > failures that killed an entire squadron off Florida. Without P1 and
T0 a
> > > > > jet will stall in fog.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks to both of you for playing.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip of mort being an idiot>
> > > >
> > > > Jesus, Tarver, still on with this crap? Care to tell me what WW2 and
prior
> > > > references, mentioning the pitot tube, are referring to, if not for
> > > > measuring airspeed?
> > >
> > > What atre you gibbering about?
> >
> > The simple fact that pitot tubes predate the assertion that thye were
> > introduced with jets for some bull**** reason, as well as the reference to
> > P1 and T0, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
>
> No asswipe, the original jets produced by the US had no pitot tubes.

Well, just so happens they did, ****wit!

>Once
> they began to fall out of the sky, the US added two static sensors, such
> that a fuel controller could regulate fuel and correct the problem. (ie
> Pressure 1 & Temperature 0)
>

What does the 1 in pressure 1 stand for? 1 Bar? 1mb? 1 inch? What, crackpot?

What does temperature 0 stand for? 0K, 0C or 0F, and what is the relevance.
Now, what about poor old Henri Pitot? Why is "pitot" spelt "pitot" and not
P1T0 which is what you infer? And remember, the tube developed by Henri
Pitot was used to measure the flow velocity of fluids. You really are a
dip****, and you call yourself and avionics expert!

I notice that you cut the relevant part about the history of the pitot tube,
and where the name originated. Now, why doesn't that surprise me?
--
Dennis Jensen
Author of "The Flying Pigs"
http://www.ebooks-online.com/ebooks/search.asp

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 9/8/2003 3:50 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> Have you anything nice to say about anyone?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Your persistant attacks are signs of a weak mind.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Pot kettle
> >> >> >
> >> >> Tarver, name ONE person in RAM I ever attacked.
> >> >
> >> >Do you know what a pitot tube is now, Dan? It is a certainty that you
have
> >> >attacked me, out of your own ignorance.
> >> >
> >> Tarver, go do a google on YOUR definition of a pitot tube
> >
> >I use Henri Pitot's definition of a pitot tube.
> >
> >You are an idiot, Dan.
> >
> As I said, you would resort to personal insults rather than answer the
question
> put to you. You still haven't named a single time I have ever attacked
anyone
> on RAM let alone you.

Dan, we are way past proof, now you are just being an idiot.

The discussion you archive trolled here has to do with jets, where the
static side of the pitot tube requires a temperature probe. From the
engine, the static datum are p1t0.

How much more of an idiot do you really want to be, Dan?

As an aside, our TSOA c-106 came through for Boeing's 747 classic Amended
Type Certificate. The ADCU-500 will now be available worldwide.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 9/8/2003 7:02 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
<snip>
>
>The discussion you archive trolled here has to do with jets, where the
>static side of the pitot tube requires a temperature probe. From the
>engine, the static datum are p1t0.
>
>How much more of an idiot do you really want to be, Dan?

Tarver, once again you have resorted to name calling which simply proves my
point that you would do that rather than answer my request that you name ONCE
that I ever stooped to personal attacks as you said I had.

In any event I have worked many times of aircraft and never herad of p1t0. Many
aircraft use pitot-static tubes and the rest use pitot only tubes with static
ports mounted elsewhere. The only pitot-static instrument that needs
temperature is true airspeed and they get their temperature eith from a
capillary tube as on the C-130 or a electrical temperature bulb. They have no
need of any engine sensor.

If memory serves the F-16 has static ports. The F-4E doesn't.

I guess you will call me names and tell me how wrong I am now.

Dan, U. S. Air Force retired

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:50:50 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> >
>> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> Have you anything nice to say about anyone?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your persistant attacks are signs of a weak mind.
>> >> >
>> >> >Pot kettle
>> >> >
>> >> Tarver, name ONE person in RAM I ever attacked.
>> >
>> >Do you know what a pitot tube is now, Dan? It is a certainty that you
>have
>> >attacked me, out of your own ignorance.
>> >
>> Tarver, go do a google on YOUR definition of a pitot tube
>
>I use Henri Pitot's definition of a pitot tube.
>
>You are an idiot, Dan.
>
No, Mr Tarver, Dan is correct. You posted that an entire squadron on
jets were lost when they encountered fog and were not equipped with
p1t0 tubes. You stated that p1t0 tubes were introduced only after jets
became the norm.

Al Minyard
U.S. Navy Retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:50:50 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> Have you anything nice to say about anyone?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Your persistant attacks are signs of a weak mind.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Pot kettle
> >> >> >
> >> >> Tarver, name ONE person in RAM I ever attacked.
> >> >
> >> >Do you know what a pitot tube is now, Dan? It is a certainty that you
> >have
> >> >attacked me, out of your own ignorance.
> >> >
> >> Tarver, go do a google on YOUR definition of a pitot tube
> >
> >I use Henri Pitot's definition of a pitot tube.
> >
> >You are an idiot, Dan.
> >
> No, Mr Tarver, Dan is correct. You posted that an entire squadron on
> jets were lost when they encountered fog and were not equipped with
> p1t0 tubes. You stated that p1t0 tubes were introduced only after jets
> became the norm.

Right, there is no t0 in a pitot tube for gasoline airplanes.

It is good to see Minyard make a fool of himself too.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 9/8/2003 7:02 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >The discussion you archive trolled here has to do with jets, where the
> >static side of the pitot tube requires a temperature probe. From the
> >engine, the static datum are p1t0.
> >
> >How much more of an idiot do you really want to be, Dan?
>
> Tarver, once again you have resorted to name calling which simply proves
my
> point that you would do that rather than answer my request that you name
ONCE
> that I ever stooped to personal attacks as you said I had.

Dan, the facts make you an idiot, not my words.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> > >Date: 9/8/2003 7:02 PM Central Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > >The discussion you archive trolled here has to do with jets, where the
> > >static side of the pitot tube requires a temperature probe. From the
> > >engine, the static datum are p1t0.
> > >
> > >How much more of an idiot do you really want to be, Dan?
> >
> > Tarver, once again you have resorted to name calling which simply proves
> my
> > point that you would do that rather than answer my request that you name
> ONCE
> > that I ever stooped to personal attacks as you said I had.
>
> Dan, the facts make you an idiot, not my words.
>
>
Hey Splaps,
I tried my best to drag you into a short thread over in a.a.s.
The discussion was over 5th Pod on a 747. That's where they transport
a spare engine around by temporarily hanging it on the left wing just
inboard
of engine #2.
While the 5th Pod is installed, a specially calibrated Mach Airspeed Warn
Sw.
is substituted for the standard switch on the top ctr. shelf of the MEC. The
pitot
line from the switch is connected to the lower right Pitot Probe. Any idea
which
probe(s) the static line for the switch connects to. hint: it ain't screened
over. :-)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "B2431" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> > > >Date: 9/8/2003 7:02 PM Central Daylight Time
> > > >Message-id: >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > >The discussion you archive trolled here has to do with jets, where
the
> > > >static side of the pitot tube requires a temperature probe. From the
> > > >engine, the static datum are p1t0.
> > > >
> > > >How much more of an idiot do you really want to be, Dan?
> > >
> > > Tarver, once again you have resorted to name calling which simply
proves
> > my
> > > point that you would do that rather than answer my request that you
name
> > ONCE
> > > that I ever stooped to personal attacks as you said I had.
> >
> > Dan, the facts make you an idiot, not my words.
> >
> >
> Hey Splaps,

Hey village idiot.

> I tried my best to drag you into a short thread over in a.a.s.

You are na archive troll, Knoyle and not really smart enough for me to care.

Dan, on the other hand, is a asshole running an archive troll on me and
wanting me to be nice to him. (ie stupid)

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
<snip>

>Dan, on the other hand, is a asshole running an archive troll on me and
>wanting me to be nice to him. (ie stupid)
>

Once again you resort to vulgar and personal attacks rather than answer a
simple question.

You still haven't given us an example of a tome when I attacked you personally
or otherwise. I really don't think you will ever respond civilly. Oh well.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[George Shirley]

B2431 wrote:

>>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>Dan, on the other hand, is a asshole running an archive troll on me and
>>wanting me to be nice to him. (ie stupid)
>>
>
>
> Once again you resort to vulgar and personal attacks rather than answer a
> simple question.
>
> You still haven't given us an example of a tome when I attacked you personally
> or otherwise. I really don't think you will ever respond civilly. Oh well.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Dan, Dan, Dan, just killfile the idiot like so many of us have. The only
posts of his I see are the ones replied to and I always read your stuff.
So there!

George

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >
> <snip>
>
> >Dan, on the other hand, is a asshole running an archive troll on me and
> >wanting me to be nice to him. (ie stupid)

> Once again you resort to vulgar and personal attacks rather than answer a
> simple question.

No Dan, Knoyle is an insulting ass and you are quoting his archive troll.
There is noting professional, or friendly, about what you are doing. You
deserve to be flamed off the board, but I have been very patient with you.
If you feel that you are not stupid, then why do you continue to act in a
stupid manner? I can not see how you can expect me to treat you with any
respect at all.

> You still haven't given us an example of a tome when I attacked you
personally
> or otherwise. I really don't think you will ever respond civilly. Oh well.

The archive troll is a personal attack and has been an economic attack on my
business for some years. If I thought Knoyle had a pot to **** in I would
take it away, but he has the protection of nothin to lose. Unlike our
ex-NASA participants, who paid dearly for Dudley's ignorance.

[Tarver Engineering]

"George Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> B2431 wrote:

<snip>
> Dan, Dan, Dan, just killfile the idiot like so many of us have. The only
> posts of his I see are the ones replied to and I always read your stuff.
> So there!

If dan wants to demonstrate that he has no clue how aircraft systems work,
then let him.


Who cares George?

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >Dan, on the other hand, is a asshole running an archive troll on me and
> > >wanting me to be nice to him. (ie stupid)
>
> > Once again you resort to vulgar and personal attacks rather than answer
a
> > simple question.
>
> No Dan, Knoyle is an insulting ass and you are quoting his archive troll.
> There is noting professional, or friendly, about what you are doing. You
> deserve to be flamed off the board, but I have been very patient with you.
> If you feel that you are not stupid, then why do you continue to act in a
> stupid manner? I can not see how you can expect me to treat you with any
> respect at all.
>
> > You still haven't given us an example of a tome when I attacked you
> personally
> > or otherwise. I really don't think you will ever respond civilly. Oh
well.
>
> The archive troll is a personal attack and has been an economic attack on
my
> business for some years. If I thought Knoyle had a pot to **** in I would
> take it away, but he has the protection of nothin to lose. Unlike our
> ex-NASA participants, who paid dearly for Dudley's ignorance.
>
>

Somewhere I read:
"To argue against an easily verifiable fact for a few months is stupid.
To argue against an easily verifiable fact for three years is insanity."

Oh, yea, that was at:
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html

One point in dispute (among many) is your claim:
Boeing 727 do not use Pitot Tubes because they are too convenient a home for
mud wasps.
....and then you added some nonsense about using a 'screened over pitot port
instead.'

My claim: A 727 has 3 pitot tubes up on the nose and 2 on the vert. stab.

What do YOU call those pointy things on the nose of every commercial
aircraft?
Why does a 727 have three while a 737 has FOUR. (plus 2 pitot tubes on the
vert. stab.)
Why do the several folks who've tried to explain it to you end up on your
growing idiot list?

One of us is correct while the other is an idiot (or insane).

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "B2431" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> > > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >Dan, on the other hand, is a asshole running an archive troll on me
and
> > > >wanting me to be nice to him. (ie stupid)
> >
> > > Once again you resort to vulgar and personal attacks rather than
answer
> a
> > > simple question.
> >
> > No Dan, Knoyle is an insulting ass and you are quoting his archive
troll.
> > There is noting professional, or friendly, about what you are doing.
You
> > deserve to be flamed off the board, but I have been very patient with
you.
> > If you feel that you are not stupid, then why do you continue to act in
a
> > stupid manner? I can not see how you can expect me to treat you with
any
> > respect at all.
> >
> > > You still haven't given us an example of a tome when I attacked you
> > personally
> > > or otherwise. I really don't think you will ever respond civilly. Oh
> well.
> >
> > The archive troll is a personal attack and has been an economic attack
on
> my
> > business for some years. If I thought Knoyle had a pot to **** in I
would
> > take it away, but he has the protection of nothin to lose. Unlike our
> > ex-NASA participants, who paid dearly for Dudley's ignorance.
> >
> >
>
> Somewhere I read:
> "To argue against an easily verifiable fact for a few months is stupid.
> To argue against an easily verifiable fact for three years is insanity."

Knoyle, I already know you are a mental case.

All anyone has to do is compare Henri Pitot's invention to our discussion,
to know you are an idiot, jimmy. The archive troll raises you to village
idiot, but I suppose it does keep you from eating the piece.

[B2431]

>No Dan, Knoyle is an insulting ass and you are quoting his archive troll.

Nope, I quoted a google search. It wasn't a personal attck, just a statement of
facts.

Bye now.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >No Dan, Knoyle is an insulting ass and you are quoting his archive troll.
>
> Nope, I quoted a google search. It wasn't a personal attck, just a
statement of
> facts.

Nope, Dan quoted an archive troll, which is intended as a personal attack.

Don't be an asshole and expect professional treatment, Dan.

[B2431]

I suppose I should.

It amazes me an adult in his 50s can't admit he's wrong and switches sides and
says he was correct all along despite the evidence.

Actually, he's not amusing anymore. I didn't killfile him before because it
amazed me what he would come up with in this and other NGs.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> I suppose I should.

Why not, Dan, you have already exposed yourself as an idiot.

> It amazes me an adult in his 50s can't admit he's wrong and switches sides
and
> says he was correct all along despite the evidence.

I never changed my claim of what a pitot tube is, Dan. there have been
times that I used terms that you don't understand, but to do otherwise would
be difficult.

> Actually, he's not amusing anymore. I didn't killfile him before because
it
> amazed me what he would come up with in this and other NGs.

I think most of our posters can look up Henri Pitot's invention and know you
have stepped on your dick, Dan. It is not my habbit to respond to archive
trolls, but
I made an exception for you. The fact that you bought into Knoyle's archive
troll is your fault, not mine.

[George Shirley]

B2431 wrote:
> I suppose I should.
>
> It amazes me an adult in his 50s can't admit he's wrong and switches sides and
> says he was correct all along despite the evidence.
>
> Actually, he's not amusing anymore. I didn't killfile him before because it
> amazed me what he would come up with in this and other NGs.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Sometimes amusing, mostly annoying is my personal opinion of the fellow
in question. My killfile list for the military newsgroups I read is
getting longer and longer as I get older and older. <VBG>

George

[Tarver Engineering]

"George Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> B2431 wrote:
> > I suppose I should.
> >
> > It amazes me an adult in his 50s can't admit he's wrong and switches
sides and
> > says he was correct all along despite the evidence.
> >
> > Actually, he's not amusing anymore. I didn't killfile him before because
it
> > amazed me what he would come up with in this and other NGs.
> >
> > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
> Sometimes amusing, mostly annoying is my personal opinion of the fellow
> in question. My killfile list for the military newsgroups I read is
> getting longer and longer as I get older and older.

Do you ever contribute anything to ram, George? I don't remember you ever
posting anything of value and your tabbing onto Dan being stupid does not
bode well for you.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "B2431" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > >Dan, on the other hand, is a asshole running an archive troll on me
> and
> > > > >wanting me to be nice to him. (ie stupid)
> > >
> > > > Once again you resort to vulgar and personal attacks rather than
> answer
> > a
> > > > simple question.
> > >
> > > No Dan, Knoyle is an insulting ass and you are quoting his archive
> troll.
> > > There is noting professional, or friendly, about what you are doing.
> You
> > > deserve to be flamed off the board, but I have been very patient with
> you.
> > > If you feel that you are not stupid, then why do you continue to act
in
> a
> > > stupid manner? I can not see how you can expect me to treat you with
> any
> > > respect at all.
> > >
> > > > You still haven't given us an example of a tome when I attacked you
> > > personally
> > > > or otherwise. I really don't think you will ever respond civilly. Oh
> > well.
> > >
> > > The archive troll is a personal attack and has been an economic attack
> on
> > my
> > > business for some years. If I thought Knoyle had a pot to **** in I
> would
> > > take it away, but he has the protection of nothin to lose. Unlike our
> > > ex-NASA participants, who paid dearly for Dudley's ignorance.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Somewhere I read:
> > "To argue against an easily verifiable fact for a few months is stupid.
> > To argue against an easily verifiable fact for three years is insanity."
>
> Knoyle, I already know you are a mental case.
>
> All anyone has to do is compare Henri Pitot's invention to our discussion,
> to know you are an idiot, jimmy. The archive troll raises you to village
> idiot, but I suppose it does keep you from eating the piece.
>
>
We'll need a bit of translation for this bit of gibberish.

As usual, you've snipped the text that you can't handle.
What's so difficult about admitting what the five pointy things
on a Boeing 727 are called?

You *still* haven't shown us even ONE actual application of
P1T0.

You haven't refuted it, so I guess you accept the fact that the
fitting labeled PITOT on the 747 Mach Airspeed Switch is
connected to the lower right pointy thing on the nose. Did you
ever figure out what the fitting labeled STATIC is connected to?

[B2431]

>> No, Mr Tarver, Dan is correct. You posted that an entire squadron on
>> jets were lost when they encountered fog and were not equipped with
>> p1t0 tubes. You stated that p1t0 tubes were introduced only after jets
>> became the norm.
>
>Right, there is no t0 in a pitot tube for gasoline airplanes.
>
>It is good to see Minyard make a fool of himself too.
>
>
Tarver, I have worked on recips as well as jets. I have replaced pito and
pitot-tatic on both types. The only electrical connectors on either type of
tube I have ever seen is for pitot heat. Pitot tubes used for pitot static
systems never has a "T0" on any aircraft.

I have worked several different temperature indication systems from carburetor
intakes on T-29s to EGT on F-4Es to FAT on C-130s. I know what I am talking
about. Do a google search on this newsgroup and you will see that I do.

I assume you are aware of avgas being the common term for the fuel used in
recips.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
<snip>

>Don't be an asshole and expect professional treatment, Dan.
>

Take your own advice.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >> No, Mr Tarver, Dan is correct. You posted that an entire squadron on
> >> jets were lost when they encountered fog and were not equipped with
> >> p1t0 tubes. You stated that p1t0 tubes were introduced only after jets
> >> became the norm.
> >
> >Right, there is no t0 in a pitot tube for gasoline airplanes.
> >
> >It is good to see Minyard make a fool of himself too.
> >
> >
> Tarver, I have worked on recips as well as jets. I have replaced pito and
> pitot-tatic on both types. The only electrical connectors on either type
of
> tube I have ever seen is for pitot heat. Pitot tubes used for pitot static
> systems never has a "T0" on any aircraft.

You are an wrong again, Dan and we can only assume you are either lying, or
senile.

For cold weather:

low t0, more fuel == higher mass flow rate -> more thrust

for water injection:

low TIT, more fuel ==higher mass flow rate->more thrust

I tend to believe you are either a fraud, or a troll, at this point, Dan.
Are you a sock, Dan, operated by our village idiot, Knoyle? I mean, this as
a serious question, because at this point, there is no possibility you ever
worked a pitot tube on a jet.

[Bob McKellar]

B2431 wrote:

> I suppose I should.
>
> It amazes me an adult in his 50s can't admit he's wrong and switches sides and
> says he was correct all along despite the evidence.

Why are you bringing GWB into this discussion? I thought we were talking about
Tarver.

Bob McKellar


>
>
> Actually, he's not amusing anymore. I didn't killfile him before because it
> amazed me what he would come up with in this and other NGs.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> B2431 wrote:
>
> > I suppose I should.
> >
> > It amazes me an adult in his 50s can't admit he's wrong and switches
sides and
> > says he was correct all along despite the evidence.
>
> Why are you bringing GWB into this discussion? I thought we were talking
about
> Tarver.

Dan is just making a fool of himself, do you plan to join him?

[B2431]

>
>
>
>B2431 wrote:
>
>> I suppose I should.
>>
>> It amazes me an adult in his 50s can't admit he's wrong and switches sides
>and
>> says he was correct all along despite the evidence.
>
>Why are you bringing GWB into this discussion? I thought we were talking
>about
>Tarver.
>
>Bob McKellar
>
>

Boo, hiss etc :)

Dan, U. S. Airforce, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 9/10/2003 7:20 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
<snip>
>
>You are an wrong again, Dan and we can only assume you are either lying, or
>senile.
>
>For cold weather:
>
>low t0, more fuel == higher mass flow rate -> more thrust
>
>for water injection:
>
>low TIT, more fuel ==higher mass flow rate->more thrust
>
>I tend to believe you are either a fraud, or a troll, at this point, Dan.
>Are you a sock, Dan, operated by our village idiot, Knoyle? I mean, this as
>a serious question, because at this point, there is no possibility you ever
>worked a pitot tube on a jet.
>
Tarver, last time I saw C-141s, F-4Es, T-33s,T-39s and KC-135s were jets.

Oh, silly me, the ones on the F-4E and T-39s are pitot-static tubes.

Now, if you want to count UH-1Ps, HH-3s, HH-53s, UH-60 and C-130s as jet
aircraft, turbine driven, (non gasoline), none of them had "t0" derived from
pitot or pitot-static tubes.

Now, since you think personal attacks and abuse are appropriate behaviour for
adults I will no longer discuss this with you. Just do a google search and you
will see I am no one's puppet.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 9/10/2003 7:20 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >You are an wrong again, Dan and we can only assume you are either lying,
or
> >senile.
> >
> >For cold weather:
> >
> >low t0, more fuel == higher mass flow rate -> more thrust
> >
> >for water injection:
> >
> >low TIT, more fuel ==higher mass flow rate->more thrust
> >
> >I tend to believe you are either a fraud, or a troll, at this point, Dan.
> >Are you a sock, Dan, operated by our village idiot, Knoyle? I mean, this
as
> >a serious question, because at this point, there is no possibility you
ever
> >worked a pitot tube on a jet.
> >
> Tarver, last time I saw C-141s, F-4Es, T-33s,T-39s and KC-135s were jets.

Sorry Dan, if there was no temperature probe, you weren't there. A jet
engine requires SAT. (ie T0) Stop making a fool of yourself and just bow
out.

Answer up Dan, a serious question, are you a Knoyle sock?.

[Walt BJ]

Gentleman, the F4E does indeed have static ports, two of them. They
are located ON the pitot boom. FYI I logged 2000+ hours in the F4
series and was an F4E maintenance test pilot besides an instructor in
both the F4D and E. FWIW The F104A's static ports were in the same
place on the late-model pitot head installed on that airplane.
As for P1 and T0, they refer to the turbine engine stations where the
readings are taken. As for gasoline (piston) engines not needing such
information, the latest electronic fuel controls for reciprocating
engines do indeed use that information to compute air density for
precision fuel metering. Most likely if you drive a new car it also
has that type of control.
Walt BJ

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> > >Date: 9/10/2003 7:20 PM Central Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > >You are an wrong again, Dan and we can only assume you are either
lying,
> or
> > >senile.
> > >
> > >For cold weather:
> > >
> > >low t0, more fuel == higher mass flow rate -> more thrust
> > >
> > >for water injection:
> > >
> > >low TIT, more fuel ==higher mass flow rate->more thrust
> > >
> > >I tend to believe you are either a fraud, or a troll, at this point,
Dan.
> > >Are you a sock, Dan, operated by our village idiot, Knoyle? I mean,
this
> as
> > >a serious question, because at this point, there is no possibility you
> ever
> > >worked a pitot tube on a jet.
> > >
> > Tarver, last time I saw C-141s, F-4Es, T-33s,T-39s and KC-135s were
jets.
>
> Sorry Dan, if there was no temperature probe, you weren't there. A jet
> engine requires SAT. (ie T0) Stop making a fool of yourself and just bow
> out.
>

Is that more like the T2 or the T12 on a CFM-56? (737)

> Answer up Dan, a serious question, are you a Knoyle sock?.
>
>

Actually, there was a guy posting here over a year ago using
a different name than he signed on my retirement card ... but
I can almost guarantee you, he is noone's sock.
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/memorabilia.html

[B2431]

>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

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >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.

Look here idiot Dan, you didn't even know what a pitot tube was at the
beginning of this thread. You have no business continueing your kook troll,
Dan, as it is obvious to all that you never worked a jet.

[[email protected]]

(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.

[Jim Knoyle]

"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

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[B2431]

>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

[[email protected]]

"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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[[email protected]]

(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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[[email protected]]

"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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Jim Knoyle]

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

Jeez, Gord,
That reminds me of a classic goof we found here at SFO while
working a foreign carrier. Won't say who but they use 3 letters. :-)
Standard shorted loop troubleshooting - disconnect loops until the
light goes out. In this case, a 747, the engines were swapped at
the card file, 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 / 4 - 3 - 2 - 1.
I heard you can tell which cars are assembled on Fridays.
Does that work for aircraft, too?
JK

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.
>
>
But, in my 27 years I've replaced at least a dozen. Even on 727s.
Done hundreds of pitot or static system leak tests.
Even used the welding tip cleaners to service the drain holes. :-)
Heck, soñando and I even got into a heated arguement over a
donut once upon a time. He'll vouch for me. :-)

[[email protected]]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> 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.
>> --
>>
>
>Jeez, Gord,
>That reminds me of a classic goof we found here at SFO while
>working a foreign carrier. Won't say who but they use 3 letters. :-)
>Standard shorted loop troubleshooting - disconnect loops until the
>light goes out. In this case, a 747, the engines were swapped at
>the card file, 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 / 4 - 3 - 2 - 1.
>I heard you can tell which cars are assembled on Fridays.
>Does that work for aircraft, too?
>JK
>
Probably...I don't wanna know though!... :)

I found two main DC bus switches reversed on an Argus once.

There's four switches in a row on the F/E's electrical panel,
these are almost always snapped on and off with a 'gangbar' cause
you almost never need to turn one off by itself (ONLY in case of
a fire in that particular section). The aircraft had been painted
inside on some heavy inspection where they took the panels out
and left the switches hanging by their wires...they'd been
crossed for over a year...
--

-Gord.

[B2431]

Actually there is one hole in the middle surrounded by five or six. Yes, the
surface is flat. I had to change only one in my career. Actually sheet metal
replaced it. I had to order the parts, hook it up and leak test it. I was
suprised it came in 3 parts.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

>>
>>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.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> Actually there is one hole in the middle surrounded by five or six. Yes,
the
> surface is flat. I had to change only one in my career. Actually sheet
metal
> replaced it. I had to order the parts, hook it up and leak test it. I was
> suprised it came in 3 parts.

Yea, I knew you had never worked the system, Dan. Tabbing onto Knoyle's
ignorance is a problem for you. Gord, on the other hand, has no reason to
have ever known how such a system works.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "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.
> >
> >
> But, in my 27 years I've replaced at least a dozen. Even on 727s.

No you havn't Jimmy. The 727 uses static ports on the fuse and not even a
single pitot tube. To be a pitot tube, the static port would be part of the
pitot tube. What you changed was a pitot port, not a pitot tube.

> Done hundreds of pitot or static system leak tests.

There is no need to even know what a pitot tube is, to operate a pump.

[B2431]

>No you havn't Jimmy. The 727 uses static ports on the fuse and not even a
>single pitot tube. To be a pitot tube, the static port would be part of the
>pitot tube. What you changed was a pitot port, not a pitot tube.

Tarver, there are pitot tubes without static ports on them as on the C-130 and
those with static ports on them, properly called pitot-static tubes, as on the
F-4E and T-39. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a "pitot port" on any
aircraft's pitot-static system. Not having a static port on a pitot tube
doesn't make it NOT a pitot tube. Take a look in aircraft parts catalogs and
see what I mean.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >No you havn't Jimmy. The 727 uses static ports on the fuse and not even
a
> >single pitot tube. To be a pitot tube, the static port would be part of
the
> >pitot tube. What you changed was a pitot port, not a pitot tube.
>
> Tarver, there are pitot tubes without static ports

No, Dan, a pitot tube includes a static port. A pitot tube is not the same
as a pitot port, such as you are describing.

>on them as on the C-130 and
> those with static ports on them, properly called pitot-static tubes, as on
the
> F-4E and T-39.

No, Dan, Henri Pitot's invention includes a static port. The whole purpose
of a pitot tube is to measure both static and dynamic pressure at the same
point.

I have to wonder at a man your age, who can not admit when he is wrong.

[B2431]

>B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >No you havn't Jimmy. The 727 uses static ports on the fuse and not even
>a
>> >single pitot tube. To be a pitot tube, the static port would be part of
>the
>> >pitot tube. What you changed was a pitot port, not a pitot tube.
>>
>> Tarver, there are pitot tubes without static ports
>
>No, Dan, a pitot tube includes a static port. A pitot tube is not the same
>as a pitot port, such as you are describing.
>
>>on them as on the C-130 and
>> those with static ports on them, properly called pitot-static tubes, as on
>the
>> F-4E and T-39.
>
>No, Dan, Henri Pitot's invention includes a static port. The whole purpose
>of a pitot tube is to measure both static and dynamic pressure at the same
>point.
>
>I have to wonder at a man your age, who can not admit when he is wrong.
>
So all the Air Force T.Os are wrong as are the CDCs, tech schools, Emory etc?

You still haven't named a single case of a "pitot port" nor have you cited
independent source. Every single attempt I have made on Google comes back to
you.

I expect a vulgar response, personal attack or an accusation of "not being
there" or lying as is your wont.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >No you havn't Jimmy. The 727 uses static ports on the fuse and not
even
> >a
> >> >single pitot tube. To be a pitot tube, the static port would be part
of
> >the
> >> >pitot tube. What you changed was a pitot port, not a pitot tube.
> >>
> >> Tarver, there are pitot tubes without static ports
> >
> >No, Dan, a pitot tube includes a static port. A pitot tube is not the
same
> >as a pitot port, such as you are describing.
> >
> >>on them as on the C-130 and
> >> those with static ports on them, properly called pitot-static tubes, as
on the
> >> F-4E and T-39.
> >
> >No, Dan, Henri Pitot's invention includes a static port. The whole
purpose
> >of a pitot tube is to measure both static and dynamic pressure at the
same point.
> >
> >I have to wonder at a man your age, who can not admit when he is wrong.
> >
> So all the Air Force T.Os are wrong as are the CDCs, tech schools, Emory
etc?

No, Dan, you are wrong. Noone calls a pitot port a "pitiot tube without
static port"; it is too long and somewhat stupid. Henri pitot invented the
pitot tube and his definition is still true.

> You still haven't named a single case of a "pitot port" nor have you cited
> independent source. Every single attempt I have made on Google comes back
to
> you.

I seldom ever use URLs to prove a point, as they are no more likely to be
correct than a newsgroup consensus. I'll just let you smolder.

> I expect a vulgar response, personal attack or an accusation of "not being
> there" or lying as is your wont.

You already admitted you didn't remove those pitot tubes on F-4s. I think
Dan's admission that he lied, during this thread, is a step in the right
direction. Walt tried to buy you a vowel, I don't know how the rest of us
could help you.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 9/12/2003 5:10 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >B2431" > wrote in message
<snip>
>> >
>> >No, Dan, a pitot tube includes a static port. A pitot tube is not the same
as a pitot port, such as you are describing.

>> >No, Dan, Henri Pitot's invention includes a static port. The whole purpose
>> >of a pitot tube is to measure both static and dynamic pressure at the
>same point.
>> >
>> >I have to wonder at a man your age, who can not admit when he is wrong.
>> >
>> So all the Air Force T.Os are wrong as are the CDCs, tech schools, Emory
etc?
>
>No, Dan, you are wrong. Noone calls a pitot port a "pitiot tube without
static port"; it is too long and somewhat stupid. Henri pitot invented the
pitot tube and his definition is still true.
>
>> You still haven't named a single case of a "pitot port" nor have you cited
independent source. Every single attempt I have made on Google comes back to
you.
>
>I seldom ever use URLs to prove a point, as they are no more likely to be
correct than a newsgroup consensus. I'll just let you smolder.
>
>> I expect a vulgar response, personal attack or an accusation of "not being
there" or lying as is your wont.
>
>You already admitted you didn't remove those pitot tubes on F-4s. I think
Dan's admission that he lied, during this thread, is a step in the right
direction. Walt tried to buy you a vowel, I don't know how the rest of us
could help you.
>
Tarver, you need help. I said I didn't change the static port on the C-130. The
pitot tubes on C-130s are pitot tubes despite not having integral static ports
and I changed many of them. I take it you consider the pitot tubes on C-130s
"pitot ports?" In that case the -1, -2-5, -2-13 and -4 T.O.s are all wrong. In
case you don't know the -1 is the aircrew flight manual, the -2-5 is the
maintenance manual covering the pitot-static system, the -2-13 is the wiring
diagram which shows the wiring to the pitot tube heater and the -14 is the
illustrated parts break down which includes a picture of the pitot tube, its
part number and CAGE.

The C-130 uses an AN5182 pitot tube. If the pitot tube had static ports it
would be AN5814 and would be a pitot-static tube. If you are clever you can
look those AN numbers up in FedLog or some other source.

Trust me, there are pitot tubes, pitot static tubes and static ports, just no
pitot ports.

The pitot tubes used on some boats to measure speed have no static ports yet
they are called pitot tubes. Check your local marine supply.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 9/12/2003 5:10 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >B2431" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> >> >
> >> >No, Dan, a pitot tube includes a static port. A pitot tube is not the
same
> as a pitot port, such as you are describing.
>
> >> >No, Dan, Henri Pitot's invention includes a static port. The whole
purpose
> >> >of a pitot tube is to measure both static and dynamic pressure at the
> >same point.
> >> >
> >> >I have to wonder at a man your age, who can not admit when he is
wrong.
> >> >
> >> So all the Air Force T.Os are wrong as are the CDCs, tech schools,
Emory
> etc?
> >
> >No, Dan, you are wrong. Noone calls a pitot port a "pitiot tube without
> static port"; it is too long and somewhat stupid. Henri pitot invented
the
> pitot tube and his definition is still true.
> >
> >> You still haven't named a single case of a "pitot port" nor have you
cited
> independent source. Every single attempt I have made on Google comes back
to
> you.
> >
> >I seldom ever use URLs to prove a point, as they are no more likely to be
> correct than a newsgroup consensus. I'll just let you smolder.
> >
> >> I expect a vulgar response, personal attack or an accusation of "not
being
> there" or lying as is your wont.
> >
> >You already admitted you didn't remove those pitot tubes on F-4s. I
think
> Dan's admission that he lied, during this thread, is a step in the right
> direction. Walt tried to buy you a vowel, I don't know how the rest of us
> could help you.
> >
> Tarver, you need help. I said I didn't change the static port on the
C-130. The
> pitot tubes on C-130s are pitot tubes despite not having integral static
ports
> and I changed many of them. I take it you consider the pitot tubes on
C-130s
> "pitot ports?" In that case the -1, -2-5, -2-13 and -4 T.O.s are all
wrong. In
> case you don't know the -1 is the aircrew flight manual, the -2-5 is the
> maintenance manual covering the pitot-static system, the -2-13 is the
wiring
> diagram which shows the wiring to the pitot tube heater and the -14 is the
> illustrated parts break down which includes a picture of the pitot tube,
its
> part number and CAGE.
>
> The C-130 uses an AN5182 pitot tube. If the pitot tube had static ports it
> would be AN5814 and would be a pitot-static tube. If you are clever you
can
> look those AN numbers up in FedLog or some other source.
>
> Trust me, there are pitot tubes, pitot static tubes and static ports, just
no
> pitot ports.
>
> The pitot tubes used on some boats to measure speed have no static ports
yet
> they are called pitot tubes. Check your local marine supply.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 9/12/2003 5:10 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >

<snip>

> Tarver, you need help. I said I didn't change the static port on the
C-130. The
> pitot tubes on C-130s are pitot tubes despite not having integral static
ports
> and I changed many of them.

Dan, when you posted about your F-4 pitot tube experiance, you claimed there
was no temperature probe. At best you are misremembering the F-4 and there
is no reason believe any further memories you might come up with. Static
air temperasture is not an optional datum for jet.

It would seem to me that a man Dan's age would be able to admit when he is
wrong.

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>Dan, when you posted about your F-4 pitot tube experiance, you claimed there
>was no temperature probe. At best you are misremembering the F-4 and there
>is no reason believe any further memories you might come up with. Static
>air temperasture is not an optional datum for jet.
>
>It would seem to me that a man Dan's age would be able to admit when he is
>wrong.
>

Hell John, you're slipping, can't get a rise out of anyone!!...
--

-Gord.

[B2431]

>> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>> >Date: 9/12/2003 5:10 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
><snip>
>
>> Tarver, you need help. I said I didn't change the static port on the
>C-130. The
>> pitot tubes on C-130s are pitot tubes despite not having integral static
>ports
>> and I changed many of them.
>
>Dan, when you posted about your F-4 pitot tube experiance, you claimed there
>was no temperature probe. At best you are misremembering the F-4 and there
>is no reason believe any further memories you might come up with. Static
>air temperasture is not an optional datum for jet.
>
>It would seem to me that a man Dan's age would be able to admit when he is
>wrong.
>
Tarver, I said temperature was not derived from the pitot-static system. If you
ever get close to an F-4E look in the engine intakes. You will see a probe
sticking into intake air flow. THAT is where the temperature is obtained and
sent to control the variramps.

The pitot-static system measure impact pressure and ambient pressure not
temperature. If you mean the TAS indicator needs a temperature reference it
gets that data from a CADC (from a temp bulb) or a capllary.

Dan. U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >Date: 9/12/2003 5:10 PM Central Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Tarver, you need help. I said I didn't change the static port on the
> >C-130. The
> >> pitot tubes on C-130s are pitot tubes despite not having integral
static
> >ports
> >> and I changed many of them.
> >
> >Dan, when you posted about your F-4 pitot tube experiance, you claimed
there
> >was no temperature probe. At best you are misremembering the F-4 and
there
> >is no reason believe any further memories you might come up with. Static
> >air temperasture is not an optional datum for jet.
> >
> >It would seem to me that a man Dan's age would be able to admit when he
is
> >wrong.
> >
> Tarver, I said temperature was not derived from the pitot-static system.

You are wrong. Static air temperature is T0 and for a certainty is part of
the static system. Perhaps you ment to say that your airplane experiance is
limited to gasoline engined types.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >Dan, when you posted about your F-4 pitot tube experiance, you claimed
there
> >was no temperature probe. At best you are misremembering the F-4 and
there
> >is no reason believe any further memories you might come up with. Static
> >air temperasture is not an optional datum for jet.
> >
> >It would seem to me that a man Dan's age would be able to admit when he
is
> >wrong.

> Hell John, you're slipping, can't get a rise out of anyone!!...

Static air temperature is very basic to how a jet engine works. I am only
trying to understand if Dan is just senile, or a fraud.

[Jim Knoyle]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >No you havn't Jimmy. The 727 uses static ports on the fuse and not even
a
> >single pitot tube. To be a pitot tube, the static port would be part of
the
> >pitot tube. What you changed was a pitot port, not a pitot tube.
>
> Tarver, there are pitot tubes without static ports on them as on the C-130
and
> those with static ports on them, properly called pitot-static tubes, as on
the
> F-4E and T-39. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a "pitot port"
on any
> aircraft's pitot-static system. Not having a static port on a pitot tube
> doesn't make it NOT a pitot tube. Take a look in aircraft parts catalogs
and
> see what I mean.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Dan,
Old Splaps has me grinning all the way to the bank. I love the way
he spells out his idiocy in his own words and the way his stance can
change with time just boils down to basic dishonesty. I know you've
noticed.
I particularly like the way he will spell out how the static whatchumacalit
and the pitot whatchumacalit on a 727 are seperate entities, in fact
seperated by many feet, and then I ask what the heck he meant by a
"screened over pitot static port" when he made his statement:
"Well no actually, there is no pitot tube on a 727, only a screened over
pitot static port."
"But thanks for being an idiot once again."
"No pitot tube silly bunny."
"It would be profoundly stupid to put a home for mud wasps on an airplane
flying as much as a 727."
Next question: What to mud wasps have to do with it?

If I were a mud wasp, I wouldn't care what they call the pointy things. :-)
Just warn me before you switch on *Pitot Heat*.
JK (wondering what his fellow engineers think of his dishonesty)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> If I were a mud wasp, I wouldn't care what they call the pointy things.
:-)
> Just warn me before you switch on *Pitot Heat*.

Yep, pitot heat on a pitot port, but you don't want to throw off SAT.

You blew it long ago Jimmy, when you like Dan didn't know T0 is a
requirement for a jet. So how is the C-150 mechanic business?

[B2431]

>> >
>> Tarver, I said temperature was not derived from the pitot-static system.
>
>You are wrong. Static air temperature is T0 and for a certainty is part of
>the static system. Perhaps you ment to say that your airplane experiance is
>limited to gasoline engined types.
>

OK, Tarver, let's see, the pitot-static system on an F-4E consists of a heated
pitot-static tube, a CADC, AAU-39 A/A altimeters (2), VVIs (2), ASIs (2) and
mach indicators (2). Some F-4Es had an air data recorder in the front cockpit.
The only differences between the F-4E's pitot-static system are most aircraft
have neither a CADC nor a mach meter.

The pitot-static tube had a heater to prevent icing. Tell me where you derive
air temperature from this and the above named instruments. How valid would the
temperature derived be anyway? The pitot-static tube's heater is unregulated.
The circuit is as follows :DC bus to circuit breaker to pitot heat switch to
heater to common. There is no way to get any temperature reading from the
pitot-static system.

The only aircraft I have ever worked on I am not sure had pitot heat was an
O-2. This only because it was a transient and I was working a fuel quantity
problem and really didn't care about any other system.

You have said Henri Pitot's tubes used pitot and static. You are flat out
wrong. He was using water and water doesn't need a static port for what he was
doing: measuring water speed. During his time a few men had flown in hot air
balloons, he had no reason to use a piot tube even if he were involved.

Also you have said all pitot tubes have static ports and those that don't are
pitot ports. You are wrong there too. Look up AN5812, pitot tube, and AN 5814,
pitot-static tube. The AN5812 is used on the C-130 and has no static ports. The
static ports are flush mounted on the fuselage.

As I have said, no one in the world uses the term "pitot" port besides you.

I have proved my case several times and all you can do is call me a fraud or a
liar. I have given you two AN numbers anyone can look up. Even you.

It is evident all you want to do is instigate or you simply are incompetent. I
really don't care. Either way your credibility is shot.

This discussion is closed. You are dismissed.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

(B2431) wrote:

>It is evident all you want to do is instigate or you simply are incompetent. I
>really don't care. Either way your credibility is shot.
>
>This discussion is closed. You are dismissed.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Dan Dan Dan!...he's trolling you!!...Christ, I can hear him
laughing from HERE!...
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >> >
> >> Tarver, I said temperature was not derived from the pitot-static
system.
> >
> >You are wrong. Static air temperature is T0 and for a certainty is part
of
> >the static system. Perhaps you ment to say that your airplane experiance
is
> >limited to gasoline engined types.
> >
>
> OK, Tarver, let's see, the pitot-static system on an F-4E consists of a
heated
> pitot-static tube, a CADC, AAU-39 A/A altimeters (2), VVIs (2), ASIs (2)
and
> mach indicators (2). Some F-4Es had an air data recorder in the front
cockpit.
> The only differences between the F-4E's pitot-static system are most
aircraft
> have neither a CADC nor a mach meter.

Non-sequitur.

Without the temperature probe in the static side of the pitot tube, the
airplane doesn't work. An equipment list won't get you past not knowing how
a jet works, Dan.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> (B2431) wrote:
>
> >It is evident all you want to do is instigate or you simply are
incompetent. I
> >really don't care. Either way your credibility is shot.
> >
> >This discussion is closed. You are dismissed.

> Dan Dan Dan!...he's trolling you!!...Christ, I can hear him
> laughing from HERE!...

No, Gord, Dan is running an archive troll on me.

[BackToNormal]

B2431 > wrote:

> >> >
> >> Tarver, I said temperature was not derived from the pitot-static system.
> >
> >You are wrong. Static air temperature is T0 and for a certainty is part of
> >the static system. Perhaps you ment to say that your airplane experiance is
> >limited to gasoline engined types.
> >
>
> OK, Tarver, let's see, the pitot-static system on an F-4E consists of a heated
> pitot-static tube, ......

Snip.

> It is evident all you want to do is instigate or you simply are incompetent. I
> really don't care. Either way your credibility is shot.
>
> This discussion is closed. You are dismissed.

Aw, shucks Dan. It was amusing to see this prick regularly make such a
fool of himself.

ronh

--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[B2431]

>From: (BackToNormal)
>Date: 9/13/2003 3:31 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>B2431 > wrote:
>
<snip>
>> It is evident all you want to do is instigate or you simply are
>incompetent. I
>> really don't care. Either way your credibility is shot.
>>
>> This discussion is closed. You are dismissed.
>
>Aw, shucks Dan. It was amusing to see this prick regularly make such a
>fool of himself.
>
>ronh
>
Once I figured out he thinks a pitot tube without static ports is a "pitot
port" and he started trying to tell me one can get air temperature from a
heated pitot-static tube I decided to poor boy is beyond help. It's just not
right to tease the crippled.

Let's see, there's one 2 pin connector to the heater and no temperature sensor
in the tube....... nah <g> I'll let it go.

Oh,and if you want a laugh do a Google on "Tarver Engineering" he does this in
several newsgroups.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> Once I figured out he thinks a pitot tube without static ports is a "pitot
> port"

I'm glad you figured that out, my idiot. Now all you have to do is find the
static temperature probe and discover what a pitot tube is.

Next time you troll me Dan, try and choose an archive troll not written by
the village idiot of the aviation newsgroups.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
> > If I were a mud wasp, I wouldn't care what they call the pointy things.
> :-)
> > Just warn me before you switch on *Pitot Heat*.
>
> Yep, pitot heat on a pitot port, but you don't want to throw off SAT.
>
> You blew it long ago Jimmy, when you like Dan didn't know T0 is a
> requirement for a jet. So how is the C-150 mechanic business?
>
>
OK, Splaps, suppose I am working one of my favorite aircraft
shortly scheduled to depart gate 86 but I find we have a failed
heating element in the Capt's Pitot Tube. These tubes have only
two wires for heat and one connection for Pt.
The part number is engraved on the tube so all that I need do is
key my mike and say, "Parts planner - Radio three..."
When the parts desk responds, I say, "I need one (xxxx-xxx)
ref dwg. 34-11-0 for 3912 on gate 86, hot!" Dwg. 34-11-0 is
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/pitot10.gif
That fine outfit I worked for would have the part in my hands
within 30 minutes.
That schlok outfit *you* work for would just give me a
ration of **** and the passengers are out of luck.
JK (who old Splaps used to think he could slur by calling "just a DC-10
mechanic".)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > If I were a mud wasp, I wouldn't care what they call the pointy
things.
> > :-)
> > > Just warn me before you switch on *Pitot Heat*.
> >
> > Yep, pitot heat on a pitot port, but you don't want to throw off SAT.
> >
> > You blew it long ago Jimmy, when you like Dan didn't know T0 is a
> > requirement for a jet. So how is the C-150 mechanic business?
> >
> >
> OK, Splaps, suppose I am working one of my favorite aircraft
> shortly scheduled to depart gate 86 but I find we have a failed
> heating element in the Capt's Pitot Tube. These tubes have only
> two wires for heat and one connection for Pt.

Why do you think I will resond to you, village idiot?

[B2431]

>From: "Jim Knoyle"
>Date: 9/13/2003 9:36 PM Central Daylight Time

>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>
<snip>

>> You blew it long ago Jimmy, when you like Dan didn't know T0 is a
>> requirement for a jet. So how is the C-150 mechanic business?
>>
>>
>OK, Splaps, suppose I am working one of my favorite aircraft
>shortly scheduled to depart gate 86 but I find we have a failed
>heating element in the Capt's Pitot Tube. These tubes have only
>two wires for heat and one connection for Pt.
>The part number is engraved on the tube so all that I need do is
>key my mike and say, "Parts planner - Radio three..."
>When the parts desk responds, I say, "I need one (xxxx-xxx)
>ref dwg. 34-11-0 for 3912 on gate 86, hot!" Dwg. 34-11-0 is
>http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/pitot10.gif
>That fine outfit I worked for would have the part in my hands
>within 30 minutes.
>That schlok outfit *you* work for would just give me a
>ration of **** and the passengers are out of luck.
>JK (who old Splaps used to think he could slur by calling "just a DC-10
>mechanic".)
>
Jim, you just don't get it, he has an EE which, in his case, means expert on
everything. This means your drawing is wrong :) The fact you and I have a bunch
of years actually working on these systems means nothing to him since he is an
expert on everything. Anyone who thinks calling someone a C-150 mecahnic is an
insult is just plain 'round the bend. If you want a laugh do a Google search on
him under "tarver engineering" and see what he says in automotive, balooning,
homebuilt aircraft etc newsgroups. He'll probably blame you for archiving
anyway.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Gene Storey]

What's even more ignorant, is a couple idiots who argue with the tarver troll.
He loves the attention. ****ing dorks...

"B2431" > wrote
>
> Jim, you just don't get it,

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
...
> What's even more ignorant, is a couple idiots who argue with the tarver
troll.
> He loves the attention. ****ing dorks...

Dan is trolling me, Gene.

I can't help that he is an idiot.

> "B2431" > wrote
> >
> > Jim, you just don't get it,

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> Jim, you just don't get it, he has an EE which, in his case, means expert
on
> everything. This means your drawing is wrong :)

I doubt Jimmy is allowed near a drawing, but you have been a real hoot, Dan.

[Mike Marron]

>"Gene Storey" > wrote:
>>"B2431" > wrote:

>>Jim, you just don't get it,

>What's even more ignorant, is a couple idiots who argue with the tarver troll.
>He loves the attention. ****ing dorks...

Truer words were never written. Anyone who argues with the
tarv-troll for more than a few posts has ball bearings for brains.

-Mike Marron

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > If I were a mud wasp, I wouldn't care what they call the pointy
> things.
> > > :-)
> > > > Just warn me before you switch on *Pitot Heat*.
> > >
> > > Yep, pitot heat on a pitot port, but you don't want to throw off SAT.
> > >
> > > You blew it long ago Jimmy, when you like Dan didn't know T0 is a
> > > requirement for a jet. So how is the C-150 mechanic business?
> > >
> > >
> > OK, Splaps, suppose I am working one of my favorite aircraft
> > shortly scheduled to depart gate 86 but I find we have a failed
> > heating element in the Capt's Pitot Tube. These tubes have only
> > two wires for heat and one connection for Pt.
>
> Why do you think I will resond to you, village idiot?
>
>
Passengers might appreciate it?

[Jim Knoyle]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >(snip)
> Jim, you just don't get it, he has an EE which, in his case, means expert
on
> everything. This means your drawing is wrong :) The fact you and I have a
bunch
> of years actually working on these systems means nothing to him since he
is an
> expert on everything. Anyone who thinks calling someone a C-150 mecahnic
is an
> insult is just plain 'round the bend. If you want a laugh do a Google
search on
> him under "tarver engineering" and see what he says in automotive,
balooning,
> homebuilt aircraft etc newsgroups. He'll probably blame you for archiving
> anyway.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

He's an interesting case, where everyone else is an idiot. Must be a lonely
fellow.
Years ago I told how he reminded me of another fellow I worked with, but
only
because they were exact opposites. This fellow and I worked adjacent benches
in the radio shop but only after I was assigned to train him on the AVQ-30
Radar
TR did I get around to prying out of him some facts about his education.
About
5 Masters Degrees including math., electronics and nuclear physics. With
Bob,
everything was "simple" while he drug out reams of scratch paper to write
equations
for why the sun came up, etc. He finally succeeded in bagging the Doctorate
in
Nuclear Physics before he died. I was very sorry to hear of his death.
Amazing what a difference a little personality makes.

JK

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Gene Storey" > wrote:
> >>"B2431" > wrote:
>
> >>Jim, you just don't get it,
>
> >What's even more ignorant, is a couple idiots who argue with the tarver
troll.
> >He loves the attention. ****ing dorks...
>
> Truer words were never written. Anyone who argues with the
> tarv-troll for more than a few posts has ball bearings for brains.

What sock were you before you started posting as Maron?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > If I were a mud wasp, I wouldn't care what they call the pointy
> > things.
> > > > :-)
> > > > > Just warn me before you switch on *Pitot Heat*.
> > > >
> > > > Yep, pitot heat on a pitot port, but you don't want to throw off
SAT.
> > > >
> > > > You blew it long ago Jimmy, when you like Dan didn't know T0 is a
> > > > requirement for a jet. So how is the C-150 mechanic business?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > OK, Splaps, suppose I am working one of my favorite aircraft
> > > shortly scheduled to depart gate 86 but I find we have a failed
> > > heating element in the Capt's Pitot Tube. These tubes have only
> > > two wires for heat and one connection for Pt.
> >
> > Why do you think I will resond to you, village idiot?

> Passengers might appreciate it?

Do you think passengers are not smart enough to see you as a mental case,
Knoyle. I know I for one am glad you do not participate in the business.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> He's an interesting case, where everyone else is an idiot.

A dip**** running an archive troll on me deserves to be refered to as an
idiot, especially when Dan dug his up from a nutjob. Besides that my lune,
you are an idiot.

[B2431]

>
>What's even more ignorant, is a couple idiots who argue with the tarver
>troll.
>He loves the attention. ****ing dorks...
>
>"B2431" > wrote
> >
>> Jim, you just don't get it,
>
No one is forcing you to read this thread.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Gene Storey]

Dan, you are absolutely correct. You are just a big pile of
information, that I can't wait until my morning constitutional to flush.

"B2431" > wrote
> >
> >What's even more ignorant, is a couple idiots who argue with the tarver
> >troll.
> >He loves the attention. ****ing dorks...
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote
> > >
> >> Jim, you just don't get it,
> >
> No one is forcing you to read this thread.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >What's even more ignorant, is a couple idiots who argue with the tarver
> >troll.
> >He loves the attention. ****ing dorks...
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote
> > >
> >> Jim, you just don't get it,
> >
> No one is forcing you to read this thread.

I think there are plenty of lurkers that are quite entertained by two washed
out mechanics harrassing a successful avionics engineer. I know my readers
in industry find you two retards to be a hoot.

> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

No pension, not retired.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dan, you are absolutely correct. You are just a big pile of
> information, that I can't wait until my morning constitutional to flush.

Not to mention Dan's fake sig.

> "B2431" > wrote
> > >
> > >What's even more ignorant, is a couple idiots who argue with the tarver
> > >troll.
> > >He loves the attention. ****ing dorks...
> > >
> > >"B2431" > wrote
> > > >
> > >> Jim, you just don't get it,
> > >
> > No one is forcing you to read this thread.
> >
> > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>