Chuck Yeager-pitot tube

[Ron]

An interesting passage in General Yeagers book "Press ON".

" Just a ten inch steel shaft, once silvery, but now, after forty
years in various Yeager closets and attics, a kind of dull gray It
jumped out at me as something special.
It was the pitot tube off the Bell X-1
I picked it up and plopped down on the sofa. Normally, there's
nothing terribly special about a pitot tube, which is an instrument
that measures air pressure so that a pilot can find out how fast he's
flying. But according to the plaque it came mounted on, this
particular pitot tube had been on the nose of the X-1 on, as it said,.
"10-14-47." That's the day we reached Mach 1 . . .Murac Air Base . . .
That old plane part felt cool to the touch, but the memory it brought
back was of a little orange aircraft sitting on Rogers Dry Lake bed
and shimmering in the Mohave Desert heat . . . the Glamorous Glennis,
I'd called the X-1.
The General has a way with words too, doesn't he.

Ron

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron" > wrote in message
om...
> An interesting passage in General Yeagers book "Press ON".
>
> " Just a ten inch steel shaft, once silvery, but now, after forty
> years in various Yeager closets and attics, a kind of dull gray It
> jumped out at me as something special.
> It was the pitot tube off the Bell X-1
> I picked it up and plopped down on the sofa. Normally, there's
> nothing terribly special about a pitot tube, which is an instrument
> that measures air pressure so that a pilot can find out how fast he's
> flying.

But Ron, if you get IAS from a pitot tube then the lunes of ram have been
wrong all along.

> But according to the plaque it came mounted on, this
> particular pitot tube had been on the nose of the X-1 on, as it said,.
> "10-14-47." That's the day we reached Mach 1 . . .Murac Air Base . . .
> That old plane part felt cool to the touch, but the memory it brought
> back was of a little orange aircraft sitting on Rogers Dry Lake bed
> and shimmering in the Mohave Desert heat . . . the Glamorous Glennis,
> I'd called the X-1.
> The General has a way with words too, doesn't he.

Yes he does. The time he came to see me, all the reaction he would have
gotten was a snap to, a salute and "sir, yes sir".

[Bill Silvey]

"Ron" > wrote in message
om
> An interesting passage in General Yeagers book "Press ON".
>
> " Just a ten inch steel shaft, once silvery, but now, after forty
> years in various Yeager closets and attics, a kind of dull gray It
> jumped out at me as something special.
> It was the pitot tube off the Bell X-1
> I picked it up and plopped down on the sofa. Normally, there's
> nothing terribly special about a pitot tube, which is an instrument
> that measures air pressure so that a pilot can find out how fast he's
> flying. But according to the plaque it came mounted on, this
> particular pitot tube had been on the nose of the X-1 on, as it said,.
> "10-14-47." That's the day we reached Mach 1 . . .Murac Air Base . . .
> That old plane part felt cool to the touch, but the memory it brought
> back was of a little orange aircraft sitting on Rogers Dry Lake bed
> and shimmering in the Mohave Desert heat . . . the Glamorous Glennis,
> I'd called the X-1.
> The General has a way with words too, doesn't he.
>
> Ron

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

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
om...
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> om
> > An interesting passage in General Yeagers book "Press ON".
> >
> > " Just a ten inch steel shaft, once silvery, but now, after forty
> > years in various Yeager closets and attics, a kind of dull gray It
> > jumped out at me as something special.
> > It was the pitot tube off the Bell X-1
> > I picked it up and plopped down on the sofa. Normally, there's
> > nothing terribly special about a pitot tube, which is an instrument
> > that measures air pressure so that a pilot can find out how fast he's
> > flying. But according to the plaque it came mounted on, this
> > particular pitot tube had been on the nose of the X-1 on, as it said,.
> > "10-14-47." That's the day we reached Mach 1 . . .Murac Air Base . . .
> > That old plane part felt cool to the touch, but the memory it brought
> > back was of a little orange aircraft sitting on Rogers Dry Lake bed
> > and shimmering in the Mohave Desert heat . . . the Glamorous Glennis,
> > I'd called the X-1.
> > The General has a way with words too, doesn't he.
> >
> > Ron
>
> Especially when describing what a Pitot tube is and what it does. ;-)

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

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

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> om
>> > An interesting passage in General Yeagers book "Press ON".
>> >
>> > " Just a ten inch steel shaft, once silvery, but now, after forty
>> > years in various Yeager closets and attics, a kind of dull gray It
>> > jumped out at me as something special.
>> > It was the pitot tube off the Bell X-1
>> > I picked it up and plopped down on the sofa. Normally, there's
>> > nothing terribly special about a pitot tube, which is an instrument
>> > that measures air pressure so that a pilot can find out how fast he's
>> > flying. But according to the plaque it came mounted on, this
>> > particular pitot tube had been on the nose of the X-1 on, as it said,.
>> > "10-14-47." That's the day we reached Mach 1 . . .Murac Air Base . . .
>> > That old plane part felt cool to the touch, but the memory it brought
>> > back was of a little orange aircraft sitting on Rogers Dry Lake bed
>> > and shimmering in the Mohave Desert heat . . . the Glamorous Glennis,
>> > I'd called the X-1.
>> > The General has a way with words too, doesn't he.
>> >
>> > Ron
>>
>> Especially when describing what a Pitot tube is and what it does. ;-)
>
>You mean the kind of pitot tube that produces two pressures to make IAS?
>The same kind Henri Pitot used to measure water flow?
>
>That would not be the kind the lunes of ram believe in.
>

John this is getting tiresome...
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> om
> >> > An interesting passage in General Yeagers book "Press ON".
> >> >
> >> > " Just a ten inch steel shaft, once silvery, but now, after forty
> >> > years in various Yeager closets and attics, a kind of dull gray It
> >> > jumped out at me as something special.
> >> > It was the pitot tube off the Bell X-1
> >> > I picked it up and plopped down on the sofa. Normally, there's
> >> > nothing terribly special about a pitot tube, which is an instrument
> >> > that measures air pressure so that a pilot can find out how fast he's
> >> > flying. But according to the plaque it came mounted on, this
> >> > particular pitot tube had been on the nose of the X-1 on, as it
said,.
> >> > "10-14-47." That's the day we reached Mach 1 . . .Murac Air Base . .
..
> >> > That old plane part felt cool to the touch, but the memory it brought
> >> > back was of a little orange aircraft sitting on Rogers Dry Lake bed
> >> > and shimmering in the Mohave Desert heat . . . the Glamorous Glennis,
> >> > I'd called the X-1.
> >> > The General has a way with words too, doesn't he.
> >> >
> >> > Ron
> >>
> >> Especially when describing what a Pitot tube is and what it does. ;-)
> >
> >You mean the kind of pitot tube that produces two pressures to make IAS?
> >The same kind Henri Pitot used to measure water flow?
> >
> >That would not be the kind the lunes of ram believe in.

> John this is getting tiresome...

Are you tired of playing the fool, Gord?

[B2431]

>From: "Gord Beaman" (
>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

<snip>

>>> Especially when describing what a Pitot tube is and what it does. ;-)
>>
>>You mean the kind of pitot tube that produces two pressures to make IAS?
>>The same kind Henri Pitot used to measure water flow?
>>
>>That would not be the kind the lunes of ram believe in.
>>
>
>John this is getting tiresome...
>--
>
>-Gord.

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

Dan, U. S. Air Force

[Bill Silvey]

"B2431" > wrote in message

>> From: "Gord Beaman" (
>>
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Especially when describing what a Pitot tube is and what it does.
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> You mean the kind of pitot tube that produces two pressures to make
>>> IAS? The same kind Henri Pitot used to measure water flow?
>>>
>>> That would not be the kind the lunes of ram believe in.
>>>
>>
>> John this is getting tiresome...
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
> Gord, give up on tarver, now he thinks pitot tubes PRODUCE pressure.
> Not only that they produce TWO pressures. The poor man is beyond help.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force

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

The man's beyond hope, he is.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

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

God what a moron. :)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
. ..

<snip>

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

All that is required is a manometer to subtract dynamic pressure from static
pressure to have IAS; both pressures being a product of a pitot tube. WWI
rplanes did not even have IAS, until some French person put a pitot tube on
his airplane. It is very simple and even a simpleton like Bill should get
it.

[B2431]

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

>>> From: "Gord Beaman" (
>>>
>>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Especially when describing what a Pitot tube is and what it does.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> You mean the kind of pitot tube that produces two pressures to make
>>>> IAS? The same kind Henri Pitot used to measure water flow?
>>>>
>>>> That would not be the kind the lunes of ram believe in.
>>>>
>>>
>>> John this is getting tiresome...
>>> --
>>>
>>> -Gord.
>>
>> Gord, give up on tarver, now he thinks pitot tubes PRODUCE pressure.
>> Not only that they produce TWO pressures. The poor man is beyond help.
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force
>
>Moreover, he thinks they produce two pressures and produce airspeed as well.
>
>The man's beyond hope, he is.
>
>--
It is obvious he thinks a pitot tube produces pitot and static pressures, he
must mean a pitot-static tube, maybe he can also get free air temperature from
the tube too so he can get TAS.

OK, let's examine this theory.....no, let's not. Let's wait until he can prove
a single assertion he has made on this subject or any other claim he has ever
made. Maybe not, he would rather attack anyone who asks. What is the medical
term for someone who knows he's correct when provided with proof he is in error
yet provides no proof of his own?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Mike Marron]

> (B2431) wrote:

>What is the medical term for someone who knows he's correct
>when provided with proof he is in error yet provides no proof of
>his own?

Speaking of the ol' tarv troll...

New research indicates that incompetent people tend not to know they
are incompetent. Not only that, they also tend to be very confident
that they know what they're doing -- even more confident of their
own competence than people who really do know what they're doing.

The New York Times reports that Cornell University psychology
professor David Dunning reached those conclusions in a study he
conducted with a graduate student, and wrote about his findings in the
December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The researchers concluded that one reason incompetent people do not
know how much they do not know, is that the cognitive skills required
to be competent are also required for recognizing actual
competence.

Researcher Justin Kruger told the Times that the incompetence of
incompetent people "robs them of their ability to realize" they have a
problem. It also makes it difficult for incompetent folks to recognize
competence in others.

***

By the way, the researchers say they also noticed that people who
can't tell a joke tend not to realize that they're not funny -- and as
a result they persist in telling jokes badly.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > (B2431) wrote:
>
> >What is the medical term for someone who knows he's correct
> >when provided with proof he is in error yet provides no proof of
> >his own?
>
> Speaking of the ol' tarv troll...
>
> New research indicates that incompetent people tend not to know they
> are incompetent. Not only that, they also tend to be very confident
> that they know what they're doing -- even more confident of their
> own competence than people who really do know what they're doing.
>
> The New York Times reports that Cornell University psychology
> professor David Dunning reached those conclusions in a study he
> conducted with a graduate student, and wrote about his findings in the
> December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
>
> The researchers concluded that one reason incompetent people do not
> know how much they do not know, is that the cognitive skills required
> to be competent are also required for recognizing actual
> competence.
>
> Researcher Justin Kruger told the Times that the incompetence of
> incompetent people "robs them of their ability to realize" they have a
> problem. It also makes it difficult for incompetent folks to recognize
> competence in others.
>
> ***
>
> By the way, the researchers say they also noticed that people who
> can't tell a joke tend not to realize that they're not funny -- and as
> a result they persist in telling jokes badly.


What constantly amazes me about this sort of "revelation" is how long it
apparently took these PhD's doing post graduate work to discover what anyone
without a PhD but with only an once of brains already knew by the time they
had reached the third grade! :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Mike Marron]

>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
(B2431) wrote:

>>>What is the medical term for someone who knows he's correct
>>>when provided with proof he is in error yet provides no proof of
>>>his own?

>>Speaking of the ol' tarv troll...

>>New research indicates that incompetent people tend not to know they
>>are incompetent. Not only that, they also tend to be very confident
>>that they know what they're doing -- even more confident of their
>>own competence than people who really do know what they're doing.

>>The New York Times reports that Cornell University psychology
>>professor David Dunning reached those conclusions in a study he
>>conducted with a graduate student, and wrote about his findings in the
>>December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

>>The researchers concluded that one reason incompetent people do not
>>know how much they do not know, is that the cognitive skills required
>>to be competent are also required for recognizing actual
>>competence.

>>Researcher Justin Kruger told the Times that the incompetence of
>>incompetent people "robs them of their ability to realize" they have a
>>problem. It also makes it difficult for incompetent folks to recognize
>>competence in others.

>>***

>>By the way, the researchers say they also noticed that people who
>>can't tell a joke tend not to realize that they're not funny -- and as
>>a result they persist in telling jokes badly.

>What constantly amazes me about this sort of "revelation" is how long it
>apparently took these PhD's doing post graduate work to discover what anyone
>without a PhD but with only an once of brains already knew by the time they
>had reached the third grade! :-)

True, but the tarv troll hasn't reached the third grade yet (and/or he
doesn't have an ounce of brains).

;)

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron
<snip>
>New research indicates that incompetent people tend not to know they
>are incompetent.

<snip>

Was tarver a test subject in this study? Perhaps he was the model?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

>>John this is getting tiresome...
>>--
>>
>>-Gord.
>
>Gord, give up on tarver, now he thinks pitot tubes PRODUCE pressure. Not only
>that they produce TWO pressures. The poor man is beyond help.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force

Yeh...poor chappie..
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Gord, give up on tarver, now he thinks pitot tubes PRODUCE pressure. Not
>only
>> that they produce TWO pressures. The poor man is beyond help.
>
>God what a moron. :)
>
Well now...perhaps there's hope for you yet John, you seem to
recognise the basis of your problem it seems...
--

-Gord.

[Jim Thomas]

Actually, flight-test nose booms pick up both Pitot (dynamic) and static
pressure. I'll bet the one on the X-1 did, too.

Jim Thomas

Bill Silvey wrote:
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> om
>
>>An interesting passage in General Yeagers book "Press ON".
>>
>>" Just a ten inch steel shaft, once silvery, but now, after forty
>>years in various Yeager closets and attics, a kind of dull gray It
>>jumped out at me as something special.
>> It was the pitot tube off the Bell X-1
>> I picked it up and plopped down on the sofa. Normally, there's
>>nothing terribly special about a pitot tube, which is an instrument
>>that measures air pressure so that a pilot can find out how fast he's
>>flying. But according to the plaque it came mounted on, this
>>particular pitot tube had been on the nose of the X-1 on, as it said,.
>>"10-14-47." That's the day we reached Mach 1 . . .Murac Air Base . . .
>>That old plane part felt cool to the touch, but the memory it brought
>>back was of a little orange aircraft sitting on Rogers Dry Lake bed
>>and shimmering in the Mohave Desert heat . . . the Glamorous Glennis,
>>I'd called the X-1.
>> The General has a way with words too, doesn't he.
>>
>> Ron
>
>
> Especially when describing what a Pitot tube is and what it does. ;-)
>
> --
> http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
> Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
> "Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
> I hate furries.
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> Gord, give up on tarver, now he thinks pitot tubes PRODUCE pressure.
Not
> >only
> >> that they produce TWO pressures. The poor man is beyond help.
> >
> >God what a moron. :)
> >
> Well now...perhaps there's hope for you yet John, you seem to
> recognise the basis of your problem it seems...

I have no problem, Gord, but I do apreciate you playing the fool. I
couldn't twist these idiots up without you.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Thomas" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Actually, flight-test nose booms pick up both Pitot (dynamic) and static
> pressure. I'll bet the one on the X-1 did, too.

A pitot tube always picks up static and dynamic pressure; that is how Henri
Pitot measured the speed of rivers with his invention. Don't bother much
with Silvey, he is just a stay at home dad, with little eslse to do outside
trolling ram.

> Bill Silvey wrote:
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > om
> >
> >>An interesting passage in General Yeagers book "Press ON".
> >>
> >>" Just a ten inch steel shaft, once silvery, but now, after forty
> >>years in various Yeager closets and attics, a kind of dull gray It
> >>jumped out at me as something special.
> >> It was the pitot tube off the Bell X-1
> >> I picked it up and plopped down on the sofa. Normally, there's
> >>nothing terribly special about a pitot tube, which is an instrument
> >>that measures air pressure so that a pilot can find out how fast he's
> >>flying. But according to the plaque it came mounted on, this
> >>particular pitot tube had been on the nose of the X-1 on, as it said,.
> >>"10-14-47." That's the day we reached Mach 1 . . .Murac Air Base . . .
> >>That old plane part felt cool to the touch, but the memory it brought
> >>back was of a little orange aircraft sitting on Rogers Dry Lake bed
> >>and shimmering in the Mohave Desert heat . . . the Glamorous Glennis,
> >>I'd called the X-1.
> >> The General has a way with words too, doesn't he.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >
> >
> > Especially when describing what a Pitot tube is and what it does. ;-)
> >
> > --
> > http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
> > Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
> > "Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
> > I hate furries.
> >
> >
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Bill Silvey"
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>
> >>> From: "Gord Beaman" (
> >>>
> >>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>>>> Especially when describing what a Pitot tube is and what it does.
> >>>>> ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> You mean the kind of pitot tube that produces two pressures to make
> >>>> IAS? The same kind Henri Pitot used to measure water flow?
> >>>>
> >>>> That would not be the kind the lunes of ram believe in.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> John this is getting tiresome...
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> -Gord.
> >>
> >> Gord, give up on tarver, now he thinks pitot tubes PRODUCE pressure.
> >> Not only that they produce TWO pressures. The poor man is beyond help.
> >>
> >> Dan, U. S. Air Force
> >
> >Moreover, he thinks they produce two pressures and produce airspeed as
well.
> >
> >The man's beyond hope, he is.
> >
> >--
> It is obvious he thinks a pitot tube produces pitot and static pressures

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

[B2431]

>From: Jim Thomas
>Date: 10/7/2003 8:22 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: et>
>
>Actually, flight-test nose booms pick up both Pitot (dynamic) and static
>pressure. I'll bet the one on the X-1 did, too.
>
>Jim Thomas
>
I bet the X-1 had a pitot-static tube witch detects pitot and static pressure.
In fact he said "pitot tube" which only detects pitot pressure. There really is
a difference between a pitot and a pitot-static tube. Then tarver came along
and said a pitot tube "produces" pressure. Neither a pitot tube nor a pitot
static tube produces pressure, they simply sense them. If you do a google or
other search on tarver and "P1T0" "pitot ports" and other terms he has made up
you will see he's been arguing for years. He origionally said pitot came form
P1T0 until enough of us told him about Henri Pitot wt which time he started
telling us no jet aircraft had pitot tubes, they use "pitot ports" instead,
that both pitot and staic pressures are measured at "screened over static
ports" that pitot tubes sense air temperature, that mud wasps inhabit pitot
tubes, that pitot tubes measure temerature for use in jet engines ...etc ad
nauseum.

My favourite tarver claim was how no aircraft had pitot tubes until the "Air
Force" had lost those Avengers in the Bermuda triangle.

As I said, start with a google search (he blames Knoyle for all the archives)
and you should be amused. It should amaze you how he knows so much more than
those of us who have provided proof or who have actually worked on pitot static
systems.

If you want to frustate yourself ask him to name a single aircraft with a
"pitot port" or any other of his outlandish claims. Then observe as he resports
to personal insults, vulgarity and personal attacks. He does that so he won't
ever have to back up his claims.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Jim Thomas
> >Date: 10/7/2003 8:22 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: et>
> >
> >Actually, flight-test nose booms pick up both Pitot (dynamic) and static
> >pressure. I'll bet the one on the X-1 did, too.
> >
> >Jim Thomas
> >
> I bet the X-1 had a pitot-static tube

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

[Ed Rasimus]

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

>>From: Jim Thomas
>>Date: 10/7/2003 8:22 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: et>
>>
>>Actually, flight-test nose booms pick up both Pitot (dynamic) and static
>>pressure. I'll bet the one on the X-1 did, too.
>>
>>Jim Thomas
>>
>I bet the X-1 had a pitot-static tube witch detects pitot and static pressure.
>In fact he said "pitot tube" which only detects pitot pressure. There really is
>a difference between a pitot and a pitot-static tube. Then tarver came along
>and said a pitot tube "produces" pressure. Neither a pitot tube nor a pitot
>static tube produces pressure, they simply sense them.

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

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

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

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

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 08 Oct 2003 05:26:31 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
> >>From: Jim Thomas
> >>Date: 10/7/2003 8:22 PM Central Daylight Time
> >>Message-id: et>
> >>
> >>Actually, flight-test nose booms pick up both Pitot (dynamic) and static
> >>pressure. I'll bet the one on the X-1 did, too.
> >>
> >>Jim Thomas
> >>
> >I bet the X-1 had a pitot-static tube witch detects pitot and static
pressure.
> >In fact he said "pitot tube" which only detects pitot pressure. There
really is
> >a difference between a pitot and a pitot-static tube. Then tarver came
along
> >and said a pitot tube "produces" pressure. Neither a pitot tube nor a
pitot
> >static tube produces pressure, they simply sense them.
>
> First, during the period of the X-1, and for many years thereafter,
> the common practice was for the pitot tube to provide dynamic pressure

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

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:

[snipped for brevity]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave Holford]

Mike Marron wrote:

> [snipped for brevity]
>
> I'm wondering if Henri would think this neverending, silly thread is
> as amusing and entertaining as I think it is.


Don't knock it.

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

Dave

[Mike Marron]

>Dave Holford > wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>[snipped for brevity]

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

>Don't knock it.

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

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dave Holford" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mike Marron wrote:
>
> > [snipped for brevity]
> >
> > I'm wondering if Henri would think this neverending, silly thread is
> > as amusing and entertaining as I think it is.

Heni would wonder how you got so ignorant.

> Don't knock it.

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

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

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

[B2431]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[WaltBJ]

Gee, if I subtract dynamic pressure from static pressure (as cited in
a previous message in this thread) I get a negative number . . .
Walt BJ

[Tarver Engineering]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> Gee, if I subtract dynamic pressure from static pressure (as cited in
> a previous message in this thread) I get a negative number . . .

How would that matter to a manometer?

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Pitot port, a pitot tube is Henri pitot's invention and it provides both
> >static and dynamic pressure. Don't get too involved in Dan's mental
> >illness, Ed.
> >
>
> Tarver, time to put up or shut up. Cite one verifiable source, other than
you,

LOL

What a moron.

[B2431]

>From: (WaltBJ)
>Date: 10/8/2003 3:06 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Gee, if I subtract dynamic pressure from static pressure (as cited in
>a previous message in this thread) I get a negative number . . .
>Walt BJ
>
Walt, consider the source :)
Maybe the aircraft was flying backwards?
Maybe the aircraft is flying about minus FL40?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> Gee, if I subtract dynamic pressure from static pressure (as cited in
> a previous message in this thread) I get a negative number . . .

By the way Walt, flow does what to pressure? :)

Yea, I know it is a double post.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (WaltBJ)
> >Date: 10/8/2003 3:06 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Gee, if I subtract dynamic pressure from static pressure (as cited in
> >a previous message in this thread) I get a negative number . . .
> >Walt BJ
> >
> Walt, consider the source :)
> Maybe the aircraft was flying backwards?
> Maybe the aircraft is flying about minus FL40?

Maybe flow lowers pressure.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 10/8/2003 3:17 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> >Pitot port, a pitot tube is Henri pitot's invention and it provides both
>> >static and dynamic pressure. Don't get too involved in Dan's mental
>> >illness, Ed.
>> >
>>
>> Tarver, time to put up or shut up. Cite one verifiable source, other than
>you,
>
>LOL
>
>What a moron.
>
As usual you resort to insults instead of backing your claims.

You are dismissed.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Thomas]

Sorry, I misspoke. Flight test nose booms pick up both TOTAL (via a
pitot tube) and static (via little holes farther back on the tube).

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Jim Thomas" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Actually, flight-test nose booms pick up both Pitot (dynamic) and static
>>pressure. I'll bet the one on the X-1 did, too.
>
>
> A pitot tube always picks up static and dynamic pressure; that is how Henri
> Pitot measured the speed of rivers with his invention. Don't bother much
> with Silvey, he is just a stay at home dad, with little eslse to do outside
> trolling ram.
>
>
>>Bill Silvey wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
om
>>>
>>>
>>>>An interesting passage in General Yeagers book "Press ON".
>>>>
>>>>" Just a ten inch steel shaft, once silvery, but now, after forty
>>>>years in various Yeager closets and attics, a kind of dull gray It
>>>>jumped out at me as something special.
>>>> It was the pitot tube off the Bell X-1
>>>> I picked it up and plopped down on the sofa. Normally, there's
>>>>nothing terribly special about a pitot tube, which is an instrument
>>>>that measures air pressure so that a pilot can find out how fast he's
>>>>flying. But according to the plaque it came mounted on, this
>>>>particular pitot tube had been on the nose of the X-1 on, as it said,.
>>>>"10-14-47." That's the day we reached Mach 1 . . .Murac Air Base . . .
>>>>That old plane part felt cool to the touch, but the memory it brought
>>>>back was of a little orange aircraft sitting on Rogers Dry Lake bed
>>>>and shimmering in the Mohave Desert heat . . . the Glamorous Glennis,
>>>>I'd called the X-1.
>>>> The General has a way with words too, doesn't he.
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>>Especially when describing what a Pitot tube is and what it does. ;-)
>>>
>>>--
>>>http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
>>>Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
>>>"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
>>>I hate furries.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Thomas" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Sorry, I misspoke. Flight test nose booms pick up both TOTAL (via a
> pitot tube) and static (via little holes farther back on the tube).

I think you are mistaken about how the X-1 was instrumented.

I'll go with Yeager on this one.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 10/8/2003 3:17 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >
> >> >Pitot port, a pitot tube is Henri pitot's invention and it provides
both
> >> >static and dynamic pressure. Don't get too involved in Dan's mental
> >> >illness, Ed.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Tarver, time to put up or shut up. Cite one verifiable source, other
than you,
> >
> >LOL
> >
> >What a moron.
> >
> As usual you resort to insults instead of backing your claims.

What irony. :)

[Guy Alcala]

B2431 wrote:

> >
> >Pitot port, a pitot tube is Henri pitot's invention and it provides both
> >static and dynamic pressure. Don't get too involved in Dan's mental
> >illness, Ed.
> >
>
> Tarver, time to put up or shut up. Cite one verifiable source, other than you,
> that defines, uses or decribes a "pitot port." It is evident you think a pitot
> tube without integral static ports is a "pitot port." Take a look at the pitot
> tube on a C-130, it has no integral static ports. The static ports are mounted
> on the sides of the fuselage. The C-130 tech orders call it a pitot tube. Now
> take a look at the pitot-static tube on the F-4E, all the relevent tech orders
> call it a pitot-static tube. If you want I can scan you a page from the
> 1F-4E-0-6. I make that offer to anyone who doubts me on this.
>
> I have tried various search engines to find "pitot port" and the only
> references ever returned point to you and no one else.
>
> I have worked with far more pitot and pitot static tubes than you have.
>
> How about explaining to us why Pitot needed to measure static pressure when he
> was measuring the velocity of water? Since water doesn't compress he didn't
> need to know static pressure for velocity.
>
> I bet you will now make a few rude comments having nothing to do with the
> subject as is your wont when asked to provide proof.

Dan, you've had more than enough time to learn that the individual in question is
impervious to facts or logic that refutes his fantasies, just as he is impervious
to scorn and abuse; indeed, he thrives on it. He will remain a legend in his own
mind regardless of anything you say, so why not do what most of us have done and
ignore or killfile him? You'll find it keeps your blood pressure down, and cuts
way down on the quantity of noise on the newsgroup. Some people continue to read
his posts just to correct his more egregious errors for newbies, but arguing
directly with someone who appears to be suffering from mental illness* is a waste
of your time, and a waste of the bandwidth of everyone (like myself) who's
killfiled him long since (indeed, he was the very first person I ever killfiled,
four or five years ago), but still gets your replies to him. Please give us a
break and don't reply to him, or at least put "Tarver" somewhere in the subject so
we can filter out any such messages.

Thanks,

Guy

*I can't imagine anyone who isn't mentally ill being so proud of repeatedly being
so wrong for so long, in public. His behavior strikes me as pathological.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> Dan, you've had more than enough time to learn that the individual in
question is
> impervious to facts or logic that refutes his fantasies,

Dan is only exercising his internet right to insult an expert. Although Dan
does take the troll to a level indicative of mental illness, what else has
he to do this afternoon; outside eating the piece?

[B2431]

I guess you are correct. For some reason I have always been an optimist in
thinking everyone could learn. I apologize to the group.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Guy Alcala

<snip>
>
>Dan, you've had more than enough time to learn that the individual in
>question is
>impervious to facts or logic that refutes his fantasies, just as he is
>impervious
>to scorn and abuse; indeed, he thrives on it. He will remain a legend in his
>own
>mind regardless of anything you say, so why not do what most of us have done
>and
>ignore or killfile him? You'll find it keeps your blood pressure down, and
>cuts
>way down on the quantity of noise on the newsgroup. Some people continue to
>read
>his posts just to correct his more egregious errors for newbies, but arguing
>directly with someone who appears to be suffering from mental illness* is a
>waste
>of your time, and a waste of the bandwidth of everyone (like myself) who's
>killfiled him long since (indeed, he was the very first person I ever
>killfiled,
>four or five years ago), but still gets your replies to him. Please give us
>a
>break and don't reply to him, or at least put "Tarver" somewhere in the
>subject so
>we can filter out any such messages.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Guy
>
I guess you are correct. For some reason I have always been an optimist in
thinking everyone could learn. I apologize to the group.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Dudley Henriques]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Guy Alcala
>
> <snip>
> >
> >Dan, you've had more than enough time to learn that the individual in
> >question is
> >impervious to facts or logic that refutes his fantasies, just as he is
> >impervious
> >to scorn and abuse; indeed, he thrives on it. He will remain a legend in
his
> >own
> >mind regardless of anything you say, so why not do what most of us have
done
> >and
> >ignore or killfile him? You'll find it keeps your blood pressure down,
and
> >cuts
> >way down on the quantity of noise on the newsgroup. Some people continue
to
> >read
> >his posts just to correct his more egregious errors for newbies, but
arguing
> >directly with someone who appears to be suffering from mental illness* is
a
> >waste
> >of your time, and a waste of the bandwidth of everyone (like myself)
who's
> >killfiled him long since (indeed, he was the very first person I ever
> >killfiled,
> >four or five years ago), but still gets your replies to him. Please
give us
> >a
> >break and don't reply to him, or at least put "Tarver" somewhere in the
> >subject so
> >we can filter out any such messages.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Guy
> >
> I guess you are correct. For some reason I have always been an optimist in
> thinking everyone could learn. I apologize to the group.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

No need Dan. We've all done it. Fotr most of us it's not even challenging
any longer. I've actually gotten to the level with Tarver where I can tell
just from the header and sender what I'm going to see if I click that header
open to read it. :-))
The deal is; Tarver counts coup' on a thread like this one. He throws out
the bait and then sits back and watches the responses roll in. Hell, I'm
willing to bet he's counting on this one lasting till Thanksgiving! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt