Re: Bwahahahahaha

[Jim Knoyle]

"JL Grasso" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:50:00 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan
> >>> says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you
> >>> need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static
> >>> pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're
> >>> saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure'
> >>> alone. Or did I misunderstand you?
> >>
> >>Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still
wants
> >>to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.
> >>
> >
> >I know...ain't life a bitch John :) :)
>
> Jim is likley talking about a pitot tube assembly which contains static
> ports along the side of the tube (P1, S1 and S2 ports as they're commonly
> referred to). The fact that you don't get it surprises no one, splaps boy.
> I'm sure Gord is just humoring you.
>
> Read page 5 very closely, splappy:
> http://www.sensors.goodrich.com/literature/lit_pdfs/4080_Pitot_Probes.pdf
>
>
Actually, the discussion was about the term "Total" as the
label above one of the fittings on an air data computer reads.
In his usual (dishonest) style, Splaps has snipped important
info. His claim is that this fitting is connected to more than
one sensor. (WRONG)
This fitting is connected to only *one* pitot tube. (either type)
The term "Total" in this case refers to altitude pressure plus
impact pressure.
The other fitting on the ADC reads "Static" and is connected to
static ports (either type) which detect altitude pressure *only*.
This altitude pressure gives the altitude and is also used to
remove that irrelevant altitude pressure from "Total" resulting in
airspeed. Computers are good at stuff like that. :-)

Since Splaps seems to be ignoring it, here's something from
a couple days ago:
"The obvious giveaway as to whether a modern aircraft utilizes the older
simple pitot tube or the newer pitot/static combined tube is the number
of tubes/probes installed on the aircraft. As I've stated before, the
727/757 and DC-10 have three standard simple pitot probes mounted
in the nose.
The static ports are flush mounted on both sides back by the fwd. cargo
door.
The two mounted up on the vertical stab. of a 727 or 737 for ELF are
the standard pitot tube.

On the other hand, the four probes mounted on the nose of a 737 or 747
and 767 are of the combined pitot/static port.

John, doesn't it just **** you off that, in spite of your warnings about
mud bees, Boeing chose to ignore you and utilize the simple pitot tubes
on the nose and flush mounted static ports on the sides of the 777 ???

When the Boeing Engineers aren't laughing at you they are ignoring you!"

JK

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JL Grasso" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:50:00 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan
> > >>> says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you
> > >>> need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static
> > >>> pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're
> > >>> saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure'
> > >>> alone. Or did I misunderstand you?
> > >>
> > >>Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still
> wants
> > >>to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.
> > >>
> > >
> > >I know...ain't life a bitch John :) :)
> >
> > Jim is likley talking about a pitot tube assembly which contains static
> > ports along the side of the tube (P1, S1 and S2 ports as they're
commonly
> > referred to). The fact that you don't get it surprises no one, splaps
boy.
> > I'm sure Gord is just humoring you.
> >
> > Read page 5 very closely, splappy:
> >
http://www.sensors.goodrich.com/literature/lit_pdfs/4080_Pitot_Probes.pdf
> >
> >
> Actually, the discussion was about the term "Total" as the
> label above one of the fittings on an air data computer reads.
> In his usual (dishonest) style, Splaps has snipped important
> info. His claim is that this fitting is connected to more than
> one sensor. (WRONG)
> This fitting is connected to only *one* pitot tube. (either type)
> The term "Total" in this case refers to altitude pressure plus
> impact pressure.
> The other fitting on the ADC reads "Static" and is connected to
> static ports (either type) which detect altitude pressure *only*.
> This altitude pressure gives the altitude and is also used to
> remove that irrelevant altitude pressure from "Total" resulting in
> airspeed. Computers are good at stuff like that. :-)
>
> Since Splaps seems to be ignoring it, here's something from
> a couple days ago:
> "The obvious giveaway as to whether a modern aircraft utilizes the older
> simple pitot tube or the newer pitot/static combined tube is the number
> of tubes/probes installed on the aircraft. As I've stated before, the
> 727/757 and DC-10 have three standard simple pitot probes mounted
> in the nose.
> The static ports are flush mounted on both sides back by the fwd. cargo
> door.
> The two mounted up on the vertical stab. of a 727 or 737 for ELF are
> the standard pitot tube.
>
> On the other hand, the four probes mounted on the nose of a 737 or 747
> and 767 are of the combined pitot/static port.
>
> John, doesn't it just **** you off that, in spite of your warnings about
> mud bees, Boeing chose to ignore you and utilize the simple pitot tubes
> on the nose and flush mounted static ports on the sides of the 777 ???
>
> When the Boeing Engineers aren't laughing at you they are ignoring you!"
>
> JK
>
A close reading of Tarver/Splapy's responses appear to indicate he is
slightly confused over/between "State of the Art Technology" circa 1960 &
present re the system being discussed.

Perhaps this "State of Confusion" is due not having worked with/being
current on this system.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JL Grasso" > wrote in message
> ...

Burning gas bags on the horizon ...

Bwahahahahahahahaha

[Jim Knoyle]

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> A close reading of Tarver/Splapy's responses appear to indicate he is
> slightly confused over/between "State of the Art Technology" circa 1960 &
> present re the system being discussed.
>
> Perhaps this "State of Confusion" is due not having worked with/being
> current on this system.

No doubt about that, Ralph.

His insistence that there are 2 or more tubes connected to DADC "total"
brings up a cartoon in my mind, trying to teach Splaps how to do a
simple pitot system leak test. Has to be one of the simplest tests that
are done on an aircraft. What you do with a failed test is another story.
As much as Splaps despises the MM, I urge him to read the book.

I bet they utilize the same tester on a 777 that I used on a 707, a simple
blood pressure testing setup with a rubber hose substituting for the
cuff and an old altimeter indicator replaces the sphygmomanometer.
Slip the hose over the tube and pump the system up to a certain value
and make sure the bleed off, if any, is within spec.

Splaps yells, "Ouch!"

Aw, Splaps, I told you to read the book. You're supposed to turn off
the Pitot Heat.

JK

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > A close reading of Tarver/Splapy's responses appear to indicate he is
> > slightly confused over/between "State of the Art Technology" circa 1960
&
> > present re the system being discussed.
> >
> > Perhaps this "State of Confusion" is due not having worked with/being
> > current on this system.
>
> No doubt about that, Ralph.
>
> His insistence that there are 2 or more tubes connected to DADC "total"
> brings up a cartoon in my mind, trying to teach Splaps how to do a
> simple pitot system leak test. Has to be one of the simplest tests that
> are done on an aircraft. What you do with a failed test is another story.
> As much as Splaps despises the MM, I urge him to read the book.
>
> I bet they utilize the same tester on a 777 that I used on a 707, a simple
> blood pressure testing setup with a rubber hose substituting for the
> cuff and an old altimeter indicator replaces the sphygmomanometer.
> Slip the hose over the tube and pump the system up to a certain value
> and make sure the bleed off, if any, is within spec.
>
> Splaps yells, "Ouch!"
>
> Aw, Splaps, I told you to read the book. You're supposed to turn off
> the Pitot Heat.
>
> JK
>
Perhaps not you, but many would be surprised at the number of Pitot Covers
with associated red flags have been set on fire by the Pitot Heaters.

I have seen many red faced/embarrassed mechanics standing around looking
sheepish as the FD/CFR/ARFF Group dealt with burning Pitot Covers & attached
Red Flags used to keep out/assure any local "Mud Wasps" do not attempt to
set up residence in Pitot Tubes over the years.This is especially so when
the red flag from a upper Pitot Tube burns off & the red flag catches on a
lower Pitot Tube allowing the burning remains of the cover/red flag to
"Scorch" the paint before falling off.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

[B2431]

>From: "Ralph Nesbitt"

>
>"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> >
>> > A close reading of Tarver/Splapy's responses appear to indicate he is
>> > slightly confused over/between "State of the Art Technology" circa 1960
>&
>> > present re the system being discussed.
>> >
>> > Perhaps this "State of Confusion" is due not having worked with/being
>> > current on this system.
>>
>> No doubt about that, Ralph.
>>
>> His insistence that there are 2 or more tubes connected to DADC "total"
>> brings up a cartoon in my mind, trying to teach Splaps how to do a
>> simple pitot system leak test. Has to be one of the simplest tests that
>> are done on an aircraft. What you do with a failed test is another story.
>> As much as Splaps despises the MM, I urge him to read the book.
>>
>> I bet they utilize the same tester on a 777 that I used on a 707, a simple
>> blood pressure testing setup with a rubber hose substituting for the
>> cuff and an old altimeter indicator replaces the sphygmomanometer.
>> Slip the hose over the tube and pump the system up to a certain value
>> and make sure the bleed off, if any, is within spec.
>>
>> Splaps yells, "Ouch!"
>>
>> Aw, Splaps, I told you to read the book. You're supposed to turn off
>> the Pitot Heat.
>>
>> JK
>>
>Perhaps not you, but many would be surprised at the number of Pitot Covers
>with associated red flags have been set on fire by the Pitot Heaters.
>
>I have seen many red faced/embarrassed mechanics standing around looking
>sheepish as the FD/CFR/ARFF Group dealt with burning Pitot Covers & attached
>Red Flags used to keep out/assure any local "Mud Wasps" do not attempt to
>set up residence in Pitot Tubes over the years.This is especially so when
>the red flag from a upper Pitot Tube burns off & the red flag catches on a
>lower Pitot Tube allowing the burning remains of the cover/red flag to
>"Scorch" the paint before falling off.
>Ralph Nesbitt
>Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
>
Cloth pitot tube covers are intended to burn off without damaging the pitot
tube should someone leave the heat on. Unfortunately it happens.

On a 6 ACCS KC-135 at Langley AFB in the mid 1970s some genius crew cheif made
some plexiglas pitot tube covers. They looked pretty. Result: one crewchief in
the ER and one very torqued off instruments shop having to replace both pitot
tubes.

I have seen some metal pitot tube covers over the years.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired