Chuck Yeager-pitot tube

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.

"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.

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
e.com


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.

"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.

From: Jim Thomas
Date: 10/7/2003 8:22 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: . net

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

Jim Thomas

I bet the X-1 had a pitot-static tube witch detects pitot and static pressure.
In fact he said "pitot tube" which only detects pitot pressure. There really is
a difference between a pitot and a pitot-static tube. Then tarver came along
and said a pitot tube "produces" pressure. Neither a pitot tube nor a pitot
static tube produces pressure, they simply sense them. If you do a google or
other search on tarver and "P1T0" "pitot ports" and other terms he has made up
you will see he's been arguing for years. He origionally said pitot came form
P1T0 until enough of us told him about Henri Pitot wt which time he started
telling us no jet aircraft had pitot tubes, they use "pitot ports" instead,
that both pitot and staic pressures are measured at "screened over static
ports" that pitot tubes sense air temperature, that mud wasps inhabit pitot
tubes, that pitot tubes measure temerature for use in jet engines ...etc ad
nauseum.

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

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

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

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Jim Thomas
Date: 10/7/2003 8:22 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: . net

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

Jim Thomas

I bet the X-1 had a pitot-static tube

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

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

From: Jim Thomas
Date: 10/7/2003 8:22 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: . net

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

Jim Thomas

I bet the X-1 had a pitot-static tube witch detects pitot and static pressure.
In fact he said "pitot tube" which only detects pitot pressure. There really is
a difference between a pitot and a pitot-static tube. Then tarver came along
and said a pitot tube "produces" pressure. Neither a pitot tube nor a pitot
static tube produces pressure, they simply sense them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: Jim Thomas
Date: 10/7/2003 8:22 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: . net

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

Jim Thomas

I bet the X-1 had a pitot-static tube witch detects pitot and static
pressure.
In fact he said "pitot tube" which only detects pitot pressure. There
really is
a difference between a pitot and a pitot-static tube. Then tarver came
along
and said a pitot tube "produces" pressure. Neither a pitot tube nor a
pitot
static tube produces pressure, they simply sense them.

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

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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

[snipped for brevity]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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