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

"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

"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. :-)

"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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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

"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" 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.

"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.