Talk:Pitot-static system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

An entry from Pitot-static system appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 11, 2006.

Contents 1 Merge from Pitot tube ? 2 Merge from Static port? 3 Images 4 Aviation History? 5 Pitot vs. pitot 6 Rename article

[edit] Merge from Pitot tube ?

Oppose The Pitot tube predates aircraft by about 170 years and is commonly used in other fields. This present Pitot-static-system article is a stub. If it is desired that it should be expanded that could be done without disturbing the pitot tube article. The Pitot tube article itself needs more information, especially in the non-aircraft area. Meggar 06:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose completely, per Meggar above. Absolutely correct analysis of the situation. ericg ✈ 08:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment that further discussion on the subject is taking place at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Aircraft. Chrisd87 11:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Static port?

Support Makes more sense to include it here. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Support The static port is a part of the pitot-static system and it makes sense that it is included with the system is it a part of. Jasonc1201 22:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Support It's the best thing for it. Djmckee1 08:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I can see the first 2 images fine, but the last 3 don't show up. I'm using IE6. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am using the newest version of I.E (7 i think). I do not know why they would not show. they are in JPG format. I am not all that familiar with images. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They are working fine now. Go figure.Askari Mark (Talk) 23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aviation History?

Even a STUB should have a history

Does anyone know when this was first used in flight? Also non-aviation apps include Gas Turbine Engine monitoring. Mkouklis 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am working on a hiustory section now. at least trying to find some sources for it. There are fairly limited sources. I will keep looking though because I asked myself the same question. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pitot vs. pitot

An editor has recently gone through this article to capitalize "pitot" throughout — as it has been also in the Pitot tube article. While the Pitot/pitot tube is named after its inventor, Henri Pitot, predominant common usage is for "pitot tube" to be written in lower case (except at the start of a sentence, of course). (In fact, I can't ever recall seeing it written other than as "pitot".) Isn't it Wikipedia policy to use the most common expression? I've raised this issue on the Pitot tube talk page as well so that we can come to a common usage. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remeber in all of the sources I have used, it was lower case. I think its use in print sources is a pretty good idea to the common usage. I will take a look at my pilots manual thingy when I get home. I will also check out FAA documentation on how it is used there. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As I remebered, in FAA documentation, both the term "pitot tube" and "pitot-static system" are not in capatalized. Do you think this is good enough to determine common usage? (I will still check my print sources at home). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe so, but I wanted to give the editor who did it a chance to chime in as to his rationale. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename article

After a little more research, it looks like pitot static systems do not explicitly apply to aircraft (I knew that, somwhere in the back of my head but just dident put it together when naming the article). DOes anybody think a rename to Pitot-static system (aircraft) or something like that would be a more appropriate name? I think if we included all pitot stat systems, what they are used for, etc etc this article could become massive and a bit out of focus. Just an idea, wanted to get some feedback on the idea? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Most pitot-static systems are used on aircraft as far as I'm aware. This article can be easily amended to incorporate other uses and since they all work the same, I see no need to have separate articles for aircraft and other uses. So, for the time being, I'd say let's wait and see how the article develops.Askari Mark (Talk) 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is common to use a pitot tube connected to a differential pressure gauge to measure velocity of fluid flow in pipes or ducts. It would be quite unusual to call the result a pitot-static system. So, no need for a rename, it is already an aviation specific term, as are other terms in this article, such as airspeed-indicator, altimeter, air-data-computer. Also no point in including other uses. That is why we have a pitot-tube article. Meggar 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was what i was looking for! Thanks for the feedback on that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)