Talk:Pitot–static system

	Pitot–static system has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 26, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 11, 2006.

	This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Aviation: Aircraft This article is supported by the aircraft project. defunct .MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Kollsman window is always capitalized as it's named after Mr. Kollsman. But you are correct, pitot is usually lower cased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.204.12.93 (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. GPO Style Guide, pg 44 [[1]], shows pitot tube as lowercase.Cookn7 (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Jet Engines like the Pratt & Whitney 220 use a pitot-static system independent of the aircraft to schedule its on-board control modules. I have no reference for this except that I see the pitot tube on the front of the engines every day at work, and I test the engine modules for the Jet Shop.--Colputt 04:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan

]

GAN on hold

• The references section should go before ELs and see also -  DoneChrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead could do with expansion and clarification...doesn't summarise the article, and is unclear at some stages as to what it's talking about. A rewrite would be best, probably.
  • Looking good.
    H₂O) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• "which measures the ram air pressure, which" - try using a different word instead of which... -  Done Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "While the explanations below explain traditional, mechanical instruments many modern" - a comma before "many modern"? -  Done Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "like the ones described above." - rather than "above", just use something like the section name...is a bit awkward otherwise -  Done Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Some subsections in the Pitot-static instruments section are short, despite some long main articles
  • I did some expansion here, but tried to limit the scope of these sections to how the pitot-static system affects the performance of these intruments (I dont want to rewrite an article on the altimeter, just explaoin how the altimiter works in relation to the pitot-static system). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that looks good.
      H₂O) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Fix the spaced em dashes in the Pitot-static errors section (there shouldn't be spaces, per WP:DASH)  Done Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in Pitot-static related disasters section  Done Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "See Austral Líneas Aéreas Flight 2553." - make this a sentence or put it as a see also link -  Done Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 2nd para of Blocked static port section unsourced -  Done Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, that's about it. Leave a note on my talk page when done, please. Cheers,

H₂O) 12:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Pitot static instruments

I believe it is misleading to state that two air data computers receive pitot and static data from independent pitot/static systems. This information does not apply to a large percentage of aircraft. For example, small regional turboprop aircraft (such as the Saab 340) have only one air data computer which receives pitot static information from only one system (with left and right pitot/static heads). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamelTheConehead (talk • contribs) 12:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CamelTheConehead. I have amended the offending paragraph to clarify that not all aircraft have two air data computers. Dolphin (t) 12:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]