ASIs and static tubes
- Thread starter BobH
- Start date
Old shitters? Do explain.
It's nothing to do with Yiddish AFAIK...
At the time I had an X-Air Falcon, and everyone started calling it the old shitter after it had been labelled with that moniker.
They are all older, fairly unglamorous looking aircraft, but are great for hours building, and flying for enjoyment as opposed to A->B rushing.
They are relatively cheap, fairly robust and maybe critical of poor stick/rudder co-ordination but tend not to bite without persistent provocation.
So, the term has been applied to the AX3/AX2000/X-Air+Falcon/Thruster etc...
Hmmm, well the definition I linked to includes "ineffectual and old".
Which as we know is Random's view of anything not pulled along by a 912 and costing more than the national annual average income.
But you knew that...
Which as we know is Random's view of anything not pulled along by a 912 and costing more than the national annual average income.
But you knew that...
Old shitters can be 912 powered. There are 912 powered Falcons. They are still regarded by the Kent and Sussex massive as old shitters.
The old shitter had one last act of revenge, after its sale in mid 2019, it then blocked in the person who christened it "the old shitter" and for a while he had to move it out and back to go flying.
As you know... well, you don't... microlight flying is convenient but for something really stunning it's free flight, either hang gliding or paragliding, 3,400m in North Macedonia, having climbed there from 600m, or 13,000ft over the Sistema Centrale near Avila, or over six hours and just under 100km on the last day, again in North Macedonia... all on something that cost under £2k, including the reserve and instruments, and no paperwork... in paragliding terms my glider and harness are old, but were well chosen... It's not about bling, but the experience. Anyone in doubt about flying experience wants to read some of Ginge's writings... he nails it...
Anyway, back to old shitters and 912s and mounds of paperwork...
!Repitition of 'experience'!
- It's 'Old Shitters' that's on the card.
The formula for calibration of an Air Speed Indicator with a water-tube is:
The difference in heights of the water in inches multiplied by 1536, then take the square root of the result, which then becomes the reading you should see on the Knots scale of the ASI.
Back to the plot, no-one has mentioned the pitot-static probes fitted to Cessnas. Solves the static port problem quite well. These pitot sensors are dual purpose. They have a forward-facing hole at the stick-out pointy end and holes drilled into the sides of said tube. There are separate pipe connections fed out from each - pointing end is Pitot pressure and side holes give the constantly pressing thing.
- It's 'Old Shitters' that's on the card.
The formula for calibration of an Air Speed Indicator with a water-tube is:
The difference in heights of the water in inches multiplied by 1536, then take the square root of the result, which then becomes the reading you should see on the Knots scale of the ASI.
Back to the plot, no-one has mentioned the pitot-static probes fitted to Cessnas. Solves the static port problem quite well. These pitot sensors are dual purpose. They have a forward-facing hole at the stick-out pointy end and holes drilled into the sides of said tube. There are separate pipe connections fed out from each - pointing end is Pitot pressure and side holes give the constantly pressing thing.
Last edited:
So Antoni, are you saying that the Cessna pitot is a tube within a tube? With the inner tube having the open end at the front and the outer tube being blocked at the front but having holes in the sides? That would make sense (I suppose), not that I've any experience of such things, but it would allow for a single (looking) fat tube.
They can be as you describe Bob, but mostly on microlights they are two tubes mounted together
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/pitot15144.php
I tend to think that in many microlights - at least flex wings, open cockpit types and older designs with draughty cockpits (the ones that Randombloke has a derogatory name for) using the static straight out the back of the instrument is probably ok. Having a static mounted outside is done because the air pressure inside the cockpit can vary but it's common in bigger aeroplanes to have an internal alternative static that can be switched to if the external one ices up - so it can't be that critical.
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/pitot15144.php
I tend to think that in many microlights - at least flex wings, open cockpit types and older designs with draughty cockpits (the ones that Randombloke has a derogatory name for) using the static straight out the back of the instrument is probably ok. Having a static mounted outside is done because the air pressure inside the cockpit can vary but it's common in bigger aeroplanes to have an internal alternative static that can be switched to if the external one ices up - so it can't be that critical.
Bob, yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot_tube
Wiki - as always - is your friend. There's a diagram on the page, and the lower of the three examples in it is what I'm on about. Below that diagram is another showing the air pipe conections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot_tube
Wiki - as always - is your friend. There's a diagram on the page, and the lower of the three examples in it is what I'm on about. Below that diagram is another showing the air pipe conections.
Gentreau,
I don't have a VSI. I had one in one of my flexwings but took it off as being a waste of good dashboard space that could be better employed. Instead I fitted a second altimeter, so I can set one on QFE and the other on QNH. I'm a lazy bugger and can't be bothered to work out the QFE/QNH numbers when I go somewhere else, so I just have the two altis, one set on London Colney QFE and the other on the local QNH. I then adjust the QNH according to the traffic controller at the airfield I'm going to, and land and take off on that. Then when I come back to Colney I know that my QFE is going to be pretty much correct.
I don't have a VSI. I had one in one of my flexwings but took it off as being a waste of good dashboard space that could be better employed. Instead I fitted a second altimeter, so I can set one on QFE and the other on QNH. I'm a lazy bugger and can't be bothered to work out the QFE/QNH numbers when I go somewhere else, so I just have the two altis, one set on London Colney QFE and the other on the local QNH. I then adjust the QNH according to the traffic controller at the airfield I'm going to, and land and take off on that. Then when I come back to Colney I know that my QFE is going to be pretty much correct.
Maybe you could obtain or make some plugs or covers for the pitot and static ports all connected by a cord and a red "Remove before flight" flag just like "proper" aircraft have? It would also stop insects crawling into the ports and blocking them as I've had in the past. Seems quicker, easier and cheaper than making a complete cover.
Last edited:
So middle class, so Radio Four, so stuck in the 1970s...
How did you end up there? I wouldn't have thought that was you, but what should I think that's based on fact? Nothing to go on, except your superb ASI check...
Are you auditioning as the next host?
I love them for what they are. I'm not interested in what others think of the thing I'm flying, unless it's factual safety or technical, and of course microlight pilots are often driven either by peer pressure of a need for bling... Don't worry too much about what they are called, as someone who grew up partly in Essex in the early 1970s will tell you. It's not a moniker born out of antipathy but out of reality... and the reality was I flew one for 2 years and did very well out of it...
How did you end up there? I wouldn't have thought that was you, but what should I think that's based on fact? Nothing to go on, except your superb ASI check...
Are you auditioning as the next host?
I love them for what they are. I'm not interested in what others think of the thing I'm flying, unless it's factual safety or technical, and of course microlight pilots are often driven either by peer pressure of a need for bling... Don't worry too much about what they are called, as someone who grew up partly in Essex in the early 1970s will tell you. It's not a moniker born out of antipathy but out of reality... and the reality was I flew one for 2 years and did very well out of it...
Sorry chaps, I find that translation of alte kakers disturbing. I strikes me, possibly wrongly, as a boyish attempt to introduce a vulgar term into the microlighting lexicon. There are enough acceptable words and phrases available.
As they say: "please remember, ladies present".
As they say: "please remember, ladies present".
I used to have some racing snails, but I thought if I cut their shells off they'd go even quicker. Didn't work though, if anything it just made them more sluggish!
When you translate into another language, you take on the culture, aspirations, norms and inhibitions of that language. I didn't say alte kaker.
The context is English in the South East of England:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit
You are all worrying too much. Where were you when I was at school in Harlow? Looking up "alte kaker" in the local library?
The context is English in the South East of England:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit
You are all worrying too much. Where were you when I was at school in Harlow? Looking up "alte kaker" in the local library?
Randombloke,
I must admit it made me laugh when I read recently that Mrs Merkel used the expression "shitstorm" in the German Bundestag, and was totally unrepentent when challenged on using a rude word. She said the term had entered the German language from English as a single entity, not as two words, and therefore could be used in its entirety to mean exactly what it says!
Apparently she got away with it, and I believe that other members of the Bundestag have used it since. However, here in a polite forum, where argument is okay as long as it remains intellectual and not personal, the use of the vernacular such as 'shit' is frowned upon. Furthermore, I don't find it very appealing as a description of all the aircraft I own, and being old and slow (as am I) all of them would fall under the expression 'old shitters' if what you said held sway.
Oh, one further thing, a friend of mine who did his MA in Old and Middle English told me the origin of the word 'shit' in English is that it's from the Old Norse 'Skit' or 'Skitter' meaning to slide or move quickly. To a point I agree with him, but since reading the Wikipedia article you put the link to above, I believe that my friend's version is only half the story. We had Jutes, Angles and Saxons here long before we had the Vikings, and as 'scheisse' is an old Germanic word, I think it would have been here already before the Vikings reinforced its use through their own additions to our language.
Oh, and one last thing. When I lived in Waltham for a year (it's just outside of Canterbury) before going to uni as a mature student, I lived on Kake street. I wonder if there's any relationship between that street name and 'kaker'? I'd laugh if there was, but then again, the UK is littered with place and road names that would be very rude if used today.
I must admit it made me laugh when I read recently that Mrs Merkel used the expression "shitstorm" in the German Bundestag, and was totally unrepentent when challenged on using a rude word. She said the term had entered the German language from English as a single entity, not as two words, and therefore could be used in its entirety to mean exactly what it says!
Apparently she got away with it, and I believe that other members of the Bundestag have used it since. However, here in a polite forum, where argument is okay as long as it remains intellectual and not personal, the use of the vernacular such as 'shit' is frowned upon. Furthermore, I don't find it very appealing as a description of all the aircraft I own, and being old and slow (as am I) all of them would fall under the expression 'old shitters' if what you said held sway.
Oh, one further thing, a friend of mine who did his MA in Old and Middle English told me the origin of the word 'shit' in English is that it's from the Old Norse 'Skit' or 'Skitter' meaning to slide or move quickly. To a point I agree with him, but since reading the Wikipedia article you put the link to above, I believe that my friend's version is only half the story. We had Jutes, Angles and Saxons here long before we had the Vikings, and as 'scheisse' is an old Germanic word, I think it would have been here already before the Vikings reinforced its use through their own additions to our language.
Oh, and one last thing. When I lived in Waltham for a year (it's just outside of Canterbury) before going to uni as a mature student, I lived on Kake street. I wonder if there's any relationship between that street name and 'kaker'? I'd laugh if there was, but then again, the UK is littered with place and road names that would be very rude if used today.
Frowned upon by whom? By polite society, and the implication of that is only the well spoken, with the baggage that it carries? It's a word in very common use, so linguistically, the argument is lost...
I'm not holding sway. Denigrating the aircraft that you and Joan fly will not have any positive result, it's very negative. It will also reduce your enjoyment of the forum. It's no loss of freedom of speech on my part to not use it in yours or her presence, so I'd simply not use the expression on the forum. Common sense?
The intention is not reduce the validity of your choice.
On a related note, English is full of euphemisms as people like to grin, smirk, speak about and make jokes about these topics, but then want to be squeamish about the language used.
Eurotrash, end of the last century, had two puppets called Pipi and Popo. Literally, piss and sh*t. Every episode, they pooped up on Ch4 late at night when the Brits were pissed, and virtually no one spotted it. They were often referred to by name. Going to the loo could be regarded as servicing the two puppets. Popo, et son avion, peut être?
I'm with Merkel. You're worrying too much...
It's a word in very common use, so linguistically, the argument is lost...I'm not holding sway. Denigrating the aircraft that you and Joan fly will not have any positive result, it's very negative. It will also reduce your enjoyment of the forum. It's no loss of freedom of speech on my part to not use it in yours or her presence, so I'd simply not use the expression on the forum. Common sense?
The intention is not reduce the validity of your choice.
On a related note, English is full of euphemisms as people like to grin, smirk, speak about and make jokes about these topics, but then want to be squeamish about the language used.
Eurotrash, end of the last century, had two puppets called Pipi and Popo. Literally, piss and sh*t. Every episode, they pooped up on Ch4 late at night when the Brits were pissed, and virtually no one spotted it. They were often referred to by name. Going to the loo could be regarded as servicing the two puppets. Popo, et son avion, peut être?
I'm with Merkel. You're worrying too much...
Randombloke,
You use the language you're used to and I'll use the language I'm used to. Basically, what's said (spoken) among friends is one thing because that's essentially a private conversation. Writing something down and putting it on a public forum is not private, it's very public, and therefore falls under the rules of normal public speech, i.e. no swearing. If you wish to use the vulgar vernacular then feel free, I'm not stopping you, and indeed I use many words at home, or with friends that I would not put in writing here on a public forum where anyone of any age (who is literate) can read them.
The onus is on you to conform to the common rules of decency, not on me to condone your liberal use of the language in writing. Just as I doubt if you'd walk around with your genitals showing in public, even if at home you are a confirmed naturist. There's a time and a place for everything, and personally I'd rather not read vulgar terms when they're not needed in a public place.
P.S. I was an avid watcher of Eurotrash, and I do remember Pipi and Popo, and I was quite aware of what they meant. However, Channel 4 at that time was something of an exception to the normal rules of broadcasting, and the programme was only shown late at night, and well after the watershed time of 9pm, when innocent children should (SHOULD!) be tucked up in bed. I'm sure many of them weren't, but if they watched it in their own homes then they and their parents were agreeing to a suspension of the normal rules of public decency, just as watchers of Naked Attraction do today (another Channel 4 programme).
You use the language you're used to and I'll use the language I'm used to. Basically, what's said (spoken) among friends is one thing because that's essentially a private conversation. Writing something down and putting it on a public forum is not private, it's very public, and therefore falls under the rules of normal public speech, i.e. no swearing. If you wish to use the vulgar vernacular then feel free, I'm not stopping you, and indeed I use many words at home, or with friends that I would not put in writing here on a public forum where anyone of any age (who is literate) can read them.
The onus is on you to conform to the common rules of decency, not on me to condone your liberal use of the language in writing. Just as I doubt if you'd walk around with your genitals showing in public, even if at home you are a confirmed naturist. There's a time and a place for everything, and personally I'd rather not read vulgar terms when they're not needed in a public place.
P.S. I was an avid watcher of Eurotrash, and I do remember Pipi and Popo, and I was quite aware of what they meant. However, Channel 4 at that time was something of an exception to the normal rules of broadcasting, and the programme was only shown late at night, and well after the watershed time of 9pm, when innocent children should (SHOULD!) be tucked up in bed. I'm sure many of them weren't, but if they watched it in their own homes then they and their parents were agreeing to a suspension of the normal rules of public decency, just as watchers of Naked Attraction do today (another Channel 4 programme).