Talk:Pitot–static system

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge from Pitot tube ?

message: Support Makes more sense to include it here. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Static port?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Aviation History? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The U.S. GPO Style Guide, pg 44 [], shows pitot tube as lowercase.Cookn7 (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitot vs. pitot 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Engine pitot-static system 

message: WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination.  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 Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: *The references section should go before ELs and see also - Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GAN on hold

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pitot static instruments