Pitot style pro's and con's

[Shawn]

Hi,
I hope i'm not stepping on anybody's toes with this, but what are the pro's and con's to the different styles of pitot's/averaging pitot tube's that are commonly used? I see various styles out there, but have yet to find any hard data as to why one style is better than the other.
thanks,
shawn

[riga team]

[2seater]

I am guessing you are inquiring about different styles of pitot sensing devices? I too have seen many different styles but I only have experience with the averaging style made by Bruce. They appear to work quite well and have been checked against machined orifice plates to verify the calibration of the flow tube is correct. I suspect many different styles will work fine, although it is a good idea to check the flow indication against a known standard.

[Shawn]

[2seater]

The only way to answer that would be to try several types and compare the results. Some are quite expensive and I too have seen the claims about the proper shape and such. I do believe the averaging type does make the most sense, and it may be completely true about various shapes ??? The ones from Bruce are reasonably priced, help support the forum and work well for me. I use six sizes from 1" through 3" and three calibration orifices for comparison. Perhaps there is some information to be gleaned from the pass around plate tests if different types of pitot units were used for the testing?

[bruce]

Well I have seen no difference in my flow element/averaging pitot compared to the FP flow element design on my bench. I've not compared them to any other style of pitot setup.

[Shawn]

I figured that was the case, that there really isn't to big of a difference using them to measure in the manner that we need. I'm going to get one from Bruce, but was curious to see if anyone else had tested them in that way.
thanks,
shawn