I believe hot wire anemometers (HWA, frequently used in wind tunnels to measure flow velocity) or other sensitive techniques could be used to determine the airspeed. Are there specific reasons for why the aircraft industry continues to use pitot-static instruments? Or is it just tradition?

A nice link on HWA's: The hot wire anemometer

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ My suspicion is that pitot tubes are extremely robust. By their nature, there's no air flowing through the tube and thus there's little risk of debris building up and blocking it. (Although I have had mudwasps build a nest in my pitot tube, which caused much hilarity when it clogged shut immediately after rotation.) $\endgroup$ Oct 18 '20 at 16:22
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What would be the advantages of changing, and would those advantages outweigh the costs? Remember the old adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". $\endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Oct 18 '20 at 16:40
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ The pitot (more exactly: Prandtl) tube measures exactly the quantity which determines lift: Dynamic pressure. A hot wire or laser backscatter measurement has interpretation steps involved which the Prandtl tube doesn't need. $\endgroup$ Oct 18 '20 at 18:08
  • $\begingroup$ We have two closely related questions on this: here and here. Does one of them help? $\endgroup$
    – Pondlife
    Oct 18 '20 at 19:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Pondlife They are similarly themed but I think the posted here is a lot more helpful. Thanks tho! $\endgroup$ Oct 19 '20 at 4:02

The linked article says that an HWA (hot-wire anenometer) is

fragile and requires complex equations to relate the sensed value to the fluid speed as well as correct for inherent, unavoidable nonlinearities as well as external factors such as fluid type, ambient temperature, humidity, and angle between the flow and the sensor.

Conditions in a wind tunnel or other lab equipment are far more predictable, and change much more slowly and much less, than those encountered during an outdoor flight through variable weather.

Although industrial variants of the HWA don't expose the fragile sensing wire to damage or dirt accumulation (the dirt as thermal insulation causes the sensor to report incorrectly; rain or ice would still affect an aircraft-mounted one), they still need to correct for density, humidity, temperature, and flow angle. A four-dimensional lookup table takes a lot of work to create and store. Outside the lab the pitot tube is more reliable, even if it is more "primitive."

HWAs have been flown, but only as test equipment, not as sensors for primary flight instruments. For example, this set of HWAs flew on an F-15B to characterize flows in the boundary layer, sampled many thousands of times per second, far more sensitive than a pitot tube. But between each 30-second measurement interval, the HWAs were retracted inside the airplane for protection.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer. A very interesting point on them being used on the F-15! $\endgroup$ Oct 19 '20 at 4:04

Hot wire anemometers are great for measuring turbulent fluctuations on a very fine timescale (say kHz). This is really not needed for aircraft speed. The very same wind tunnels that use HWA or LDA (laser Doppler anemometry) or PIV (particle image velocimetry) for detailed measurements themselves usually use Pitot tubes to measure the reference windspeed in the tunnel. It is robust, remains calibrated and will smooth out the fine turbulent fluctuations, which is actually a good thing if you are interested in the speed only.


Most modern car engines have a computer to balance fuel-air mixture, ignition timing and other factors to give best performance or fuel economy. A hot-wire Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor is a very common way to supply air flow data, there are also cold-wire versions. Although they are very reliable for that application there are a few issues which would make them less than ideal for aviation:

  1. They are relatively fragile, fine for automotive air flows but they wouldn't stand up to higher air flows
  2. They are sensitive to oil, aerosols and other airborne contaminants which would effect their accuracy. These accuracy issues can be hard to detect as they aren't outright failures. In a car an inaccurate air flow sensor leads to inefficient combustion which limits power and efficiency, in flight inaccuracy would be a major safety issue
  3. Cold wire systems are slower to respond to airspeed changes

The electrical airspeed sensors I know of are all pressure transducers, which are accurate and don't have the flaws I listed above.

The thing you also have to be aware of is that hot or cold wire systems need a laminar flow of air to be accurate, you'd still need a pitot system or something similar to direct the flow of air over the sensor for it to give the correct reading.

Of course, the biggest drawback to any computerized sensor system is that they are reliant on electrical power.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ HWA sensor in cars benefits from at least 3 additional advantages: An air filter to limit the dust in the airflow, no need for an absolute (long-term) stability and frequent shutdowns of the engine when a maintenance (by self-heating) can be performed. It is also clearly not that much important - the engine can be acceptably controlled by the MAP (pressure sensor) alone. Not to say that the car is inherently safe even with completely failed engine. $\endgroup$
    – fraxinus
    Oct 19 '20 at 8:19
  • $\begingroup$ Not disagreeing with you @fraxinus, I would say that many non turbo cars don't have a MAP, if the MAF fails the ECU falls back to static maps. The engine will still work with reduced power and/or efficiency. $\endgroup$
    – GdD
    Oct 19 '20 at 8:26
  • $\begingroup$ Also, there would seem to be a considerable amount of redundancy in the automotive case. The air flow sensor isn't the only sensor in the system. If it reads too low, the exhaust sensors will detect a too rich mixture, and the ECU could be programmed to correct for it. Using it as the direct source of air speed means there is no redundancy. (Other than "seat of pants" flying, of course.) $\endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Oct 19 '20 at 17:09
  • $\begingroup$ Not really @jamesqf, the computer may know something is wrong but often times you'll have to some detective work to trace what's going on. But, it isn't critical. With an aviation application you'd have at least 2 of everything important anyway, but as we've seen that doesn't always solve the problem $\endgroup$
    – GdD
    Oct 19 '20 at 20:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.