Re: IFR in the 1930's

[Dick]

Let me change that from "any thoughts" to "any helpful" thoughts <G>.


"Dick" > wrote in message
m...
> Staring at my empty instrument panel while considering which instruments
and
> their placement, I got wondering how old time Mail pilots flew if caught
in
> IFR conditions.
>
> On my project plane, I'm considering just a airspeed/altitude/ ball & tube
> slip (no needle) indicator/compass setup in order to avoid the venturi or
> vacuum pump setup. Since I consider "electric" too expensive and wondered
> whether a dome style compass might be the key??
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks, Dick -Lakeland, Florida
>
>

[Jan Carlsson]

Dick,

The first instrument flight was made 1919 by Jim Doolittle, with no
visibility at all. Good reading is the "I could never be so lucky again"
and also "The Spirit of ST Louis" (1953) The last one tells a lot about how
it was to be a mail pilot in the 20's

Jan Carlsson
www.jcpropellerdesign.com

"Dick" > skrev i meddelandet
m...
> Staring at my empty instrument panel while considering which instruments
and
> their placement, I got wondering how old time Mail pilots flew if caught
in
> IFR conditions.
>
> On my project plane, I'm considering just a airspeed/altitude/ ball & tube
> slip (no needle) indicator/compass setup in order to avoid the venturi or
> vacuum pump setup. Since I consider "electric" too expensive and wondered
> whether a dome style compass might be the key??
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks, Dick -Lakeland, Florida
>
>

[David Megginson]

"Dick" > writes:

> Let me change that from "any thoughts" to "any helpful" thoughts <G>.

In his AvWeb piece on scud-running, Rick Durden mentions that the mail
pilots in the 1920's just kept flying lower until they could see the
ground, even if that meant skimming the tree-tops:

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182679-1.html

By the 1930's, I imagine, some of them had gyroscopic instruments.
Perhaps Rick can point us to online references.


All the best,


David

[Bill Daniels]

As a geezer who learned to fly "blind" with needle, ball and airspeed I can
say that in a slow, stable aircraft, that those are enough for rather
precise instrument flight. I can still fly a respectable partial panel NDB
approach with just those instruments + an altimeter. (BTW, I HATE a turn
coordinator.)

For me an attitude indicator and a DG are just icing on the cake.

Bill Daniels

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> You need the turn needle, ball, and airspeed at bare minumum.
> And you'll have to be sharp to fly IMC under those conditions.
>
> If I were planning to fly like this, I'd equip the thing
> properly. Make it easier to stay alive...
>
>
> Richard
>
> Dick wrote:
> >
> > Let me change that from "any thoughts" to "any helpful" thoughts <G>.
> >
> > "Dick" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > Staring at my empty instrument panel while considering which
instruments
> > and
> > > their placement, I got wondering how old time Mail pilots flew if
caught
> > in
> > > IFR conditions.
> > >
> > > On my project plane, I'm considering just a airspeed/altitude/ ball &
tube
> > > slip (no needle) indicator/compass setup in order to avoid the venturi
or
> > > vacuum pump setup. Since I consider "electric" too expensive and
wondered
> > > whether a dome style compass might be the key??
> > >
> > > Any thoughts would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Dick -Lakeland, Florida
> > >
> > >

[Ryan Young]

>>> On my project plane, I'm considering just a airspeed/altitude/ ball & tube
>>> slip (no needle) indicator/compass setup in order to avoid the venturi or
>>> vacuum pump setup. Since I consider "electric" too expensive and wondered
>>> whether a dome style compass might be the key??

Dear Dick,

The comment about "Electric" too expensive puzzles me. Electric DGs and
Artifical Horizons are pricey, yes, but do you have a starter on your bird?
Then an electric turn coordinator will keep you upright, as you turn in a
direction where your whiskey compass is actually a useful instrument. Every
Cessna built since about the time I was born (1959) had one, you can get a
yellow tag one for about the price of a pair of Air Jordan basketball shoes.
A brand new one is less than a clutch job on my Honda.

Cheaper than a grave marker.

Dick,

Since you indicated you did not wish to use a venturi, one alternative
that had been used in the 20-30s for sufficient vacuum/flowrate to reliably
operate a Turn and Bank is to tap off your motor's intake spider downstream
of the carb (on a Continental, you could use one of the pre-threaded primer
fitting holes). What you do is start with a fitting a small hole (~#40 or
so) and, by a series of iterative enlargements, adjust until the level of
desired vacuum was reached at cruise power. This is similar to the standby
vacuum systems now sold for modern aircraft but, as the old vacuum T&Bs
needed less vacuum levels/airflow, one would normally have sufficient vacuum
throughout most flight regimes.

Just a thought.

Mike Bednarek


"Dick" > wrote in message
m...
> Staring at my empty instrument panel while considering which instruments
and
> their placement, I got wondering how old time Mail pilots flew if caught
in
> IFR conditions.
>
> On my project plane, I'm considering just a airspeed/altitude/ ball & tube
> slip (no needle) indicator/compass setup in order to avoid the venturi or
> vacuum pump setup. Since I consider "electric" too expensive and wondered
> whether a dome style compass might be the key??
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks, Dick -Lakeland, Florida
>
>

[Bill Daniels]

"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:26:02 GMT, "Bill Daniels"
> > wrote:
>
> >As a geezer who learned to fly "blind" with needle, ball and airspeed I
can
> >say that in a slow, stable aircraft, that those are enough for rather
> >precise instrument flight. I can still fly a respectable partial panel
NDB
> >approach with just those instruments + an altimeter. (BTW, I HATE a turn
> >coordinator.)
> >
> >For me an attitude indicator and a DG are just icing on the cake.
> >
> >Bill Daniels
>
> I agree with you Bill. The absolute minimum is a needle and ball,
> airspeed, altimeter and compass. I like a few extras myself. If I
> could only have one more instrument it would be a DG. If I could have
> two, it would be a DG then a horizon. I also hate turn coodinators.
> Pieces of crap. The turn needle is much better.
>
> BWB
>
I should have said, "Needle, ball, airspeed, altimeter, CLOCK and wet
compass". Everything depended on being able to read a bouncing wet compass
and timing turns exactly.

Today we have all these fancy gadgets but most of the time we still depend
on the old wet compass for heading data. Every figured what you would do if
the wet compass goes TA while you are in the soup and all you have is a
manually set DG? Been there.

Bill Daniels

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dick wrote:
>
> Staring at my empty instrument panel while considering which instruments and
> their placement, I got wondering how old time Mail pilots flew if caught in
> IFR conditions.

By the 30's, the mail was going by airlines. I assume you mean the old open
cockpit planes of the 20's (like the Pitcairn Mailwing or the earlier Jennie).
A skilled pilot can keep one straight and level by the feel of the relative
wind on his cheeks and the sound of the wind in the wires, combined with the
ball and altimeter. This still isn't as good as a gyro stack, and the accident
rate was high. Lots of the pilots simply put the mail on the train if things
got too bad.

Lindberg discusses some of this in one of his books, and Gann has at least two
novels about the period. I've also read an old book by a veteran mail pilot,
but I have no idea any more what the title was (I checked it out from either
the Knoxville public library or the Bearden High School library in the 60's).

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Badwater Bill wrote:
>
>
> The turn needle is much better.

I had heard this, so that's what I put in my Maule when I bought it. Still
don't know why it's better, though.

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

[David Megginson]

"G.R. Patterson III" > writes:

> A skilled pilot can keep one straight and level by the feel of the
> relative wind on his cheeks and the sound of the wind in the wires,
> combined with the ball and altimeter.

I'm not too sure about the first two -- if relative wind told you
anything at all about whether the wings were level, we be able to use
something simpler than gyroscopic instruments for IFR today. It you
take the last two, ball and altimeter, and add the magnetic compass,
then it would be at least theoretically possible to fly straight
(-ish) and level (-ish) in IMC, though they probably just flew very
close to the ground, as Durden's article suggested.


All the best,


David

[Badwater Bill]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 18:30:47 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Badwater Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>> The turn needle is much better.
>
>I had heard this, so that's what I put in my Maule when I bought it. Still
>don't know why it's better, though.
>
>George Patterson
> Brute force has an elegance all its own.


I'll tell you why. The needle only shows a real turn of the nose.
The turn coordinator will bank on you if you rock the wings and the
nose stays pointed straight ahead. So, the turn coordinator gives you
fales information. If you hit a bump and your left wing lifts
momentarily, the turn coordinator will bank right on you when you
aren't turning at all. Hell, in turbulence the son of a bitch is all
over the place and is unusable. The needle works on a gyro that ONLY
makes the needle move if your nose is changing heading just like the
DG.

You can see the problem. The turn coordinator gives you too much
information but it gives the same indication if you bank or if you
stomp a peddle. That's no good. You don't know what really is
happening...it could be either.

Badwater, "you can stuff them damn turn coordinators" Bill

[Badwater Bill]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 18:28:43 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Dick wrote:
>>
>> Staring at my empty instrument panel while considering which instruments and
>> their placement, I got wondering how old time Mail pilots flew if caught in
>> IFR conditions.
>
>By the 30's, the mail was going by airlines. I assume you mean the old open
>cockpit planes of the 20's (like the Pitcairn Mailwing or the earlier Jennie).
>A skilled pilot can keep one straight and level by the feel of the relative
>wind on his cheeks and the sound of the wind in the wires, combined with the
>ball and altimeter. This still isn't as good as a gyro stack, and the accident
>rate was high. Lots of the pilots simply put the mail on the train if things
>got too bad.
>
>Lindberg discusses some of this in one of his books, and Gann has at least two
>novels about the period. I've also read an old book by a veteran mail pilot,
>but I have no idea any more what the title was (I checked it out from either
>the Knoxville public library or the Bearden High School library in the 60's).
>
>George Patterson
> Brute force has an elegance all its own.


You guys must not remember the "Cat and Duck" method of flying
instruments. Hell, when I was a kid in the 1950's that's all we used.
Any of you young punks know what the hell I'm talking about?

BWB

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>Lindberg discusses some of this in one of his books, and Gann has at least two
>>novels about the period. I've also read an old book by a veteran mail pilot,
>>but I have no idea any more what the title was (I checked it out from either
>>the Knoxville public library or the Bearden High School library in the 60's).
>>
>>George Patterson
>> Brute force has an elegance all its own.
>
>
>You guys must not remember the "Cat and Duck" method of flying
>instruments. Hell, when I was a kid in the 1950's that's all we used.
>Any of you young punks know what the hell I'm talking about?
>
>BWB
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hey -
I'm still a young punk....
at heart.


http://www.skyhawk.org/2D/tinduck.htm
http://www.flippyscatpage.com/instrument.html
http://jokes-quotes.com/contentid-239.html
http://www.eaa445.org/instrument.htm
http://www.ahajokes.com/ani031.html
http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/catduck.html


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight

[Mike Beede]

In article t>, Bill Daniels > wrote:

> Every figured what you would do if
> the wet compass goes TA while you are in the soup and all you have is a
> manually set DG? Been there.

Declare an emergency and request a no-gyro approach. If I'm out
of radar coverage, then I guess I'd just start compensating for drift
as though there were wind, even though it's really precession error.
That would get kind of difficult eventually, so I might be tempted to
reset it based on what I thought the winds really were when I appeared
to be tracking a course accurately. It probably wouldn't be any
worse afterwards....

Did you have some suggestions in mind when you asked the
question? If so, I for one would like to hear them.

Regards,

Mike

[Mike Beede]

In article >, Jan Carlsson > wrote:

> Good reading is the "I could never be so lucky again"
> and also "The Spirit of ST Louis" (1953) The last one tells a lot about how
> it was to be a mail pilot in the 20's

_The Spirit of St. Louis_ is one of those books all pilots should read
(because they'll probably like them), like _Fate is the Hunter_. If I
recall correctly, Lindberg talks about getting caught over a deck
and letting the plane find its own way down while he walks. I think
*that's* how the mail pilots handled hard IFR. (If it's really in a
different book, it still doesn't change the recommendation to read
it!).

Mike

[Bill Daniels]

"Mike Beede" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>, Bill
Daniels > wrote:
>
> > Every figured what you would do if
> > the wet compass goes TA while you are in the soup and all you have is a
> > manually set DG? Been there.
>
> Declare an emergency and request a no-gyro approach. If I'm out
> of radar coverage, then I guess I'd just start compensating for drift
> as though there were wind, even though it's really precession error.
> That would get kind of difficult eventually, so I might be tempted to
> reset it based on what I thought the winds really were when I appeared
> to be tracking a course accurately. It probably wouldn't be any
> worse afterwards....
>
> Did you have some suggestions in mind when you asked the
> question? If so, I for one would like to hear them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike

I declared an emergency and requested a no-gyro approach as you suggested -
even though I had gyros. Then, because I had quite a ways to go to the
first IFR runway, I figured out that the GPS ground track was almost as good
as a wet compass. I just set the DG to the GPS ground track and ignored
wind - which worked as long as I didn't change heading often. That got me
into approach's radar coverage and the no-gyro approach worked from there.

My CFII had told me that there was no backup for a wet compass because "they
never fail" - baloney, the glass cracked and all the fluid ran down the
instrument panel. After that, it wouldn't move. Made me think.

Bill Daniels

[Paul Mennen]

> I'll tell you why. The needle only shows a real turn of the nose.
> The turn coordinator will bank on you if you rock the wings and the
> nose stays pointed straight ahead. So, the turn coordinator gives you
> fales information. If you hit a bump and your left wing lifts
> momentarily, the turn coordinator will bank right on you when you
> aren't turning at all. Hell, in turbulence the son of a bitch is all
> over the place and is unusable. The needle works on a gyro that ONLY
> makes the needle move if your nose is changing heading just like the
> DG.
>
> You can see the problem. The turn coordinator gives you too much
> information but it gives the same indication if you bank or if you
> stomp a peddle. That's no good. You don't know what really is
> happening...it could be either.
>
> Badwater, "you can stuff them damn turn coordinators" Bill

I think you are wrong. The turn coordinator doesn't give you bad
information, just different information.

Consider for a moment what your best response should be if during
straight and level flight you suddenly find yourself in a 30 degree
right bank because of turbulence or any other reason for that matter.
I think you would agree that you should apply left aileron (as well as
left rudder to remain as coordinated as possible) until any turning
and/or banking indications are removed and you are on your proper heading.
This is not that much different from your response if you suddenly find
yourself in a right turn.

Consider also the situation where you are flying partial panel
(i.e. your AI is not working). In response to the 30 degree bank
above, your response with a turn indicator will be nothing since
you won't even know that anything is wrong. Eventually the 30 degree
bank will cause turn and only then will you be able to correct for
it. Assuming you don't over-react to the turn coordinator's indication
you should be able to fly smoother than when using the turn needle
because you can respond sooner. In fact the turn coordinator was invented
because the engineers noticed that their autopilots (connected only to
the rate gyro) flew smoother when the gyro axis was tilted slightly
(and thus causing it to respond somewhat to roll rate in addition to yaw).

While it's true that some pilots fly better with one type of turn indicator
or the other, the difference usually depends on which instrument the
pilot started with or has become most accustomed to. And many pilots
fly just as well using either turn instrument even in turbulence. It often
helps to understand exactly what the needles indicate for the two different
instruments (although surprisingly even that is not always needed).

~Paul

[Bill Daniels]

"Paul Mennen" > wrote in message
m...
> > I'll tell you why. The needle only shows a real turn of the nose.
> > The turn coordinator will bank on you if you rock the wings and the
> > nose stays pointed straight ahead. So, the turn coordinator gives you
> > fales information. If you hit a bump and your left wing lifts
> > momentarily, the turn coordinator will bank right on you when you
> > aren't turning at all. Hell, in turbulence the son of a bitch is all
> > over the place and is unusable. The needle works on a gyro that ONLY
> > makes the needle move if your nose is changing heading just like the
> > DG.
> >
> > You can see the problem. The turn coordinator gives you too much
> > information but it gives the same indication if you bank or if you
> > stomp a peddle. That's no good. You don't know what really is
> > happening...it could be either.
> >
> > Badwater, "you can stuff them damn turn coordinators" Bill
>
> I think you are wrong. The turn coordinator doesn't give you bad
> information, just different information.
>
> Consider for a moment what your best response should be if during
> straight and level flight you suddenly find yourself in a 30 degree
> right bank because of turbulence or any other reason for that matter.
> I think you would agree that you should apply left aileron (as well as
> left rudder to remain as coordinated as possible) until any turning
> and/or banking indications are removed and you are on your proper heading.
> This is not that much different from your response if you suddenly find
> yourself in a right turn.
>
> Consider also the situation where you are flying partial panel
> (i.e. your AI is not working). In response to the 30 degree bank
> above, your response with a turn indicator will be nothing since
> you won't even know that anything is wrong. Eventually the 30 degree
> bank will cause turn and only then will you be able to correct for
> it. Assuming you don't over-react to the turn coordinator's indication
> you should be able to fly smoother than when using the turn needle
> because you can respond sooner. In fact the turn coordinator was invented
> because the engineers noticed that their autopilots (connected only to
> the rate gyro) flew smoother when the gyro axis was tilted slightly
> (and thus causing it to respond somewhat to roll rate in addition to yaw).
>
> While it's true that some pilots fly better with one type of turn
indicator
> or the other, the difference usually depends on which instrument the
> pilot started with or has become most accustomed to. And many pilots
> fly just as well using either turn instrument even in turbulence. It often
> helps to understand exactly what the needles indicate for the two
different
> instruments (although surprisingly even that is not always needed).
>
> ~Paul
>
I have always though of a turn coordinator as a magnificent solution..... to
a non-existent problem.

The purpose of a needle is not only to keep the aircraft upright, it's to
facilitate accurate timed turns to an exact heading. If turbulence bumps
the aircraft to a 30 degree bank but the aircraft does not turn, the ball
will instantly show this by moving toward the low wing. Since the ball does
not over-react, the pilot won't either.

The thing I like most about a needle is that if held exactly on the standard
rate turn "doghouse" timed turns are very accurate - the kind of accuracy
that makes partial panel approaches practical. I've never seen anybody get
that kind of accuracy out of a turn coordinator.

Bill Daniels

[Paul Mennen]

> I have always though of a turn coordinator as a magnificent solution.....
to
> a non-existent problem.

Do you call designing a smooth flying autopilot a non-existing problem?
True some later autopilots achieve smooth flying by tapping off the
attitude indicator, but I believe this is slightly more complicated.
I'll grant you that if it were not for the autopilot problem we would
all be happily flying around with turn and bank indicators.

> If turbulence bumps the aircraft to a 30 degree bank but the aircraft
> does not turn, the ball will instantly show this by moving toward the low
wing.

True. For that reason I shouldn't have said that you wouldn't even
know about the 30 degree bank until the turn started. I was thinking
from the autopilot's perspective. (The autopilot is not hooked to the ball.)

> Since the ball does not over-react, the pilot won't either.

The turn coordinator does not over-react any more than the ball does.
It merely shows the sum of the yaw and roll rate. In any case the response
by the pilot to an unwanted bank angle whether detected from looking at
an AI, TC, or T&B is the same - enter a smooth coordinated turn in the
opposite direction (usually requiring both aileron and rudder opposite
to the unwanted bank) until the airplane is once again straight and level.

I've seen some pilots (esp. those relying mostly on a T&B) respond to
this situation simply by stomping on the rudder opposite to the direction
of the ball deflection. Perhaps the reasoning is - well since it is only
the ball that is out of whack because of the damn turbulence, I'll counter
the turbulence in the most expeditious manner by an equally jarring jab
on the opposite rudder. This works fine unless you have any passengers.
They will turn green about 3 times faster than if you fly properly.

> The thing I like most about a needle is that if held exactly on the
standard
> rate turn "doghouse" timed turns are very accurate - the kind of accuracy
> that makes partial panel approaches practical.

Bill, you are showing your prejudice. It is entirely practical to do
such approaches with either instrument. On my CFII checkride I did a
fine partial panel approach down to 200 feet using my turn coordinator.
I've seen other pilots do this also.

As far as timed turns, remember that once the turn has stabilized
(constant bank angle) the T&B and TC needles show the same thing.
If you roll out of the turn the same way you roll into it, your timed
turns will be accurate. (This is true using either instrument).
The TC needle will react more to turbulence, but if you react to the
indications smoothly (as I described for straight and level flight)
it will do a good job for you.

> I've never seen anybody get that kind of accuracy out of a turn
coordinator.
> Bill Daniels

Well I guess you just haven't looked very hard :)

~Paul

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 19:27:44 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Badwater Bill wrote:
>>
>> You guys must not remember the "Cat and Duck" method of flying
>> instruments. Hell, when I was a kid in the 1950's that's all we used.
>
>Hell, the ASPCA won't let us use cats anymore, and good ducks are hard to find.
>Been hunted too much, I suppose.

Lordy...I have a cat that loves to play catch...Yah have to remember
to be careful though as he's not been declawed. They are long and
sharp, so if he grabs yah, you know which ever way them fish hooks are
pulling is down.

My biggest problem is he's not afraid of heights and killed the last
two ducks.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>George Patterson
> Brute force has an elegance all its own.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Badwater Bill > wrote:
: two, it would be a DG then a horizon. I also hate turn coodinators.
: Pieces of crap. The turn needle is much better.

My limited experience having flown with both (albeit moreso with
the TC than the turn needle), is that the TC is *much* more stable in
turbulence than the stick. Have I just been flying with slow TC and/or
twitchy turn needles?

From what I've seen, keeping the wings level partial panel with
the stick would be almost impossible in turbulence.

Feel free to correct:
-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Steve House]

Hate to sound dense but how do you fly an NDB approach without an ADF?

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> As a geezer who learned to fly "blind" with needle, ball and airspeed I
can
> say that in a slow, stable aircraft, that those are enough for rather
> precise instrument flight. I can still fly a respectable partial panel
NDB
> approach with just those instruments + an altimeter. (BTW, I HATE a turn
> coordinator.)
>
> For me an attitude indicator and a DG are just icing on the cake.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You need the turn needle, ball, and airspeed at bare minumum.
> > And you'll have to be sharp to fly IMC under those conditions.
> >
> > If I were planning to fly like this, I'd equip the thing
> > properly. Make it easier to stay alive...
> >
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > Dick wrote:
> > >
> > > Let me change that from "any thoughts" to "any helpful" thoughts <G>.
> > >
> > > "Dick" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > Staring at my empty instrument panel while considering which
> instruments
> > > and
> > > > their placement, I got wondering how old time Mail pilots flew if
> caught
> > > in
> > > > IFR conditions.
> > > >
> > > > On my project plane, I'm considering just a airspeed/altitude/ ball
&
> tube
> > > > slip (no needle) indicator/compass setup in order to avoid the
venturi
> or
> > > > vacuum pump setup. Since I consider "electric" too expensive and
> wondered
> > > > whether a dome style compass might be the key??
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts would be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Dick -Lakeland, Florida
> > > >
> > > >
>

[Roy Smith]

"Steve House" > wrote:
> Hate to sound dense but how do you fly an NDB approach without an ADF?

Old answer: RDF. At least in the marine world, this was the predecessor
to the ADF. I'm assuming this was true in the aviation world too?
Stands for Radio Direction Finder (as opposed to Automatic Direction
Finder). Same principle, the difference being with the RDF, you have to
manually turn the antenna to find the strongest signal. The workload
involved pretty much requires a dedicated radio operator or navigator.

New answer: GPS

[Dave Stadt]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve House" > wrote:
> > Hate to sound dense but how do you fly an NDB approach without an ADF?
>
> Old answer: RDF. At least in the marine world, this was the predecessor
> to the ADF. I'm assuming this was true in the aviation world too?
> Stands for Radio Direction Finder (as opposed to Automatic Direction
> Finder). Same principle, the difference being with the RDF, you have to
> manually turn the antenna to find the strongest signal. The workload
> involved pretty much requires a dedicated radio operator or navigator.
>
> New answer: GPS

Actually you turn the antenna for the weakest signal.

[Steve House]

I can see emulating an NDB approach with a GPS, flying the same pathway etc.
but for something to be a "real" NDB approach wouldn't you need some device,
an actual ADF or a manual DF antenna rig, that actually receives the radio
beacon signal and gives you a bearing to it? A GPS may give you a bearing
to a waypoint that has the same coordinates as the beacon antenna and/or
guide you over the same path you'd follow with the NDB approach, but unless
it's actually picking up the radio beacon from the ground station would it
count as a true NDB approach?

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve House" > wrote:
> > Hate to sound dense but how do you fly an NDB approach without an ADF?
>
> Old answer: RDF. At least in the marine world, this was the predecessor
> to the ADF. I'm assuming this was true in the aviation world too?
> Stands for Radio Direction Finder (as opposed to Automatic Direction
> Finder). Same principle, the difference being with the RDF, you have to
> manually turn the antenna to find the strongest signal. The workload
> involved pretty much requires a dedicated radio operator or navigator.
>
> New answer: GPS

[Rich S.]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> It's an exercise in futility now to try to teach modern day students
> something as simple as how the BFO works.

How 'bout "Whistle-stop tuning"?

Rich S.

[Mike Weller]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 22:39:45 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>Actually you turn the antenna for the weakest signal.
>

Yes, you tune for a "null".

It's an exercise in futility now to try to teach modern day students
something as simple as how the BFO works.

Sigh, I guess that I'm getting old.

Naw... things are just getting better!

Mike Weller