If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
AA Butterfly versus CNv LCD wind calculation
TAS and GPS are sufficient to determine
headwind / tailwind component flying in a straight line. To get crosswind component, you need a compass to supply heading, then apply that to the GPS track. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
AA Butterfly versus CNv LCD wind calculation
On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-4, George Haeh wrote:
To get crosswind component, you need a compass to supply heading, then apply that to the GPS track. That is incorrect. Multiple observations on different headings allow wind calculation. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
AA Butterfly versus CNv LCD wind calculation
On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 10:15:18 AM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-4, George Haeh wrote: To get crosswind component, you need a compass to supply heading, then apply that to the GPS track. That is incorrect. Multiple observations on different headings allow wind calculation. George, not sure how up you are on Dave Nadler's background. He developed the software for the SN-10 which for many years was the gold standard for providing in-flight wind values. I was thrilled & impressed when I heard him describe his very elegant solution for computing winds with a limited information set. Cheers, Craig |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
AA Butterfly versus CNv LCD wind calculation
Reminds me of my Father, 'it isn't what it is, it is what I call it, that matters". Found out this meant a pipe can be a hammer
So the "best Vario" is the one you think is the best. On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 7:50:48 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote: Whichever one you like better "must" be the most accurate. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
AA Butterfly versus CNv LCD wind calculation
Dave Nadler is quite correct in his
assertion that "Multiple observations on different headings allow wind calculation", but that methodology necessarily requires more time than AA's wind updates at 20 Hz, for which you need a heading source when flying a straight line. At 17:34 19 September 2016, Craig Funston wrote: On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 10:15:18 AM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote: On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-4, George Haeh wrote: To get crosswind component, you need a=20 compass to supply heading, then apply=20. that to the GPS track. =20 That is incorrect. Multiple observations on different headings allow wind calculation. George, not sure how up you are on Dave Nadler's background. He developed t= he software for the SN-10 which for many years was the gold standard for pr= oviding in-flight wind values. I was thrilled & impressed when I heard him= describe his very elegant solution for computing winds with a limited info= rmation set. Cheers, Craig |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
AA Butterfly versus CNv LCD wind calculation
On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 4:30:20 PM UTC-4, George Haeh wrote:
Dave Nadler is quite correct in his assertion that "Multiple observations on different headings allow wind calculation", but that methodology necessarily requires more time than AA's wind updates at 20 Hz, for which you need a heading source when flying a straight line. Of course. But Evan has said get wind the CNv requires flying on different headings and takes some time, which means it is not incorporating a heading source. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
AA Butterfly versus CNv LCD wind calculation
Without a doubt, the SN10 when introduced was the best at wind. Believe Dave would like to produce something more modern, but Ilec is no longer interested in building varios.
Probably paid too much attention to the panel today, watching winds. After a change in wind eventually the two varios agree, but the change is displayed immediately on the Air-Glide. Sometimes it was several minutes before the CN caught up. I have installed and configured but no flight time with the LX90x0/V8 system a few in this thread have asked about. Looking at flight logs in SeeYou PC isn't the determining factor of which wind is accurate. When SeeYou PC shows 7Kts and a thermal's 360 degree turns don't overlap at all, it's time to say "********". At that point Air indicated 23Kts, way more believable. Jim |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
AA Butterfly versus CNv LCD wind calculation
Memory is cheap, advanced instruments that generate IGC files should log all air data for later analysis. Then programs such as SeeYou could use this to not only preset flight traces but a picture of the airmass the glider(s) flew through.
We often experience some phenomena that these logs might help explain. On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 6:57:20 PM UTC-7, JS wrote: Looking at flight logs in SeeYou PC isn't the determining factor of which wind is accurate. When SeeYou PC shows 7Kts and a thermal's 360 degree turns don't overlap at all, it's time to say "********". At that point Air indicated 23Kts, way more believable. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
AA Butterfly versus CNv LCD wind calculation
If I have understood the workings of AA Vario correctly, the wind is simply the difference between the GPS observations (fixed axis system compared to earth) and the inertial axis system (drifts with the wind).
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
AA Butterfly versus CNv LCD wind calculation
A thought regarding usage of IAS, TAS and GS for wind calculations: I have been a long term abuser of this, when flying with the Zander GP940 who only calculate the wind during circling. The wind component calculation is of great information on final glide to detect any changes of wind when getting closer to the ground. But I just got a second thought about this.
When reading this tread and putting 1+1 together do I realize that using the difference between TAS and GS is not an useful approach to calculate the wind. Read any of the Johnsson reports and figure out why he is so keen on calibrating the IAS readings! It is not uncommon that the IAS differs from TAS(at ground level) with more than 5%, it is individual both between types of gliders and most likely also within gliders of the same type depending on which static probe you are using. This error in reading the IAS in the glide computer is not calibrated, therefore can it not use the difference TAS / GS to calculate the wind. The error would be of dignity 5-15 km/h. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
302 wind calculation | AK | Soaring | 21 | April 3rd 10 01:27 PM |
302 wind calculation | 5Z | Soaring | 1 | March 26th 10 11:56 AM |
302 wind calculation | Darryl Ramm | Soaring | 0 | March 26th 10 03:04 AM |
302 wind calculation | AK | Soaring | 0 | March 26th 10 02:47 AM |
Vector Wind, Relative Wind calculation C 302/303 | [email protected] | Soaring | 2 | December 9th 08 07:23 PM |