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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Altimeter Question
On Apr 18, 9:05Â*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
terry wrote in news:375462b0-66e7-4ed0-b45d- : On Apr 18, 7:10�am, Stefan wrote: WingFlaps schrieb: Perhap we are at crossed purposes but an ARFOR does not refer to an airfield -that's a METAR and not all fields issue them. So in this case how can QNH give field elevation unless it's an ISA day? Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface. As I understand it ( In Australia) the QNH in an ARFOR must be within 5 mbar of the "real QNH" Â*- ie what gives you field elevation for any place within that area. otherwise the area will be broken up into sub areas and no 2 adjacant sub areas must differ by more than 5 mbar. That way the errors which Wing flap alludes to, and must certainly exist in non ISA atmosphere, would result in errors of no more than 150 feet between aircraft using either the correct AFROR QNH or the airfield set QNH Yipes! Are you studying to be an astronaut? Are there any openings? |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Altimeter Question
WingFlaps schrieb:
BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-) Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is Usenet. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Altimeter Question
Bertie the Bunyip schrieb:
Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't. Fascinating: You, who *never* ever have trimmed a post before you answered, are doing this for the first time! A miracle? A convert? No, a closer look reveals your reason: The untrimmed text was Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface. Which is exactly what you wrote in your answer. So without trimming, you couldn't have written "no". You're such an asshole. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Altimeter Question
Terry,
So what do you call the number you dial up to make the altimeter read airport elevation? altimeter setting. It is given in inches Hg, too, with 29.92 being equivalent to 1013 hectoPascal. The Brits use another non-SI unit, namely millibars, which is the same as hectoPasal. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Altimeter Question
Larry,
http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={8F1A7DDE-89E8-11D4-8351-00C04FC2C2BF} What does QNH stand for? Atmospheric Pressure (Q) at Nautical Height (aviation) That's hilarious! -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Altimeter Question
On Apr 18, 10:08*am, "Barry" wrote:
Its still like that in australia, *we use feet for altitude , but we use meters for horizontal distance. OurVFR rules are to stay clear of cloud by 1000 feet vertically and 1500 m horizontally. Are obstruction elevations (towers, mountain tops) charted in feet or meters? In France they were in meters, which I thought was pretty stupid given that the altimeters were in feet. *VFR cloud clearance requirements, both horizontal and vertical, were stated in meters. Obstructions , towers etc are fortunately recorded in feet in australia. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Altimeter Question
Thomas Borchert schrieb:
http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={8F1A7DDE-89E8-11D4-8351-00C04FC2C2BF} What does QNH stand for? Atmospheric Pressure (Q) at Nautical Height (aviation) That's hilarious! Their second database entry is even more hilarious: Queens Nautical Height. :-))) |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Altimeter Question
On Apr 18, 6:56*pm, Stefan wrote:
WingFlaps schrieb: BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-) Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is Usenet.. Nope it's not Usenet, it comes back to correcting the erroneous idea that setting QNH on an altimeter makes it faithfully report altitude. Cheers |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Altimeter Question
WingFlaps schrieb:
On Apr 18, 6:56 pm, Stefan wrote: WingFlaps schrieb: BINGO! That's right, setting QNH on an altimeter DOES NOT does give field elevation UNLESS it's issued for that field :-) Which has been pretty obvious, hasn't it? But I forgot that this is Usenet. Nope it's not Usenet, it comes back to correcting the erroneous idea that setting QNH on an altimeter makes it faithfully report altitude. Which nobody claimed. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Altimeter Question
Stefan wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip schrieb: Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. Only at the airport ref point, so, no, it doesn't. Fascinating: You, who *never* ever have trimmed a post before you answered, are doing this for the first time! A miracle? A convert? No, a closer look reveals your reason: The untrimmed text was Again: QNH gives *by definition* the field elevation. If an ARFOR gives you a QNH, then it is related to one well defined spot on the surface. Which is exactly what you wrote in your answer. So without trimming, you couldn't have written "no". You're such an asshole. snicker |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking for TSO Altimeter | Rob Turk | Home Built | 0 | June 9th 07 03:52 PM |
Altimeter off | kevmor | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | March 26th 07 12:11 PM |
Altimeter discrepancy | Gene Whitt | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | August 1st 05 07:11 PM |
ATC Altimeter Settings | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | April 11th 05 08:07 PM |
Altimeter Disassembly | Dick | Home Built | 3 | April 2nd 05 01:27 PM |