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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Mxsmanic wrote: Walt writes: But, this is not a big deal, since you'll be using waypoints along the way, and the heading between waypoints won't change enough to be a worry. But, you'll probably notice that your true heading changes by a degree or so from one waypoint to another. This is an interesting point. I do see the heading towards a waypoint change slowly over time, and I've naturally assumed that it was just the wind. However, if the distance between waypoints is quite long, I can see that the actual track to follow could change over time due to the great-circle character of the track between the waypoints. Unfortunately, I don't remember offhand how long the distance would have to be before it would change by a degree or more at intermediate latitudes. That's the whole reason for waypoints. We live on a sphere but dead-reckon on a flat surface. So, for dead reckoning today it's not incidental at all. Yes, _if_ someone is navigating by dead reckoning. My point was that hardly anyone uses dead reckoning by hand these days. And as one increases in latitude, the 1 degree = 1 minute relationship gets more and more iffy, too. Your original statement was about dead reckoning. That was what I was responding to. 35 years ago I could whip up a comp for a celestial shot in less than a minute. Today it would probably take me a week. Of course, we used an Air Almanac and an H.O. 249 to take care of the pesky trig stuff, so it was mainly adding and subtracting stuff involving the GHA of Aries. :) I'm sure most other pilots have the same problem--if they ever knew how to do this in the first place, that is. Just a teary-eyed remembrance from an old fart. I didn't expect much of a response. ANYWAY, if you're serious about plotting your course on a chart, know what map projection you're using and the distance between waypoints. Using a conical projection chart and a standard plotter will be plenty accurate for any kind of dead-reckoning, no matter which direction you're going. Not very practical for me these days. That wasn't my point. I thought you were interested in navigation. Try reading Dava Sobel's _Longitude_. Fascinating read if you're really interested in navigation, whether 300 years ago or present time. --Walt (who is probably showing his age) When you flew, the B-52 was an important part of the military's aircraft inventory. Whereas today, the B-52 is an important part of the military's aircraft inventory. Nice putdown. I gave you some tantalizing clues about navigation. Pursue them or ignore them. Up to you. --Walt |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Walt writes:
That wasn't my point. I thought you were interested in navigation. Try reading Dava Sobel's _Longitude_. Fascinating read if you're really interested in navigation, whether 300 years ago or present time. I did read it, but it talked too much about politics and other matters, and not enough about technical stuff. Nice putdown. How so? I was alluding to the fact that some things in aviation have not changed. I gave you some tantalizing clues about navigation. Pursue them or ignore them. Up to you. At the moment I don't have time to investigate them, but I'll keep them under consideration. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Mxsmanic wrote: Walt writes: That wasn't my point. I thought you were interested in navigation. Try reading Dava Sobel's _Longitude_. Fascinating read if you're really interested in navigation, whether 300 years ago or present time. I did read it, but it talked too much about politics and other matters, and not enough about technical stuff. Ignore the political aspects of the book, although they're pretty interesting in their own right. Just take the way they tried to figure out a longitude fix 300 years ago and look at how it's done now. Nice putdown. How so? I was alluding to the fact that some things in aviation have not changed. The current B-52 is what, the H model? It's changed. The current Walt model is still the A model, although there have been a number of dot releases over the years. I gave you some tantalizing clues about navigation. Pursue them or ignore them. Up to you. At the moment I don't have time to investigate them, but I'll keep them under consideration. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. Do it when you have the time. --Walt |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Walt wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: When you flew, the B-52 was an important part of the military's aircraft inventory. Whereas today, the B-52 is an important part of the military's aircraft inventory. Nice putdown. What putdown? I read that statement as a compliment. You were commenting about growing old, and he was inferring that the things you were involved with years ago, haven't grown old and useless. Regards, Kev |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Walt writes:
Ignore the political aspects of the book, although they're pretty interesting in their own right. Just take the way they tried to figure out a longitude fix 300 years ago and look at how it's done now. In those days, mariners had to be very brave, or slightly stupid. The current B-52 is what, the H model? It's changed. Yeah, but it was supposed to be gone, replaced by fancier stuff. Now the AF is talking about keeping it for another 40 years. It's a good aircraft. Who would have thought, more than four decades ago, that he could tell his grandson "Someday you'll fly this plane, too"? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Kev writes:
What putdown? I read that statement as a compliment. You were commenting about growing old, and he was inferring that the things you were involved with years ago, haven't grown old and useless. Exactly. Other aircraft have come and gone, but some aircraft, such as the B-52, have outlived them all, and still serve just as they did when they were "young." -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Kev wrote: Walt wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: When you flew, the B-52 was an important part of the military's aircraft inventory. Whereas today, the B-52 is an important part of the military's aircraft inventory. Nice putdown. What putdown? I read that statement as a compliment. You were commenting about growing old, and he was inferring that the things you were involved with years ago, haven't grown old and useless. Regards, Kev Good point. I read it as saying, "The B-52 is an important part of the inventory and you're not." Which is, of course, true. But it still hurt. sob --Walt |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Walt writes:
Good point. I read it as saying, "The B-52 is an important part of the inventory and you're not." Nope, that's almost the opposite of what I intended. But it still hurt. The least complimentary interpretation is not neccesarily the right interpretation. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Mxsmanic wrote: Walt writes: Good point. I read it as saying, "The B-52 is an important part of the inventory and you're not." Nope, that's almost the opposite of what I intended. But it still hurt. The least complimentary interpretation is not neccesarily the right interpretation. -- And from you, I will take that as a compliment. Thanks. --Walt |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Gentlemen and Ladies:
Sorry, but if I read these correctly . . Knots are not dimensionless in aviation. A knot is one nautical mile per hour, and that nautical mile is the distance corresponding to one minute of latitude at the equator. Yes, _if_ someone is navigating by dead reckoning. My point was that hardly anyone uses dead reckoning by hand these days. And as one increases in latitude, the 1 degree = 1 minute relationship gets more and more iffy, too. It appears to me (unless I misunderstand the posts cited above) that there may be a misunderstanding of latitude and longitude's relationship to Nautical Miles. If I recall correctly, 1 min of latitude = 1 NM everywhere (not just the equator), aren't lines of latitude also called parallels and thus maintain there equidistant relationship all the way to the poles? And don't lines of longitude meet at the poles and therefore their angles maintian the same angular relationship yet the distances decrease the further one travels from the equator? Regards, Watson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"? | Gary Drescher | Instrument Flight Rules | 32 | September 23rd 06 09:00 PM |
The Deaf vs. The Colorblind | Bret Ludwig | Piloting | 17 | August 21st 06 02:08 AM |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |