NavList:

   

Reply

The gross weight of a Cessna 172 is 2300 pounds.

gl

On Dec 20, 6:56�pm, Gary LaPook  wrote:
> The maximum gross weight of a Cessna is 2300 pounds. The plane I am
> planning on using has an empty weight of 1538 so the useful load is 762
> pounds. Full tanks of 40 gallons weigh 240 pounds leaving a cabin load
> of only 522 pounds or three people.So it looks like we go with three
> people at a time.Full tanks last about five hours so we won't need to
> have the tanks full for our mission.
>
> gl
>
> Greg R. wrote:
> > Mike Burkes wrote:
>
> > > just bringing the AN 5851 Mk5 will overgross a 172!
>
> > Not quite sure I follow you there, since the 5851 only weighs ~7 lbs.
> > (and that's the shipping weight) according to the Celestaire catalog:
> >http://celestaire.com/pdf/AircraftSextants.pdf
>
> > --
> > GregR
>
> > � � ----- Original Message -----
> > � � *From:* Mike Burkes 
> > � � *To:* navlist@fer3.com 
> > � � *Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2009 12:35 PM
> > � � *Subject:* RE: [NavList 11301] Celesital Navigation Through Clouds
>
> > � � Good point GR I am sure Gary has taken that into account. I weigh
> > � � 185 give or take a few lbs and just bringing the AN 5851 Mk5 will
> > � � overgross a 172! Definitely looking forward to it who knows maybe
> > � � we might start and/or revive a cool science.
> > � � Mike Burkes
>
> > � � > From: gregr_ing...@yahoo.com 
> > � � > To: navlist@fer3.com 
> > � � > Subject: Re: [NavList 11299] Celesital Navigation Through Clouds
> > � � > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:41:24 -0800
>
> > � � > "Gary LaPook"  wrote:
>
> > � � > > Here are my thoughts. I can rent a Cessna 172 at Santa Paula
> > � � airport,
> > � � > > near Ventura California for about a hundred bucks an hour and
> > � � we will
> > � � > > have to share this cost. It holds four people, one pilot and three
> > � � > > navigators. We fill all the seats and take off and fly out
> > � � over the
> > � � > > ocean and take sights.
>
> > � � > Not wanting to second-guess your piloting skills, but you might
> > � � want to get
> > � � > a weight-check on the prospective navigators first - I don't
> > � � know of any 172
> > � � > that will hold 4 "average-sized" people + full fuel (or maybe
> > � � you can
> > � � > arrange with the FBO to not re-fuel it on the last flight before
> > � � this one?),
> > � � > not to mention the relatively-short runway at SZP.
>
> > � � > Also, what sort of refractive correction would need to be made
> > � � for the
> > � � > Plexiglas windscreen and windows, or is it insignificant enough
> > � � not to worry
> > � � > about? Though I guess it could also be determined "empirically"
> > � � using the
> > � � > known GPS position as a reference, and then factoring in
> > � � whatever extra
> > � � > correction is needed to make the celestial LOP agree with that.
>
> > � � > > I will try to get out to the airport next week and see if it
> > � � is possible
> > � � > > to use a sextant in back since I have never tried this before.
>
> > � � > It's been a while since I was in the rear seat of a 172, but if
> > � � I remember
> > � � > right the top of the passenger windows slopes downwards from the
> > � � front -
> > � � > might be problematic for 2 people trying to take sights
> > � � together, but might
> > � � > work OK for one person if they had to crouch down to get a clear
> > � � sight
> > � � > through the window.
>
> > � � > > Did I mention that it was 77 degrees here today?
>
> > � � > And people wonder why we put up with all the "inconveniences" to
> > � � live
> > � � > here..... ;-)
>
> > � � > --
> > � � > GregR
>
> > � � > ----- Original Message -----
> > � � > From: "Gary LaPook" 
> > � � > To: 
> > � � > Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:00 AM
> > � � > Subject: Re: [NavList 11293] Celesital Navigation Through Clouds
>
> > � � > > Here are my thoughts. I can rent a Cessna 172 at Santa Paula
> > � � airport,
> > � � > > near Ventura California for about a hundred bucks an hour and
> > � � we will
> > � � > > have to share this cost. It holds four people, one pilot and three
> > � � > > navigators. We fill all the seats and take off and fly out
> > � � over the
> > � � > > ocean and take sights. You can bring your own bubble sextant
> > � � and I can
> > � � > > supply a variety of bubble sextants, MA-1, MA-2, A-10A, A-7
> > � � and the
> > � � > > navigators can take a number of sights each using different
> > � � instruments
> > � � > > if they choose. The navigator siting in the right seat can
> > � � take the
> > � � > > sights while the navigators in the back seats can record data.
> > � � We will
> > � � > > push the button on the GPS at the mid time of each sight so we can
> > � � > > determine the accuracy of the sights, the navigator with the worst
> > � � > > average buys the beer. Since the plane won't allow the
> > � � navigators to
> > � � > > change seats in flight we will land at the Oxnard airport,
> > � � right next to
> > � � > > the beach, to allow the navigators to change seats and a new
> > � � navigator
> > � � > > to start taking sights. I estimate that it will take each
> > � � navigator
> > � � > > about a half hour so the plane cost should be about fifty
> > � � bucks each. It
> > � � > > may be possible to lower this cost somewhat if it is possible
> > � � to take
> > � � > > sights from the back seats through the back window as this would
> > � � > > eliminate the necessity of landing to change shooters. I will
> > � � try to get
> > � � > > out to the airport next week and see if it is possible to use
> > � � a sextant
> > � � > > in back since I have never tried this before. If more than three
> > � � > > navigators are interested in participating we can switch out
> > � � crews at
> > � � > > the Oxnard airport.
>
> > � � > > I believe the best dates for this would be January 9-10;
> > � � February 6-7;
> > � � > > or February 20-21 or possibly later in the year. We should plan on
> > � � > > flying on a Saturday and keep Sunday as a backup in case of
> > � � bad weather
> > � � > > on Saturday. The reason I suggest these dates is that the sun
> > � � and the
> > � � > > moon will both be visible with good cuts for daytime fixes.
>
> > � � > > If anybody is coming from afar, the Burbank (BUR) airport is
> > � � the most
> > � � > > convenient. LAX is a bit farther and Long Beach (LGB) is about as
> > � � > > convenient as LAX (it might not look like it on a map but a
> > � � map doesn't
> > � � > > show the traffic coming from LAX on the 405 over the Sepulveda
> > � � pass.)
> > � � > > Ontario (ONT) is also doable so shop for the best airfare.
> > � � Things to do
> > � � > > in the area include Santa Barbara for wine tours, an hour
> > � � drive up the
> > � � > > coast. San Diego is about a three hour drive down the coast or
> > � � one can
> > � � > > take a train. You can go aboard the Star of India and the carrier
> > � � > > Midway. Long Beach for the Queen Mary and a Russian submarine.
> > � � Near Long
> > � � > > Beach in San Pedro is the Lane Victory (a victory ship) and a good
> > � � > > maritime museum. One can also drive five hours and see
> > � � Yosemite which is
> > � � > > beautiful in winter. A different five hour drive up the coast
> > � � takes you
> > � � > > to San Francisco or you can take a train or fly.You can visit the
> > � � > > Pampanito submarine (SS-383) and several historic vessels
> > � � including a
> > � � > > liberty ship, the Jeremiah O'Brien. A four hour drive from here is
> > � � > > Vegas, baby. There are plenty of flights from BUR to Vegas
> > � � also. A three
> > � � > > hour drive takes you to Palm Springs. A two hour drive takes
> > � � you to the
> > � � > > ski slopes.
>
> > � � > > Did I mention that it was 77 degrees here today?
>
> > � �http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=93021
>
> > � � > > gl
>
> > � � > > frankr...@HistoricalAtlas.com wrote:
>
> > � � > > > Peter Monta, you wrote:
> > � � > > > "Wouldn't a UAV be the logical solution here? I'm not sure
> > � � units with
> > � � > > > 40000ft capability are all that cheap yet, though. A very small
> > � � > > > payload might suffice for sun sights (small camera).
> > � � Establishing the
> > � � > > > offset from UAV position to ship would probably come free
> > � � with the
> > � � > > > overall control scheme to get the thing back, and the 2D
> > � � offset would
> > � � > > > only be a mile or two anyway. Fixed wing might be best for
> > � � smallest
> > � � > > > platform jitter when taking the sight."
>
> > � � > > > Nice! That's a very clever solution to the problem of the
> > � � 40,000 foot
> > � � > > > mast. And if the sensor package is cheap enough (a camera
> > � � and a radio
> > � � > > > with a ten-mile range?) then you could make them expendable
> > � � and launch
> > � � > > > on weather balloons. The price of the balloon might turn out
> > � � to be
> > � � > > > greater than the cel nav package. Whether that's more
> > � � economical than
> > � � > > > a mini/micro-UAV or not would depend on the cost of the "toy
> > � � plane"
> > � � > > > and the expected loss rate. In any case, a system like this
> > � � means no
> > � � > > > sextant and no navigator holding said sextant, so it
> > � � certainly takes
> > � � > > > the charm out of it, but at least it would still be real
> > � � celestial
> > � � > > > navigation.
>
> > � � > > > -FER
>
> > � � > > > --
> > � � > > > NavList message boards:www.fer3.com/arc
> > � � > > > Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
> > � � > > > To , email NavList+@fer3.com
>
> > � � > > --
> > � � > > NavList message boards:www.fer3.com/arc
> > � � > > Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
> > � � > > To , email NavList+@fer3.com
>
> > � � > --
> > � � > NavList message boards:www.fer3.com/arc
> > � � > Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
> > � � > To , email NavList+@fer3.com
>
> ...
>
> read more �

-- 
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList+@fer3.com

   

Reply