Hi Paul -
�I believe Gary has personal experience with HO 218. I have volumes D (15̊ - 19̊ N&S) and F
(25̊ - 29̊ N&S).
The nice thing is they're compact - 6.5"X10"X.75". They're obvious shortcoming is each covers
only 5̊ of Latitude. Initial entry is for declination (whole number), with the pages for each
declination thumb-tabbed. The print is large and crisp. They're well made - thick cream-toned
paper, cloth bindings - so just as books-qua-books, they're lovely. A pleasure to handle.
The star treatment is really slick, though limited to 22 stars. I tried one for 2010 against my
StarPilot and did get a 5NM difference. But I was extrapolating the correction
table which ends
for the year 2000.
I have the entire set. A comparison with H.O. 249 shows that it provides the same level of
accuracy in very compact volumes. The computed altitudes include the refraction correction for a
5,000 foot flight altitude but, since the minimum computed altitude tabulated is 10̊, this doesn�t
cause a problem because for observed altitudes much greater than 10̊ the refraction is the same
at 5,000 feet as it is at sea level (to a one minute of arc accuracy.) Even at 10̊ the difference is
only one minute. An auxiliary correction table is included in the tables to allow for observations
taken at different flight altitudes. I have attached a copy of this table.
So that you can compare for yourselves, I have attached an excerpt from H.O. 218 for latitudes
30̊-34̊ and for declination 19̊ and also the pages from H.O. 249 that covers the same
have highlighted examples for latitude 30̊, declination 19̊, both same and contrary names, and
hour angles of 15̊, 55̊ and 65̊. For the all the examples except hour angle of 65̊ and
declination 19̊ contrary name, the computed altitudes have the difference expected between the tables that are equal to the refraction correction in the Nautical Almanac. For
that exceptional case, which has a computed altitude of about 10̊, you find what appears to be a
4 minute difference when a 5 minute difference is expected, but, in fact, after the proper refraction corrections are applied, the two
computed altitudes are the same. H.O. 249 gives the computed altitude as 10̊ 34' and H.O. 218
gives 10̊ 38' which includes the refraction correction at 5,000 feet. When refraction correction is
applied to Hc it is added instead of being subtracted from observed altitude. The auxiliary
correction table shows an additional refraction
correction for sea level observations of 10̊ to be a
minus 1' to be applied to observed altitude. So to apply this additional correction to the tabulated
Hc in H.O. 218 we add this one minute making it 10̊ 39'. To directly compare the Hc in H.O.
249 to this we must also add the refraction correction from the nautical almanac, 5.3' rounded to
5', to the tabulated Hc of 10̊ 34' which ends up with the same Hc of 10̊ 39'.
I have also attached the refraction correction table from the Air Almanac so you can compare the
corrections for sea level and 5,000 feet.
I did a more thorough comparison
using H.O. 214 to look for the effect of rounding in both H.O. 218 and
249. Using all of the combinations for latitude 34 and declination of
19, I added the refraction correction from the Nautical Almanac to the values from H.O. 214 (which which are tabulated to one-tenth of a minute of arc)
and found for all cases with Hc greater than 13 that they then totaled
to the Hcs tabulated in H.O. 218 as expected. For Hcs of 10 to 13 adding
the additional one minute of arc as required in the auxiliary table produced the correct value.
it appears that H.O. 218, when the refraction correction is applied
properly, produces the same computed altitudes as H.O. 249 which are
also correct as rounded from H.O. 214.
I will evaluate the selected stars section of H.O. 218 is a separate post.
NavList message boards and member settings: www.fer3.com/NavList
Members may optionally receive posts by email.
To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com