NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: HO 249 v. HO 229 v. Celesticomp
From: Dan Hogan
Date: 1998 Jun 16, 7:41 AM
From: Dan Hogan
Date: 1998 Jun 16, 7:41 AM
Rick: 249 has ALL the accuracy a small boat will need. The trouble with 229 is the volumes of the set and the small print. Also, in my opinion, having to plot from an assumed position instead of the DR. I keep wondering why everyone thinks 15 place accuracy is required for celestial ;^) Davis makes the only forms I know of, which i don't like. I use a column format for my SR. The sample below will need to be adjusted for the 229 requirements to calculate assumed position, LHA, d and Z. I use it with an HP32SII for celestial proigrammed with a Dozier formula. Drift is the calculation for the GHA whole before before and after the time of the sight used to calculate the increment. SIGHT REDUCTION BODY : | | DATE : | | GMT : | | Hs : | | IE : | | Dip : | | Corr'n : | | Ho : | | GHA Hr. : | | DRIFT : | | .mmss : | | GHA Aries : | | SHA : | | GHA : | | DR Lo. : | | LHA : | | DR Lat. : | | dec. @ Hr. : | | v or d : | | dec. @ Sight : | | Hc : | | Ho : | | a (T/A) : | | Zn : | | Rick Emerson wrote: > After plotting a round of sun sights with both a Celesticomp and HO > 249, I was less than thrilled with the increased error in the 249 > results. Or maybe the Celesticomp's errors fit my expected results > better... Anyway, I want to take the step from 249 to 229 and I'm > looking for advice on worksheets, etc. Dan Hogan WA6PBY "Gacha" Catalina 27 San Pedro, CA dhhogan@concentric.net =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-= =-= TO UNSUBSCRIBE, send this message to majordomo@roninhouse.com: =-= =-= navigation =-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=