NavList:

   

Reply

Couldn't agree more about H.O. 211 for all the reasons you gave plus the
fact that it is so compact.  The  modified H.O. 211 Table by Allan E.
Bayless actually only takes up five 8.5 x 11 sheets of paper. With so
few pages to flip through, reduction goes quickly enough.
> ----------
> From:         Paul Hirose[SMTP:71202.2014@XXX.XXX]
> Reply To:     Navigation Mailing List
> Sent:         Sunday, June 20, 1999 1:15 PM
> To:   NAVIGATION-L@XXX.XXX
> Subject:      Leg 55 results
>
> Here are partial results from Leg 55:
>
> 1.  Mar 16 2101Z DR = 47 20 S 122 52 W
>
> 2.  To 52 30 S 100 00 W, TC = 109, dist = 930 nm
>
> 3.  Compass course = 82, speed made good (not asked) 10.8
>
> 4.  Mar 17 0520Z fix, all over the ocean.  My 0520 DR is 47 42 S 121
> 20 W.  I reduced all 5 sights, and the LOPs are everywhere!  Some of
> the intercepts are more than 2 deg.
>
> Conditions here are not the best.  Since I don't have the 1999
> Almanac, I'm following the instructions for using last year's edition
> (deduct 15.1' from GHA Aries).  Also, I don't have an HO 229 for this
> latitude, so I'm using the reduction tables in the Almanac.  Between
> being rusty and using unfamiliar procedures, probably have made some
> blunders.
>
> body            time     GHA    aLon  LHA      dec     Hc   Zn
> Betelgeuse  02:50:00  127 58  120 58    7   N 7 24  34 16  351
> Procyon     02:51:10  102 13  121 13  341   N 5 14  34 14   23
> Peacock     02:51:24  270 43  121 43  149   S56 44  17 52  197
> Regulus     02:52:22   65 15  121 15  304   N11 58  12 15   56
> Bellatrix   02:53:11  136 16  121 16   15   N 6 21  34 04  342
>
> All plotting was done on sheets of typing paper.  DR computations by
> E6-B air navigation slide rule.  Sight reduction by paper and pencil.
> By the way, keeping up with Silicon Sea with traditional methods is
> pretty time-consuming, which is the main reason I don't always
> participate.  I've noticed everyone else seems to use computers.
>
> I may go back to HO 211 for reductions.  The thing I like about 211 is
> that you don't have to contrive an "assumed position" which is miles
> from your DR, and different for each sight.  You simply use your DR
> for the AP.  The computation is more involved than HO 229 or the NAO
> tables, but you get some time back from the simplified plotting.
> Plus, as soon as you compute the intercept you get instant feedback on
> the agreement between the LOP and your DR.
>

   

Reply