Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: What happened with the moon  (Read 67134 times)

Frederick Frick Young

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2013, 09:07:32 PM »

See LOP questions.

Hi Greg, Thanks for the reply in case you were directing the reference to me.

An interesting explaination, but not practicle or feasable. There's no explaination as to how AE could or couldn't have maintained a heading of 157 degrees true for a matter of hours using only DR and sun for longitude readings.
There are several statements in that report that are just simply could not be true. One I can think of off hand was the presumed fuel reserve left. There's some math there.   

Don't shoot the messenger here!

I'm not saying that FN could or couldn't have reached Gardener Island. I'm merely saying that they couldn't have done it by following a heading of 157 degrees. Why would they even want to try when here was much better and safer way?

FN would have flown 180 degrees true due south to the longitude of next island south of Howland then jumped over the the longitude of the next then junped over to the longitude of Gardener and using the sun readings, which would have kept them at least on longitude. There was no reason to depend on DR corrections if the plan was to make Gardner.
 

Thank for your interest.

Fred
   
 
Logged

Frederick Frick Young

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2013, 11:23:22 PM »

Interesting your guy brought that up.

Fred, to be honest, I can't think of anyone at TIGHAR that would consider me one of their guys.

I just tell it as I see it.

Hi Tim, thanks to your interest.

I was shocked that someone sort of agreed with anything I've said.

I'm new here to the message boards, and as you can see, not one of the guys either.
I've been a member of TIGHAR for a couple years, but have only posted recently when this thread about the moon caught my eye. The other one about FN possibly reading the wrong days charts caught my interest and then couldn't hold back after reading this thread one about the moon. 

I see you're a pilot. I used to fly back in the day when the Commander I took lessons in was selling for $7000. (used of course) :)

I just simulate flying these days. You'd be surprised how many real pilots fly the MS simulator.
http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?251193-Amelia-Earhart-s-last-flight-75th-Anniversary (nikeherk67)

We fly an add-on model of Amelia's Lockheed Electra L10E, which is incredibly realistic and accurate e/w sextant, drift meter, e6b, a Cambridge air/fuel analyzer, extra fuel tanks, and mechanical and gauge failures that actually occur at random. A couple developers have created the a program that monitors your fly skills as  pilot as well, and not flying properly, can cause failures. For instance idling too slow can fowl the plugs, too heavy on the throttle can blow up an engine etc.   

As for altitude restrictions the FAA's figures are quite conservative and need to include some those health problems and all ages.

Amelia Earhart was defiantly altitude acclimated. Perhaps she would have needed to have been more concerned about Fred, but I'd imagine both could have obtained and sustained some pretty high altitudes by that time.

The thing today is to climb Mt. Everest without oxygen. It takes quite awhile as they need to "step climb" as they call it. It's quite a process. They climb up to a certain altitude and stay over night, then come back to base camp for a day or so. Then climb back up and make that next step their base and so on and so on.

Thanks for reading all,

Fred
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 732
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2013, 10:30:45 AM »

See LOP questions.

Hi Greg, Thanks for the reply in case you were directing the reference to me.

An interesting explaination, but not practicle or feasable. There's no explaination as to how AE could or couldn't have maintained a heading of 157 degrees true for a matter of hours using only DR and sun for longitude readings.
There are several statements in that report that are just simply could not be true. One I can think of off hand was the presumed fuel reserve left. There's some math there.   

Don't shoot the messenger here!

I'm not saying that FN could or couldn't have reached Gardener Island. I'm merely saying that they couldn't have done it by following a heading of 157 degrees. Why would they even want to try when here was much better and safer way?

FN would have flown 180 degrees true due south to the longitude of next island south of Howland then jumped over the the longitude of the next then junped over to the longitude of Gardener and using the sun readings, which would have kept them at least on longitude. There was no reason to depend on DR corrections if the plan was to make Gardner.
 
Thank for your interest.

Fred
   


Hi Fred
I believe the theory is they found Gardner when looking for Howland, not that they decided to go to Gardner.

Regarding the link on the LOP. Understand that even though the map in the link shows a line drawn from Lae intersecting the LOP near Howland it is clear from reading the text that it is not known where the flight intersected the LOP. I think a lot of people get confused by this and think they had to fly an extra 350 miles from Howland to Gardner. That is not the case if the flight from Lae intersected the LOP well south of Howland.
Regarding your belief they couldn’t find Gardner following a “heading of 157” . That is not exactly what she said. She didn’t say she was flying a “heading”, she said “ We are on the line 157 337”.  I understand the earth rotates while they are flying a compass heading but I think FN and AE knew the earth rotates too and made DR adjustments to stay “on the line” enough to spot Gardner . Since we don’t know exactly where they started on the line, it could be they were on it a short time. It may not have been a “matter of hours” as you presume.   I think if they did find Gardner,  it could be a little over an hour on the line so they could still land on the reef based on tide study Time and Tide.

Something else to speculate on regarding the Moon: Maybe FN suspected a problem with his octant and was relying more on what he knew with more certainty without using an octant. That the sun came up at a known time on the earth and Howland was somewhere on  an advanced sun line.  Flying the line may not have been just an attempt to hit Howland with pure celestial navigation but more an attempt to get closer to it for a radio fix or contact.  See Fred Noonan's memo to Pan Am on the importance of radio fixes in large open water navigation
3971R
 
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 11:01:58 AM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

Tim Gard

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2013, 08:31:30 PM »

Well said Greg.

The parallels with the Electra's Atlantic crossing are becoming clearer for me over time.

When the overcast occurred, Fred gave Amelia a DR heading and went to sleep. Amelia would awaken him when the sky cleared. They would arrive at a location other than their original destination due to the undercast at the African coast (all supported by documents).

In the meantime Amelia wrote her prose and charged Sperry with maintaining the heading.
After the overcast cleared, Fred could get them an LOP once he could see a celestial body.
By this stage the two were a well rehearsed team.

Ric's recent decode of the radio logs positions the Electra brilliantly from the equator right up until Amelia's last broadcast.
 
/ Member #4122 /
/Hold the Heading/
 
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 08:47:21 PM by Tim Gard »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 732
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2013, 11:26:34 PM »

Why didn't/couldn't FN take shots at the moon to correct their position?

Equipment failure - 2 devices so would be very bad luck.

Anything in the achieves strike you?

Two instruments, say only one is wrong, they conflict, but which one is wrong?
I remember seeing documentaries where modern crews have stalled planes when two airspeed instruments conflicted and only one was wrong. They refused to believe the right one even with clues that should have told them which to use. I think it was Air France where they could have ignored both instruments, went with training, and set power at 85% and fly the plane. Isn't the saying "When it doubt, go with what you know"?
3971R
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #50 on: December 06, 2013, 08:16:22 PM »

Since this is my first post I'll say hello all a give a tidbit of my background! ........
I'm also a real world pilot and have been a Ham Radio Operator for years, so I know a bit about propagation, directional attennas, signal strengths, and mores code, which IMHO believe Amelia Earhart should have know as well.

Fred, you have stated that you are only interested in the facts are want to build the trust of the members of the Forum so I have a couple of questions for you. In the quote above you state that you are a "real world pilot" and have been a "Ham Radio Operator" for years.

1. I have searched the FAA Airmen Certification files and, while there are 22 different Frederick Youngs listed, there are no listing of any license for a Frederick Frick Young or a Frederick F. Young. There is a listing for a Frederick Young, who is listed as living in Ohio and being issued a Private Pilot License on May 4, 2010. Would that be you?

2. I also made a search of FCC Amateur Radio License directory and could not find mention of any license for a Frederick Young, a Frederick F. Young or a Frederick Frick Young.

Help me out with my trust here Fred, am I doing something wrong??
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Frederick Frick Young

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #51 on: December 06, 2013, 08:23:09 PM »

Hi Greg,

Yes, I'm aware of the theory here. Goes some like they flew hundreds of miles off course in the cloulds all night using DR only. That is the only explaination since the fuel useage has been revised. I've read countless explainations.   

Years ago, from reading and studying this site page here .
I was under the impression that AE had attempted to located Howland on the 157/337 line, never located it and when they realized they’d missed it, just decided to keep on keeping on since that LOP crossed Gardner anyway. Perhaps the conversation when something like this.

AE “Well Fred, it seems we missed Howland, we should have been there a half hour ago.”
Fred “ Yeah, Ami, I’m in agreement. Tell ya what. Since we’re on the same line as Gardner let’s just go for it. Heck, it’s only about 3 bucks down the trail by now.

Very logical, so it seemed, at the time.       

That’s pretty much what is written and the illustrations imply. I was quite excited back in the earlier days, and then after expedition after expedition hadn’t turned up any smoking guns so I lost interest. Whoa, then someone found a landing gear and wheel. Oh boy, let’s go! Shucks no gear or wheel or sign of it could be found.  It must have slipped down over the abyss and too deep for divers to locate.

As I’ve written above here, for many years now I’ve flown the Microsoft flight simulator. At first I liked the modern aircraft, but being that you can just let the GPS fly the plane, it’s more like letting the computer fly the computer. What’s the use? Then a number of years ago a couple of developers designed a sextant. That grabbed my attention, as being a sailor I’ve always been interested in celestial navigation. So I learned to navigate with the sextant. I even started a thread a year and a half ago during the 75th anniversary of the tragic event.

I decided to shorten the Lae to Howland flight, because almost no one would fly the whole thing in one setting. So my simulated flight consists of only the last 542nm starting at the Tabiteuea North Airstrip in Kiribati.  here.

As you can see, I worked on this project for months and thought I’d come up with a pretty good flight. I’ve flown it at dozens of times using just the sextant. Some successful some not, as I’ve limited the fuel to 200 gals, which is much  less than AE would have had at that distance; however in FS we can afford to ditch and restart. Then I discovered this thread asking about the moon.

Hmm I asked myself the same question. I had no moon in my flight plan! What’s going on here? :( I can explainit now.

When Microsoft developed the flight simulator they went to great lengths of add accurate celestial bodies. They even got the moon right! That has to be some fabulous software programming. You can go back in history as far as you like and the moon and the sun will be there just as it was then. EXCEPT for a couple nuances, they couldn’t program in. One is the phases of the moon, so they left it at that. Still pretty impressive I’d say.

The reason I couldn't we can’t see the moon, on July 2, 1937 in FS is that FS was in the new moon phase. Another thing is that FS doesn’t include the crescents. It is only visible from quarter to quarter. So when I start on July 3, 1937, quite by accident, FS loaded the scenery for that date and sure enough shows the first phase of the moon. I’m aware that the moon was waning that night in 1937. Yes, something that has taken me years to figure out. What I discovered was two very important things. You can study the sextant and take many classes, but no one seems to teach the importance of the moon. As I said before here, which no one seems to have grasped what I've been trying to explain.   

The moon is quite an asset to the navigator when an the days of the month tht they have it at their disposal to use. The moon, unlike any other celestial body, varies in altitude and declination by about 14 degrees each day. The variation of the sun, planters and stars only varies less than 1 degrees from day to day depending, on the altitude and azimuth from the navigators assumed position.

Now, what does all this mean?

Here is "a single star landfall procedure" by the book. The fact is, that while working for PanAm FN was the best of the best. He probably had input to whomever wrote the book. I’m sure he did it many times prior to this.

At about 128nm out he would turn left or right to offset their position x amount of degrees, to offset x amount of distance from their destination. I’d say left in this case, because they would have reached the 157 LOP before passing Howland’s longitude instead of after crossing passing it if he'd turned right. By the use of DR and timing they would turn 90 degrees to intercept the 157 degree LOP. Again with DR FN would know when they should have reach W176 degrees 38 minutes, the longitude of Howland.

After several minutes had passed and they hadn’t seen Howland he would proceed to the next step in the procedure, which was to turn into the wind, and fly for 10 minutes, the turn 90 degrees +/= the WCA angle and fly cross wind for 10 minutes, then again turn 90 degrees and  fly down wind for 20 minutes, turn right again and fly for 20 minutes across wind, and again turn 90 degrees and fly 30 minutes downwind. He would do this two or three time, slowly increasing the downwind leg of the square  This produced a squared downwind pattern that was constantly expanding in the area they were searching.

The book doesn’t spell it out, because the navigator knows he only has one and only one recourse after failing to locate the destination. That is to increase altitude or whatever was neccessary until they could the sun, get a shot and find W176 dgr 38 min longitude.

Why, you may ask, just not continue down the 157/337 LOP? Because they had simply lost it while flying the landfall procedure. Remember that they had only reached that LOP by the use of DR alone. No rocket science here folks but basic navigation 101.

Here’s another thing that may interest you. Read AE's 2013 messages again. Notice the pause, after saying they were flying the 137/337 line. After a time she then stated we are flying north and south. That is because they had NO IDEA of what latitude they were at and no means to read the latitude during daylight hours.

As I’ve stated before, the 137/337 LOP is a onetime shot. That’s it. It can’t be located again without a latitude shot. 

I hope this shed some light

Thanks for reading all

Fred 
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 08:28:27 PM by Frederick Frick Young »
Logged

Frederick Frick Young

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #52 on: December 06, 2013, 08:47:35 PM »

Since this is my first post I'll say hello all a give a tidbit of my background! ........
I'm also a real world pilot and have been a Ham Radio Operator for years, so I know a bit about propagation, directional attennas, signal strengths, and mores code, which IMHO believe Amelia Earhart should have know as well.

Fred, you have stated that you are only interested in the facts are want to build the trust of the members of the Forum so I have a couple of questions for you. In the quote above you state that you are a "real world pilot" and have been a "Ham Radio Operator" for years.

1. I have searched the FAA Airmen Certification files and, while there are 22 different Frederick Youngs listed, there are no listing of any license for a Frederick Frick Young or a Frederick F. Young. There is a listing for a Frederick Young, who is listed as living in Ohio and being issued a Private Pilot License on May 4, 2010. Would that be you?

2. I also made a search of FCC Amateur Radio License directory and could not find mention of any license for a Frederick Young, a Frederick F. Young or a Frederick Frick Young.

Help me out with my trust here Fred, am I doing something wrong??

Sure Woody no problem! Just this once just for you! :)

In 1972 I took flying lessons. I'd logged amost enough time to get my  ticket when an accident at work I broke both of my legs. It took a long time to heal. Since then I've had several friennds I've gone flying with to get a $50 hamburger.
So your are correct my friend. I am not a offically a pilot. Of course neither were the Wright brothers!

Also from 1972 until sometime in the 1990's with a Gemeral Class Ham Radio license until I let it expire. My FCC call was WB3HGC (huge green cucumbers) :)
Back in those days you had to copy morse code at 15wpm to obtain the ticket. Something that may have saved Amelia's life had she known it.
 
Perhaps that'll help you with your background check! Do I get the job? :)
I can save you a lot of time. If you'll PM me I can send my resume going all the way back to military service years  during the Viet Nam War. I can tell you some good flying stories and scan you some QSL cards as well!

 

Your not with the IRS are you? :)   

Now help me out woody.
What is the highest you've flown w/o oxygen?

and what would the FAA say about Amelia flying solo above 18,000 without O2 today?

One more question if you don't mind. As a commercial pilot, how many hours have you logged using the sextant as your only navaid?

If you're interesting in flying the simulator, I've written a great celestial navigation tuturial I'll be glad to send you as well. I'm looking for people to fly with!   

Thanks

Fred   
   
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 11:12:46 PM by Frederick Frick Young »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #53 on: December 07, 2013, 07:22:43 PM »

After several minutes had passed and they hadn’t seen Howland he would proceed to the next step in the procedure, which was to turn into the wind, and fly for 10 minutes, the turn 90 degrees +/= the WCA angle and fly cross wind for 10 minutes, then again turn 90 degrees and  fly down wind for 20 minutes, turn right again and fly for 20 minutes across wind, and again turn 90 degrees and fly 30 minutes downwind. He would do this two or three time, slowly increasing the downwind leg of the square  This produced a squared downwind pattern that was constantly expanding in the area they were searching.

Thanks for the posts Frederick, they are very informative and educational for total novices in navigation like myself. The part regarding a possible search pattern was debated a while back when GLP was still posting on the forum. A brief précis of the possible scenarios were as follows...

1. Expanding search pattern instigated
a) But still didn't see Howland Island or Itasca smoke because they were so far off course?
b) Ran out of fuel while on the search pattern and ditched into the Pacific?
c) The expanding search pattern brought them close to another group of islands?


2. No expanding search pattern instigated
a) Did something else instead obviously as doing nothing was no longer an option?
b) Flew in the direction they thought Howland Island should be from where they thought they were?
c) Headed for a larger group of islands that they knew were in the vicinity?
d) Ran out of fuel while trying one of the alternative options and ditched in the sea?

These are just a few of the points raised in the previous debate and of course nothing can be proven or not as these are just possible scenarios. Apart from the fact that they never saw Howland Island or Itasca's smoke and, Itasca never saw them. Personally I liked the idea of an expanding search pattern as proposed by GLP and yourself, it opens up new possibilities as to what happened. Of course everything hinges on where they actually were and, where they thought they were which, as the outcome shows, wasn't close enough to Howland Island to save them.

Jeff
This must be the place
 
Logged

Tim Gard

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #54 on: December 07, 2013, 07:44:43 PM »

Quote
Why do you think she was cluless as to the direction and magnitude of the wind? My flight instructor forced me to find out.
The simple proceedure it this! Make a wide coordinated 360 turn at one fixed speed. As you're turning watch the IAS very closely. When da need go up your IAS is increasing and you're fliing into (running against the wind, we all know the song) and when da need go down we flying with the wind. (Sorry I'm have a funny memory here) At two point while fling in the circle da needle stay in da meddle. I know I' being funny, I told youi I could laugh when hearing some of these thing being said. Now of course you have acquired 3 differnet speed IAS readings. For instance, when flying east 120, north 110, west 120 and south 130 knots. I'll bet there's not one person who read this that can't tell us which way the wind was blowing and what magnitude of it was.

Thanks for response

Fred

I could imagine this working when viewing a visible ground reference, but not over featureless water. The wind force acts equally and continuously on the airframe no matter what heading the aircraft flies.

The ASI may register any gusts or increases or decreases in wind velocity that the aircraft happens to fly through, including its own slipstream, but otherwise being able to determine wind drift without a nav aid, ground or celestial reference seems a falacy to me.

/ Member #4122 /
/Hold the Heading/
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #55 on: December 08, 2013, 08:57:17 AM »

Sure Woody no problem! Just this once just for you! :)

In 1972 I took flying lessons. I'd logged amost enough time to get my  ticket when an accident at work I broke both of my legs. It took a long time to heal. Since then I've had several friennds I've gone flying with to get a $50 hamburger.
So your are correct my friend. I am not a offically a pilot. Of course neither were the Wright brothers!

Also from 1972 until sometime in the 1990's with a Gemeral Class Ham Radio license until I let it expire. My FCC call was WB3HGC (huge green cucumbers) :)
Back in those days you had to copy morse code at 15wpm to obtain the ticket. Something that may have saved Amelia's life had she known it.
 
Perhaps that'll help you with your background check! Do I get the job? :)
I can save you a lot of time. If you'll PM me I can send my resume going all the way back to military service years  during the Viet Nam War. I can tell you some good flying stories and scan you some QSL cards as well!

 

Your not with the IRS are you? :)   

Now help me out woody.
What is the highest you've flown w/o oxygen?

and what would the FAA say about Amelia flying solo above 18,000 without O2 today?

One more question if you don't mind. As a commercial pilot, how many hours have you logged using the sextant as your only navaid?

If you're interesting in flying the simulator, I've written a great celestial navigation tuturial I'll be glad to send you as well. I'm looking for people to fly with!   

Thanks

Fred   
 

Hi Fred. Thanks for answering my questions. I'm sure that it will go a long way toward establishing that trust with the Forum members here.

Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you but I have some vision problems that frequently severely limit how long I am able to read my computer screen. I am usually in church with my wife at this time on Sunday morning but today we are in the grip of an ice storm and unable to get out. In the interest of fairness, I will try to answer your questions to me.

1. No I am not with the IRS.
2. The highest I have flown without oxygen was about 12,000 feet in an unpressurized A/C and about 35,000 feet in a pressurized A/C.
3. If AE flew above 18,000 feet without O2 today, the FAA would say that she had violated the FARs (see attachment below).
4. During my commercial flying career, (ATP AMEL, CP ASEL, Rotorcraft Helicopter, Instrument Helicopter), I flew in SE Asia, Europe and the US, including several hundred hours in the Gulf of Mexico, and never had to use a sextant even as a secondary "navaid"

I agree that our discussion is probably getting off topic here and would be better continued through PMs. If you want to continue please send me a PM.

Thanks again,
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Frederick Frick Young

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #56 on: December 09, 2013, 09:30:51 AM »

Sure Woody no problem! Just this once just for you! :)

In 1972 I took flying lessons. I'd logged amost enough time to get my  ticket when an accident at work I broke both of my legs. It took a long time to heal. Since then I've had several friennds I've gone flying with to get a $50 hamburger.
So your are correct my friend. I am not a offically a pilot. Of course neither were the Wright brothers!

Also from 1972 until sometime in the 1990's with a Gemeral Class Ham Radio license until I let it expire. My FCC call was WB3HGC (huge green cucumbers) :)
Back in those days you had to copy morse code at 15wpm to obtain the ticket. Something that may have saved Amelia's life had she known it.
 
Perhaps that'll help you with your background check! Do I get the job? :)
I can save you a lot of time. If you'll PM me I can send my resume going all the way back to military service years  during the Viet Nam War. I can tell you some good flying stories and scan you some QSL cards as well!

 

Your not with the IRS are you? :)   

Now help me out woody.
What is the highest you've flown w/o oxygen?

and what would the FAA say about Amelia flying solo above 18,000 without O2 today?

One more question if you don't mind. As a commercial pilot, how many hours have you logged using the sextant as your only navaid?

If you're interesting in flying the simulator, I've written a great celestial navigation tuturial I'll be glad to send you as well. I'm looking for people to fly with!   

Thanks

Fred   
 

Hi Fred. Thanks for answering my questions. I'm sure that it will go a long way toward establishing that trust with the Forum members here.

Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you but I have some vision problems that frequently severely limit how long I am able to read my computer screen. I am usually in church with my wife at this time on Sunday morning but today we are in the grip of an ice storm and unable to get out. In the interest of fairness, I will try to answer your questions to me.

1. No I am not with the IRS.
2. The highest I have flown without oxygen was about 12,000 feet in an unpressurized A/C and about 35,000 feet in a pressurized A/C.
3. If AE flew above 18,000 feet without O2 today, the FAA would say that she had violated the FARs (see attachment below).
4. During my commercial flying career, (ATP AMEL, CP ASEL, Rotorcraft Helicopter, Instrument Helicopter), I flew in SE Asia, Europe and the US, including several hundred hours in the Gulf of Mexico, and never had to use a sextant even as a secondary "navaid"

I agree that our discussion is probably getting off topic here and would be better continued through PMs. If you want to continue please send me a PM.

Thanks again,

Thanks Woody,

A very impressive resume for sure! I'll PM you and save the thread for the moon.:)

 I am interested in knowing when you flew in SE Asia!

Fred

Logged

Frederick Frick Young

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #57 on: December 09, 2013, 10:09:00 AM »

Quote
Why do you think she was cluless as to the direction and magnitude of the wind? My flight instructor forced me to find out.
The simple proceedure it this! Make a wide coordinated 360 turn at one fixed speed. As you're turning watch the IAS very closely. When da need go up your IAS is increasing and you're fliing into (running against the wind, we all know the song) and when da need go down we flying with the wind. (Sorry I'm have a funny memory here) At two point while fling in the circle da needle stay in da meddle. I know I' being funny, I told youi I could laugh when hearing some of these thing being said. Now of course you have acquired 3 differnet speed IAS readings. For instance, when flying east 120, north 110, west 120 and south 130 knots. I'll bet there's not one person who read this that can't tell us which way the wind was blowing and what magnitude of it was.

Thanks for response

Fred

I could imagine this working when viewing a visible ground reference, but not over featureless water. The wind force acts equally and continuously on the airframe no matter what heading the aircraft flies.

The ASI may register any gusts or increases or decreases in wind velocity that the aircraft happens to fly through, including its own slipstream, but otherwise being able to determine wind drift without a nav aid, ground or celestial reference seems a falacy to me.

Hi Tim,

you're right about land as far as visual references. However, in a small aircraft, it's more about momentum of the aircraft and the feel of the controls. If I'm flying with the wind at a certain IAS and turn 90 degrees left or right my IAS is going increase and vice versa if I'd been flying into the wind.   

The ocean is not exactly featurless. If you look down and see white caps you know there's a a pretty stiff wind. I don't sail on the ocean, but rather on a lake. By merely looking at the water I have a pretty good idea, within 5 knots or so, how hard the wind is blowing. I'm quite sure Amelia didn't drop down in the middle of the flight to observe the ocean, however at a 1000 feet, and with her experience, she probably had a pretty good idea as well.     
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #58 on: December 09, 2013, 10:26:23 AM »

Fred, you've got to be kidding.

Your indicated airspeed is never affected by wind directon. The only reason IAS decreases slightly when you initiate a turn is the loss of lift, which will require more power if you want to maintain the same IAS in the turn.

I think you are confusing IAS with Ground Speed (GS), which is affected by wind direction when you make a turn.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 10:57:55 AM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Frederick Frick Young

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: What happened with the moon
« Reply #59 on: December 09, 2013, 11:02:25 AM »



The only reason IAS decreases slightly when you initiate a turn is the loss oif lift, which will require more power if you want to maintain the same IAS in the turn.

Isn't that what I just said? The reason the IAS decreases or is the force of wind across the Pitot tube. As I said Momentum of the aircraft and feel (loss of lift). To maintain altitude with loss of lift you'd need to pull back on the yoke. With loss of lift the nose goes down.   
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP