info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
O/T: knots
26 views
Skip to first unread message
rdelan...@gmail.com
Dec 11, 2015, 6:53:14 PM12/11/15
to
Hi, this isn't about bicycles,...
I was reviewing knots from my old boy scout and sailing
daze, and could remember just four. Getting old sux -
There are plenty of well illustrated books. I figure
I can learn 10 - 12. So, I'm looking for suggestions, a list.
Why am I posting this question here? There must be a
few bike mechanics on this board, and mechanics
know lots of technical tricks - including maybe, rope -
Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list - so tell
not only which ones to focus on, but why, what's the app?
--
Rich
I was reviewing knots from my old boy scout and sailing
daze, and could remember just four. Getting old sux -
There are plenty of well illustrated books. I figure
I can learn 10 - 12. So, I'm looking for suggestions, a list.
Why am I posting this question here? There must be a
few bike mechanics on this board, and mechanics
know lots of technical tricks - including maybe, rope -
Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list - so tell
not only which ones to focus on, but why, what's the app?
--
Rich
Jakob Krieger
Dec 11, 2015, 7:00:44 PM12/11/15
to
- rdelaney / Sat, 12 Dec 2015 00:53:09 +0100
> Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list - so tell
> not only which ones to focus on, but why, what's the app?
Forget about old-school.
Cable-ties are state of the art.
jk
... and try to configure your news-reader in a way that
your name will appear in the 'message-from' line, tsx
--
no sig
> Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list - so tell
> not only which ones to focus on, but why, what's the app?
Cable-ties are state of the art.
jk
... and try to configure your news-reader in a way that
your name will appear in the 'message-from' line, tsx
--
no sig
Andrew Chaplin
Dec 11, 2015, 7:16:31 PM12/11/15
to
"Jakob Krieger" <j...@dashdotcom.de> wrote in news:op.x9h7ngb2hz6ioy@vogon-
2.fritz.box:
> - rdelaney / Sat, 12 Dec 2015 00:53:09 +0100
>
>> Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list - so tell
>> not only which ones to focus on, but why, what's the app?
>
> Forget about old-school.
>
> Cable-ties are state of the art.
Unless you're trying to repair tubulars, in which case go to the library and
take out a book. ;)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
2.fritz.box:
> - rdelaney / Sat, 12 Dec 2015 00:53:09 +0100
>
>> Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list - so tell
>> not only which ones to focus on, but why, what's the app?
>
> Forget about old-school.
>
> Cable-ties are state of the art.
take out a book. ;)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Jakob Krieger
Dec 11, 2015, 7:24:35 PM12/11/15
to
- Andrew Chaplin / Sat, 12 Dec 2015 01:14:01 +0100
>>> Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list - so tell
>>> not only which ones to focus on, but why, what's the app?
>> Forget about old-school.
>>
>> Cable-ties are state of the art.
> Unless you're trying to repair tubulars, in which case go to the library and
> take out a book. ;)
GOOD cable-ties also repair a punctured tube.
One right and one left of the leak.
You just have to tear them tightly.
jk
--
no sig
>>> Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list - so tell
>>> not only which ones to focus on, but why, what's the app?
>> Forget about old-school.
>>
>> Cable-ties are state of the art.
> Unless you're trying to repair tubulars, in which case go to the library and
> take out a book. ;)
One right and one left of the leak.
You just have to tear them tightly.
jk
--
no sig
John B.
Dec 11, 2015, 8:26:01 PM12/11/15
to
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:53:09 -0800 (PST), rdelan...@gmail.com
wrote:
What knots one uses is very dependent on what one does :-) but on the
other hand one uses perhaps one or two in daily life so the rest are
immaterial.
A modern sailor, for example uses one or two (disregarding one's dress
shoes) the square knot and a bowline.
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
other hand one uses perhaps one or two in daily life so the rest are
immaterial.
A modern sailor, for example uses one or two (disregarding one's dress
shoes) the square knot and a bowline.
--
cheers,
John B.
Joy Beeson
Dec 11, 2015, 11:19:43 PM12/11/15
to
> Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list
The half hitch, basis of all knots.
The grand old square knot.
The surgeon's knot, when a square knot won't stay tight long enough to
make the second half hitch.
The slipped square knot, aka bow knot or shoelace knot, for when you
may need to untie it. Tip: to easily untie a plain square knot, pull
on both ends of the same rope until it is straight. Then the other
rope will be two half hitches that easily slide off the first rope.
The clove hitch.
The slipped clove hitch, aka miller's knot. (I learned that one by
studying a sack of flour I'd bought from a miller.) The only way to
tie a sack shut if you want to open it and then close it again with
the same twine. (But a clove hitch will do.)
The sheet bend, aka weaver's knot. Used to join two lines end-to-end.
I've never had much use for the bowline, but it comes free with the
sheet bend.
The cow hitch, for attaching a rubber band to a folding clothes-drying
rack so it can be stretched over the joint after the rack is set up.
Also useful for attaching a camera strap to a GPS. Useful any time
you want to attach the bight of a line to an object.
Or, to wrench this back onto cycling, I use a cow hitch to attach my
garters to one of the safety pins I pin the ankles of my sweat pants
with, then use the other safety pin to anchor this pin to said sweat
pants before I hang them up. When I open the pin, the cow hitch
undoes itself.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
John B.
Dec 14, 2015, 6:58:15 PM12/14/15
to
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:16:37 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Sat, 12 Dec 2015 08:25:57
>the intended purpose), and most people only know one or two. But
>different knots have different uses, and "knots" covers a wide range
>of different types - bends, stoppers, hitches, lashings, whippings,
>splices, etc.
>What you describe may well be true of what we used to call "yachties"
>when I lived in Burnham-on-Crouch (weekenders, who came down to sail
>their boats, but used a yard to look after them, and tended to be the
>worst for needing dragging off mudbanks and other types of rescue),
>but is far from true for those who take a pride in maintaining their
>own boat in good condition, live on it on a low budget, or use it for
>long distance cruising or ocean racing.
No, I was describing people that largely live on boats (yachts) and
journey to far off places. The bulk of the folks in the marina I used
to keep my boat (when I had one) in had come from Europe, The U.S.,
Australia, Half the world away.
But what sort of exotic reefs and bends do you think people use in
these days of aluminum spars and synthetic ropes?
My wife and I lived on a 40 ft. fiberglass boat for 15 years and the
only knot I remember using regularly was when I tied the dinghy
painter to the rail.
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Sat, 12 Dec 2015 08:25:57
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:53:09 -0800 (PST), rdelan...@gmail.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Hi, this isn't about bicycles,...
>>>
>>>I was reviewing knots from my old boy scout and sailing
>>>daze, and could remember just four. Getting old sux -
>>>
>>>There are plenty of well illustrated books. I figure
>>>I can learn 10 - 12. So, I'm looking for suggestions, a list.
>>>
>>>Why am I posting this question here? There must be a
>>>few bike mechanics on this board, and mechanics
>>>know lots of technical tricks - including maybe, rope -
>>>
>>>Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list - so tell
>>>not only which ones to focus on, but why, what's the app?
>>
>>What knots one uses is very dependent on what one does :-) but on the
>>other hand one uses perhaps one or two in daily life so the rest are
>>immaterial.
>
>Partly true - you use what you know (even if it's less than ideal for
>
>>On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:53:09 -0800 (PST), rdelan...@gmail.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Hi, this isn't about bicycles,...
>>>
>>>I was reviewing knots from my old boy scout and sailing
>>>daze, and could remember just four. Getting old sux -
>>>
>>>There are plenty of well illustrated books. I figure
>>>I can learn 10 - 12. So, I'm looking for suggestions, a list.
>>>
>>>Why am I posting this question here? There must be a
>>>few bike mechanics on this board, and mechanics
>>>know lots of technical tricks - including maybe, rope -
>>>
>>>Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list - so tell
>>>not only which ones to focus on, but why, what's the app?
>>
>>What knots one uses is very dependent on what one does :-) but on the
>>other hand one uses perhaps one or two in daily life so the rest are
>>immaterial.
>
>the intended purpose), and most people only know one or two. But
>different knots have different uses, and "knots" covers a wide range
>of different types - bends, stoppers, hitches, lashings, whippings,
>splices, etc.
>>
>>A modern sailor, for example uses one or two (disregarding one's dress
>>shoes) the square knot and a bowline.
>
>That depends on how much of his own maintenance he does.
>>A modern sailor, for example uses one or two (disregarding one's dress
>>shoes) the square knot and a bowline.
>
>What you describe may well be true of what we used to call "yachties"
>when I lived in Burnham-on-Crouch (weekenders, who came down to sail
>their boats, but used a yard to look after them, and tended to be the
>worst for needing dragging off mudbanks and other types of rescue),
>but is far from true for those who take a pride in maintaining their
>own boat in good condition, live on it on a low budget, or use it for
>long distance cruising or ocean racing.
No, I was describing people that largely live on boats (yachts) and
journey to far off places. The bulk of the folks in the marina I used
to keep my boat (when I had one) in had come from Europe, The U.S.,
Australia, Half the world away.
But what sort of exotic reefs and bends do you think people use in
these days of aluminum spars and synthetic ropes?
My wife and I lived on a 40 ft. fiberglass boat for 15 years and the
only knot I remember using regularly was when I tied the dinghy
painter to the rail.
--
cheers,
John B.
Jakob Krieger
Dec 14, 2015, 9:38:49 PM12/14/15
to
- John B. / Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:58:10 +0100
> But what sort of exotic reefs and bends do you think people use in
> these days of aluminum spars and synthetic ropes?
Well, seamens' knots have one thing in common:
They stay tight, but can be opened quite easily -
unlike the parcel knot that is best opened with a knife.
Then there are two main classes:
1 the ones that tighten when pulled
(like the reef-knot, sheet-bend, or the lynch knot)
2 the ones that keep-up a sling which does not tighten,
like the palstek (bowline knot) e.g. for rescue purpose
(not strangulating the victim)
Of course with plastic ropes and fixtures,
you don't need a knot any more for many things.
But for rescuing »man overboard« or joinig ropes
for more length, classical knots are still used.
May be except for GPS sailors, they don't know
what a knot or even a rope is.
When they go to disembark, they don't try to approach
a footbridge and tie the boat, but crash at beach low-waters
and buy a new boat for continuing their sailing trip.
[I was a inland-lake sports sailer in long-ago younger years,
and in my dreams, I surrounded earth at least twice
wich a shabby plastic dinghy -- so I MUST know]
jk
--
no sig
> But what sort of exotic reefs and bends do you think people use in
> these days of aluminum spars and synthetic ropes?
They stay tight, but can be opened quite easily -
unlike the parcel knot that is best opened with a knife.
Then there are two main classes:
1 the ones that tighten when pulled
(like the reef-knot, sheet-bend, or the lynch knot)
2 the ones that keep-up a sling which does not tighten,
like the palstek (bowline knot) e.g. for rescue purpose
(not strangulating the victim)
Of course with plastic ropes and fixtures,
you don't need a knot any more for many things.
But for rescuing »man overboard« or joinig ropes
for more length, classical knots are still used.
May be except for GPS sailors, they don't know
what a knot or even a rope is.
When they go to disembark, they don't try to approach
a footbridge and tie the boat, but crash at beach low-waters
and buy a new boat for continuing their sailing trip.
[I was a inland-lake sports sailer in long-ago younger years,
and in my dreams, I surrounded earth at least twice
wich a shabby plastic dinghy -- so I MUST know]
jk
--
no sig
John B.
Dec 15, 2015, 5:49:58 AM12/15/15
to
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:38:45 +0100, "Jakob Krieger" <j...@dashdotcom.de>
wrote:
>- John B. / Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:58:10 +0100
>
>
>> But what sort of exotic reefs and bends do you think people use in
>> these days of aluminum spars and synthetic ropes?
>
>Well, seamens' knots have one thing in common:
>They stay tight, but can be opened quite easily -
>unlike the parcel knot that is best opened with a knife.
>
>Then there are two main classes:
>1 the ones that tighten when pulled
> (like the reef-knot, sheet-bend, or the lynch knot)
>2 the ones that keep-up a sling which does not tighten,
> like the palstek (bowline knot) e.g. for rescue purpose
> (not strangulating the victim)
>
>Of course with plastic ropes and fixtures,
>you don't need a knot any more for many things.
>
>But for rescuing »man overboard« or joinig ropes
>for more length, classical knots are still used.
>
What ropes would that be? The main halyard? About 80% wire rope? The
main sheet? Wire again, or the jib sheet... wire once again. I only
see rope on little boats that go zigging and zagging around the
harbour on Sunday afternoon.
>
>May be except for GPS sailors, they don't know
>what a knot or even a rope is.
Sort of snarky remark isn't it? After all big ships navigate with GPS,
airplanes navigate with GPS. It has been quite a number of years now
since anything commercial used the stars.
>When they go to disembark, they don't try to approach
>a footbridge and tie the boat, but crash at beach low-waters
>and buy a new boat for continuing their sailing trip.
>
>
>[I was a inland-lake sports sailer in long-ago younger years,
>and in my dreams, I surrounded earth at least twice
>wich a shabby plastic dinghy -- so I MUST know]
>
>
>
>jk
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>- John B. / Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:58:10 +0100
>
>
>> But what sort of exotic reefs and bends do you think people use in
>> these days of aluminum spars and synthetic ropes?
>
>Well, seamens' knots have one thing in common:
>They stay tight, but can be opened quite easily -
>unlike the parcel knot that is best opened with a knife.
>
>Then there are two main classes:
>1 the ones that tighten when pulled
> (like the reef-knot, sheet-bend, or the lynch knot)
>2 the ones that keep-up a sling which does not tighten,
> like the palstek (bowline knot) e.g. for rescue purpose
> (not strangulating the victim)
>
>Of course with plastic ropes and fixtures,
>you don't need a knot any more for many things.
>
>But for rescuing »man overboard« or joinig ropes
>for more length, classical knots are still used.
>
main sheet? Wire again, or the jib sheet... wire once again. I only
see rope on little boats that go zigging and zagging around the
harbour on Sunday afternoon.
>
>May be except for GPS sailors, they don't know
>what a knot or even a rope is.
airplanes navigate with GPS. It has been quite a number of years now
since anything commercial used the stars.
>When they go to disembark, they don't try to approach
>a footbridge and tie the boat, but crash at beach low-waters
>and buy a new boat for continuing their sailing trip.
>
>
>[I was a inland-lake sports sailer in long-ago younger years,
>and in my dreams, I surrounded earth at least twice
>wich a shabby plastic dinghy -- so I MUST know]
>
>
>
>jk
--
John B.
rdelan...@gmail.com
Dec 15, 2015, 4:20:05 PM12/15/15
to
On December 11, Joy Beeson wrote:
>> Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list
>
>> Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list
>
> The grand old square knot.
> The sheet bend, aka weaver's knot. Used to join two lines end-to-end.
When/whatfor does one use a sheet bend, vs. a square knot?
They look alike, except the square knot is much easier to tie.
> I've never had much use for the bowline, but it comes free with the
> sheet bend.
--
Rich
Joy Beeson
Dec 15, 2015, 8:58:54 PM12/15/15
to
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:20:02 -0800 (PST), rdelan...@gmail.com
wrote:
> > I've never had much use for the bowline, but it comes free with the
> > sheet bend.
>
> ?
A bowline is a rope tied to its own standing part with a sheet bend.
Likewise, the prussik comes almost free with the cow hitch -- a
prussik is turned two or more times around the rope, a cow hitch only
once.
And the taut-line hitch comes free with the prussik -- you pass twine
around a chair leg or whatever anchor is convenient, tie it to itself
with a prussik, and you can lengthen or shorten the tether on your
sewing bird to keep a comfortable tension on your fabric.
http://wlweather.net/pagesew/SEWBIRD.HTM (in the picture, the bird is
anchored with two half hitches and tension is adjusted by moving the
chair.)
As taught to me, the taut-line hitch was intended to fasten a rope to
a tent peg. That situation doesn't come up very often.
wrote:
> > I've never had much use for the bowline, but it comes free with the
> > sheet bend.
>
> ?
Likewise, the prussik comes almost free with the cow hitch -- a
prussik is turned two or more times around the rope, a cow hitch only
once.
And the taut-line hitch comes free with the prussik -- you pass twine
around a chair leg or whatever anchor is convenient, tie it to itself
with a prussik, and you can lengthen or shorten the tether on your
sewing bird to keep a comfortable tension on your fabric.
http://wlweather.net/pagesew/SEWBIRD.HTM (in the picture, the bird is
anchored with two half hitches and tension is adjusted by moving the
chair.)
As taught to me, the taut-line hitch was intended to fasten a rope to
a tent peg. That situation doesn't come up very often.
Joy Beeson
Dec 15, 2015, 9:20:50 PM12/15/15
to
> When/whatfor does one use a sheet bend, vs. a square knot?
You use a square knot (or a surgeon's knot) when you want to pull the
line tight while tying it, as when tying your shoes, tying a package,
or (so I have been told) when reefing a sail.
You use a sheet bend (or some other bend) when you want to tie two
lines end-to-end. The square knot isn't suitable if the two lines
don't match, it may jam and be impossible to untie, and it's apt to
capsize into two half hitches when wooled around.
But when I want to tie two threads together, I generally just hold
them together and tie a half hitch in the ends. It holds, and I never
meant to untie it anyway. It does make the thread more likely to
break when pulled, so I'd never use this technique on rope.
And I'll confess to using a square knot on cord elastic. When pulled
firmly, the elastic deforms permanently, so *any* knot will hold. (But
if I have to open a seam to re-tie elastic that's come undone, I use a
sheet bend.)
John B.
Dec 16, 2015, 5:34:52 AM12/16/15
to
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 01:49:38 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:58:10
>I'd use one of several hitches for that (depending on how great the
>need for security balances with that for convenience) - I'd think
>doing it with a square (reef) knot or bowline would be far more
>awkward.
>
Well, if you are on the boat and the dinghy drifts away you get to
swim to shore, so security does have some importance.
>And how would you join two lines together safely, hang a coil of rope,
>secure a line under tension, etc?
if you want to hang up a rope you just hang a loop over the upper horn
of the cleat, if you want to secure a line under tension you use a
conventional cleat or maybe a "jam cleat" and why would you want to
join two lines together?
>I don't think anyone in their right mind would describe me as a seaman
>(at best I'd be a hand), but I know and have used at least a dozen
>different knots, and have seen used (by seamen, climbers, and rescue
>workers, among others) more than I can remember, almost always in
>situations where nothing simpler fits the use.
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:58:10
>need for security balances with that for convenience) - I'd think
>doing it with a square (reef) knot or bowline would be far more
>awkward.
>
Well, if you are on the boat and the dinghy drifts away you get to
swim to shore, so security does have some importance.
>And how would you join two lines together safely, hang a coil of rope,
>secure a line under tension, etc?
if you want to hang up a rope you just hang a loop over the upper horn
of the cleat, if you want to secure a line under tension you use a
conventional cleat or maybe a "jam cleat" and why would you want to
join two lines together?
>I don't think anyone in their right mind would describe me as a seaman
>(at best I'd be a hand), but I know and have used at least a dozen
>different knots, and have seen used (by seamen, climbers, and rescue
>workers, among others) more than I can remember, almost always in
>situations where nothing simpler fits the use.
--
cheers,
John B.
rdelan...@gmail.com
Dec 16, 2015, 4:29:19 PM12/16/15
to
On December 15, Joy Beeson wrote:
> > When/whatfor does one use a sheet bend, vs. a square knot?
>
> You use a square knot (or a surgeon's knot) when you want to pull the
> line tight while tying it, tying a package,
> > When/whatfor does one use a sheet bend, vs. a square knot?
>
> You use a square knot (or a surgeon's knot) when you want to pull the
ha, when was the last time anyone saw a string tied
package sent through post office?
Still, it might be useful - which knot is dedicated for packages?
> You use a sheet bend (or some other bend) when you want to tie two
> lines end-to-end. The square knot isn't suitable if the two lines
> don't match, it may jam and be impossible to untie, and it's apt to
> capsize into two half hitches when wooled around.
awkward. I recall learning, long ago, that you really
know a know when you can tie it blindfolded.
--
Rich
Joy Beeson
Dec 16, 2015, 11:48:48 PM12/16/15
to
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:29:04 -0800 (PST), rdelan...@gmail.com
wrote:
> ha, when was the last time anyone saw a string tied
> package sent through post office?
I don't think I've *ever* mailed a string-tied package. Used to see a
lot of ribbon-tied packages at celebrations.
I used to use a surgeon's knot to tie newspapers into bundles for
recycling. (They pick paper up at the house now, and I just throw it
loose into a small bin.)
For small packages, I use rubber bands. We get six a week on our
newspaper, so there's always a band around when I want one.
wrote:
> ha, when was the last time anyone saw a string tied
> package sent through post office?
lot of ribbon-tied packages at celebrations.
I used to use a surgeon's knot to tie newspapers into bundles for
recycling. (They pick paper up at the house now, and I just throw it
loose into a small bin.)
For small packages, I use rubber bands. We get six a week on our
newspaper, so there's always a band around when I want one.
Jakob Krieger
Dec 19, 2015, 8:25:12 PM12/19/15
to
- John B. / Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:49:53 +0100
>> Of course with plastic ropes and fixtures,
>> you don't need a knot any more for many things.
>> But for rescuing »man overboard« or joinig ropes
>> for more length, classical knots are still used.
> What ropes would that be? The main halyard? About 80% wire rope? The
> main sheet? Wire again, or the jib sheet... wire once again.
Well, it used to be considered as a good precaution to
have a roll of rope lying somewhere in the boat.
Even in cars, towing-ropes can be found.
>> May be except for GPS sailors, they don't know
>> what a knot or even a rope is.
> Sort of snarky remark isn't it? After all big ships navigate with GPS,
> airplanes navigate with GPS. It has been quite a number of years now
> since anything commercial used the stars.
Nobody with a little bit of experience (bike or car drivers
included) relies on GPS only.
The snarky remark was meant about people who have
no orientation at all without GPS (can't even find
their own bathroom)
jk
--
no sig
>> Of course with plastic ropes and fixtures,
>> you don't need a knot any more for many things.
>> But for rescuing »man overboard« or joinig ropes
>> for more length, classical knots are still used.
> What ropes would that be? The main halyard? About 80% wire rope? The
> main sheet? Wire again, or the jib sheet... wire once again.
have a roll of rope lying somewhere in the boat.
Even in cars, towing-ropes can be found.
>> May be except for GPS sailors, they don't know
>> what a knot or even a rope is.
> Sort of snarky remark isn't it? After all big ships navigate with GPS,
> airplanes navigate with GPS. It has been quite a number of years now
> since anything commercial used the stars.
included) relies on GPS only.
The snarky remark was meant about people who have
no orientation at all without GPS (can't even find
their own bathroom)
jk
--
no sig
Frank Krygowski
Dec 20, 2015, 12:42:00 AM12/20/15
to
On my way there, the country highway to his house was unexpectedly
closed. I think it may have been due to a bad car crash, since it was
open on my way home, and there was no sign of construction work. Oh,
and there were no detour signs, which would have been normal for
construction work.
So I made my way by dead reckoning over very minor country lanes. I was
interested to note that I was navigating - or at least, confirming my
direction - by looking at the stars. First time in a long time!
--
- Frank Krygowski
John B.
Dec 20, 2015, 5:50:38 AM12/20/15
to
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 02:25:09 +0100, "Jakob Krieger" <j...@dashdotcom.de>
wrote:
>- John B. / Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:49:53 +0100
>
>>> Of course with plastic ropes and fixtures,
>>> you don't need a knot any more for many things.
>
>>> But for rescuing »man overboard« or joinig ropes
>>> for more length, classical knots are still used.
>
>> What ropes would that be? The main halyard? About 80% wire rope? The
>> main sheet? Wire again, or the jib sheet... wire once again.
>
>Well, it used to be considered as a good precaution to
>have a roll of rope lying somewhere in the boat.
>Even in cars, towing-ropes can be found.
>
>
>>> May be except for GPS sailors, they don't know
>>> what a knot or even a rope is.
>
>> Sort of snarky remark isn't it? After all big ships navigate with GPS,
>> airplanes navigate with GPS. It has been quite a number of years now
>> since anything commercial used the stars.
>
>Nobody with a little bit of experience (bike or car drivers
>included) relies on GPS only.
>
I see. Do you really think that the 1st officer on, say the Emma
Maersk" is out on the bridge wing every day taking his noon sight? Or
that a B-52 comes equipped with a sextant? Or that any modern
commercial or military vehicle comes with a copy of the six H.O.
tables?
The U.S. navel Academy stopped teaching celestial navigation nearly 20
years ago stating that while celestial was accurate to a 3 mile radius
that GPS was accurate to a 60 ft. radius.
>The snarky remark was meant about people who have
>no orientation at all without GPS (can't even find
>their own bathroom)
>
>
>
>jk
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>- John B. / Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:49:53 +0100
>
>>> Of course with plastic ropes and fixtures,
>>> you don't need a knot any more for many things.
>
>>> But for rescuing »man overboard« or joinig ropes
>>> for more length, classical knots are still used.
>
>> What ropes would that be? The main halyard? About 80% wire rope? The
>> main sheet? Wire again, or the jib sheet... wire once again.
>
>Well, it used to be considered as a good precaution to
>have a roll of rope lying somewhere in the boat.
>Even in cars, towing-ropes can be found.
>
>
>>> May be except for GPS sailors, they don't know
>>> what a knot or even a rope is.
>
>> Sort of snarky remark isn't it? After all big ships navigate with GPS,
>> airplanes navigate with GPS. It has been quite a number of years now
>> since anything commercial used the stars.
>
>Nobody with a little bit of experience (bike or car drivers
>included) relies on GPS only.
>
Maersk" is out on the bridge wing every day taking his noon sight? Or
that a B-52 comes equipped with a sextant? Or that any modern
commercial or military vehicle comes with a copy of the six H.O.
tables?
The U.S. navel Academy stopped teaching celestial navigation nearly 20
years ago stating that while celestial was accurate to a 3 mile radius
that GPS was accurate to a 60 ft. radius.
>The snarky remark was meant about people who have
>no orientation at all without GPS (can't even find
>their own bathroom)
>
>
>
>jk
--
John B.
news13
Dec 20, 2015, 8:41:29 AM12/20/15
to
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:50:33 +0700, John B. wrote:
> I see. Do you really think that the 1st officer on, say the Emma Maersk"
> is out on the bridge wing every day taking his noon sight?
Been a few cases where that would have been handy. Faulty GPS and all
> I see. Do you really think that the 1st officer on, say the Emma Maersk"
> is out on the bridge wing every day taking his noon sight?
that.
John B.
Dec 20, 2015, 8:01:59 PM12/20/15
to
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:04:43 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:50:33
>Almost everything of any size used inertial navigation in between
>traditional and GPS, and certainly until VERY recently, it was not
>legal to use GPS as the primary means of navigation in an aircraft of
>UK registry.
>That's what radio beacons are for, in all their various types - VOR,
>DME, NDB, and ILS (and yes, I know how to use them all, although not
>for all the various functions required for a full UK instrument rating
>- the NDB approach is notoriously difficult). I'm fairly sure that in
>coastal waters, ships use a similar system of beacons, mostly housed
>in what used to be primarily lighthouses (and sometimes still perform
>that function as well).
So, do you navigate across the Atlantic, or even worse, across the
Pacific with radio beacons?
>Bubble sextants were certainly part of the standard equipment on the
>Vulcan, so why not the B-52?
The last (I believe) U.S. made aircraft that had the ability to use
celestial navigation were early models of the Boeing 747, which were
phased out in the 1960's. The SR071 had a automated celestial and
inertial navigation. The last SR-71 left service in 1989. The last
Vulcan was delivered in 1965.
You are talking about old technology.
>Note that INS units had to be "borrowed" from some old airliners in
>museums to strap down in the crew compartment of the Vulcans used in
>the "Black Buck" operations of the (pre-GPS) Falklands war. In their
>original (nuclear) role, they were expected to navigate by DR and
>celestial, as it was assumed that most beacons would be off air or out
>of range, and the DR part is kind of difficult over a featureless
>ocean like the South Atlantic, as it relies on position checks (which
>were carefully surveyed for the routes the Vulcan force was assigned
>to on their nuclear role). All INS units are large, as they have big
>gyros in them, so aren't suitable for small craft, and have to be set
>up with accurate starting positions - in aircraft this is done by
>positioning the craft on a carefully plotted navigation marker painted
>on the hardstanding and hand entering the exact latitude and
>longitude. The aircraft has to be kept completely still for several
>minutes while the internal gyros spin up to speed and self-tests are
>performed. They also accumulate errors over time, as they have to
>make a "best guess" approach to precession.
>I had no idea that US naval navigators were so badly trained - aren't
>naval forces supposed to be able to operate in time of war, when EMP
>could have killed the GPS constellation, along with most other outside
>reference signals?
>Or maybe they rely on being able to scavenge some old kit out of
>obsolete vessels in that situation?
>
>Of course, on smaller craft, the bigger problem is likely to be
>reliance on power - particularly on sailing vessels.
>One of the major certification requirements for aero engines is that
>they be electrically self-contained, usually achieved by using magneto
>ignition.
I hate to be the one to disillusion you but I don't believe that any
operational U.S.A.F. engine today uses magneto ignition :-)
I did, how ever, work on what may have been the last of the
reciprocating powered bombers that the USAF had - the B-50 which did
have magnetos.... however to start the engines the system used
"voltage boosters" that served to feed a higher voltage to the
ignition system than the magnetos could produce at starting RPM. The
"voltage boosters" were operated by the air craft's electrical system,
that for starting was powered by an external power supply.
> That goes pear-shaped pretty quickly if you then can't find
>a runway to land on as soon as the power goes off! This is also why
>at least a basic set of primary instruments are vacuum powered, so you
>can at least keep the aircraft flying the right way up and in the
>right direction if all the smoke comes out of the electrical system.
>well as drive it. Anything can break if sufficiently abused over a
>long enough period, and extended abuse is not a bad working
>diefinition of a trans-oceanic voyage in a small boat!
>Of course, if you creep around the coastal areas, you can generally
>find a port to put into if (when) something goes wrong or the weather
>turns nasty.
That sounds like a very logical argument... Until one discovers that
few if any commercial shipping carry sufficient personal and/or
equipment to "to maintain and repair the boat". The Emma Maersk, for
example carries a crew of 13, 4 Deck Officers, 2 Engine Officers, 3
ABs, 2 OS, 2 Oilers. Who do you think repairs the navigation gear? Or
the bow/stern thrusters?
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:50:33
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>traditional and GPS, and certainly until VERY recently, it was not
>legal to use GPS as the primary means of navigation in an aircraft of
>UK registry.
>That's what radio beacons are for, in all their various types - VOR,
>DME, NDB, and ILS (and yes, I know how to use them all, although not
>for all the various functions required for a full UK instrument rating
>- the NDB approach is notoriously difficult). I'm fairly sure that in
>coastal waters, ships use a similar system of beacons, mostly housed
>in what used to be primarily lighthouses (and sometimes still perform
>that function as well).
So, do you navigate across the Atlantic, or even worse, across the
Pacific with radio beacons?
>Bubble sextants were certainly part of the standard equipment on the
>Vulcan, so why not the B-52?
The last (I believe) U.S. made aircraft that had the ability to use
celestial navigation were early models of the Boeing 747, which were
phased out in the 1960's. The SR071 had a automated celestial and
inertial navigation. The last SR-71 left service in 1989. The last
Vulcan was delivered in 1965.
You are talking about old technology.
>Note that INS units had to be "borrowed" from some old airliners in
>museums to strap down in the crew compartment of the Vulcans used in
>the "Black Buck" operations of the (pre-GPS) Falklands war. In their
>original (nuclear) role, they were expected to navigate by DR and
>celestial, as it was assumed that most beacons would be off air or out
>of range, and the DR part is kind of difficult over a featureless
>ocean like the South Atlantic, as it relies on position checks (which
>were carefully surveyed for the routes the Vulcan force was assigned
>to on their nuclear role). All INS units are large, as they have big
>gyros in them, so aren't suitable for small craft, and have to be set
>up with accurate starting positions - in aircraft this is done by
>positioning the craft on a carefully plotted navigation marker painted
>on the hardstanding and hand entering the exact latitude and
>longitude. The aircraft has to be kept completely still for several
>minutes while the internal gyros spin up to speed and self-tests are
>performed. They also accumulate errors over time, as they have to
>make a "best guess" approach to precession.
>I had no idea that US naval navigators were so badly trained - aren't
>naval forces supposed to be able to operate in time of war, when EMP
>could have killed the GPS constellation, along with most other outside
>reference signals?
>Or maybe they rely on being able to scavenge some old kit out of
>obsolete vessels in that situation?
>
>Of course, on smaller craft, the bigger problem is likely to be
>reliance on power - particularly on sailing vessels.
>One of the major certification requirements for aero engines is that
>they be electrically self-contained, usually achieved by using magneto
>ignition.
I hate to be the one to disillusion you but I don't believe that any
operational U.S.A.F. engine today uses magneto ignition :-)
I did, how ever, work on what may have been the last of the
reciprocating powered bombers that the USAF had - the B-50 which did
have magnetos.... however to start the engines the system used
"voltage boosters" that served to feed a higher voltage to the
ignition system than the magnetos could produce at starting RPM. The
"voltage boosters" were operated by the air craft's electrical system,
that for starting was powered by an external power supply.
> That goes pear-shaped pretty quickly if you then can't find
>a runway to land on as soon as the power goes off! This is also why
>at least a basic set of primary instruments are vacuum powered, so you
>can at least keep the aircraft flying the right way up and in the
>right direction if all the smoke comes out of the electrical system.
>>
>>
>>>The snarky remark was meant about people who have
>>>no orientation at all without GPS (can't even find
>>>their own bathroom)
>>>
>Yes, a good sailor should be able to maintain and repair the boat, as
>>
>>>The snarky remark was meant about people who have
>>>no orientation at all without GPS (can't even find
>>>their own bathroom)
>>>
>well as drive it. Anything can break if sufficiently abused over a
>long enough period, and extended abuse is not a bad working
>diefinition of a trans-oceanic voyage in a small boat!
>Of course, if you creep around the coastal areas, you can generally
>find a port to put into if (when) something goes wrong or the weather
>turns nasty.
That sounds like a very logical argument... Until one discovers that
few if any commercial shipping carry sufficient personal and/or
equipment to "to maintain and repair the boat". The Emma Maersk, for
example carries a crew of 13, 4 Deck Officers, 2 Engine Officers, 3
ABs, 2 OS, 2 Oilers. Who do you think repairs the navigation gear? Or
the bow/stern thrusters?
--
cheers,
John B.
John B.
Dec 22, 2015, 7:01:24 AM12/22/15
to
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 02:51:04 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:01:54
>Actually, you can.
>DR gets you close enough to pick up beacons in plenty of time to avoid
>bumping into anything and correct your course to make landfall where
>you need to.
That isn't the way that you described navigation in the U.K. :-)
Re costal radio beacons. It might be an anomaly but I certainly have
never seen them anywhere in Asia, nor have I seen a reference to them
and certainly if they were in common use navigation charts and sailing
directions would have reference to them. Any active light house is
marked on the chart and it's light signal described.
>>
>>>Bubble sextants were certainly part of the standard equipment on the
>>>Vulcan, so why not the B-52?
>>
>>The last (I believe) U.S. made aircraft that had the ability to use
>>celestial navigation were early models of the Boeing 747, which were
>>phased out in the 1960's. The SR071 had a automated celestial and
>>inertial navigation. The last SR-71 left service in 1989. The last
>>Vulcan was delivered in 1965.
>>
>>You are talking about old technology.
>
>Which you certainly CAN use in anything which has outside windows big
>enough to give horizon and solar/star sighting at the same time.
>There are even specialist gyro stabilised bubble sextants designed for
>the purpose, and tables to offset horizon angle by altitude.
>Battery life isn't really much of a problem in the duration of any
>normal aircraft flight, and on water you can pick your moment over a
>much larger timescale.
Yup, certainly. But no windows :-) And, without a bubble sextant it is
awful hard, at 30,000 ft to get a good horizon. And if a fancy
electronically stabilized sextant then why not just use GPS.
By the way, to accurately locate the seismic lines used in oil field
exploitation they haven't used a sextant in years and years. All GPS
these days.
But why all the excitement about sextants? Just use your D.R. and when
you get close look for a landmark. All sailing directions have a
wealth of descriptions of landmarks.
And, there are days, sometimes weeks, that you can't see well enough
to get a sight, and other days when it is too rough to get a good
sight and even when you do your "cocked hat" is probably a mile on
more on a side... if you are really good and more then likely, in a
small boat, a lot bigger.
Even in rough weather and a solid overcast a GPS will give you a
location within feet :-)
>I think you'll find that some of the smaller trainer aircraft do use
>piston engines, complete with magnetos.
I made a very quick check and I don't believe that the USAF has any
reciprocating engine aircraft in use. At least every thing I see with
a propeller is a turbo-prop.
>>
>>I did, how ever, work on what may have been the last of the
>>reciprocating powered bombers that the USAF had - the B-50 which did
>>have magnetos.... however to start the engines the system used
>>"voltage boosters" that served to feed a higher voltage to the
>>ignition system than the magnetos could produce at starting RPM. The
>>"voltage boosters" were operated by the air craft's electrical system,
>>that for starting was powered by an external power supply.
Nope. A voltage booster. the P&W 4360 had a low voltage magneto system
to avoid voltage leaks at high altitude and they definitely had a
voltage booster for each of the two mags.
The old tried and true of making a rough check of whether the mags are
putting out was to grab a spark plug lead and tell the guy to "hit the
starter". The shock was enough to jolt you but it did make for a quick
check.
I once watched a bloke try the same thing with the R-4360, which had
voltage boosters, and it almost knocked him off the stand :-)
>IIRC, magnetos don't lose much in the way of sparks at low revs - it's
>more to compensate for the voltage sag that engaging the starter
>causes.
Nope, magnetos produce a lower voltage at starting revs. Way back they
used what was refereed to as an "impulse coupling" to sort of kick
start the mag to get enough voltage to fire the plugs at starting.
>Magnetos, you may recall, work perfectly well on motorcycles with
>kickstarters!
But, you get more revs from the kick starter on a bike than the
starter on a large aircraft engine.
>>> That goes pear-shaped pretty quickly if you then can't find
>>>a runway to land on as soon as the power goes off! This is also why
>>>at least a basic set of primary instruments are vacuum powered, so you
>>>can at least keep the aircraft flying the right way up and in the
>>>right direction if all the smoke comes out of the electrical system.
Come now. I flew with my father when I was just a lad, in a Piper J-3
and it didn't have any vacuum instruments in it.
>>>>
>>>>>The snarky remark was meant about people who have
>>>>>no orientation at all without GPS (can't even find
>>>>>their own bathroom)
>>>>>
>>>Yes, a good sailor should be able to maintain and repair the boat, as
>>>well as drive it. Anything can break if sufficiently abused over a
>>>long enough period, and extended abuse is not a bad working
>>>diefinition of a trans-oceanic voyage in a small boat!
>>>Of course, if you creep around the coastal areas, you can generally
>>>find a port to put into if (when) something goes wrong or the weather
>>>turns nasty.
>>
>>That sounds like a very logical argument... Until one discovers that
>>few if any commercial shipping carry sufficient personal and/or
>>equipment to "to maintain and repair the boat". The Emma Maersk, for
>>example carries a crew of 13, 4 Deck Officers, 2 Engine Officers, 3
>>ABs, 2 OS, 2 Oilers. Who do you think repairs the navigation gear? Or
>>the bow/stern thrusters?
>
>If a navigation antenna gets blown off, who do you think replaces it?
>Or do you think they just keep going and play blind-mans-buff?
>Who replaces the lamps in navigation lights if (when) they fail?
Which navigation antenna is that? The GPS antenna? Or the big radome?
>
>Of course, a yacht is a rather different proposition. Not many yachts
>(and even less of their normal equipment) are really designed with
>genuinely extreme weather in mind, so if you're going to use one for
>trans-oceanic voyages (or anything too far out to be able to run for
>the nearest port at the first hint of a bad forecast), you do need to
>be able to make-do-and-mend, unless you only sail in events with
>safety rescue boats available.
If you are crossing oceans there is no running for harbour so you try
to make your crossing in the benign seasons :-) Talk to anyone who is
doing a sailing circumnavigation and you find that they seem to spend
lots of time in harbour. You get to Thailand and you have to wait for
the monsoons to change before you can set out for the Indian Ocean.
>To a large extent, similar constraints apply to those of bicycle
>components, as weight and size matter. And the biggest market for
>equipment is the weekend user who spends as much time looking after
>their equipment as they do actually using it.
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:01:54
>DR gets you close enough to pick up beacons in plenty of time to avoid
>bumping into anything and correct your course to make landfall where
>you need to.
That isn't the way that you described navigation in the U.K. :-)
Re costal radio beacons. It might be an anomaly but I certainly have
never seen them anywhere in Asia, nor have I seen a reference to them
and certainly if they were in common use navigation charts and sailing
directions would have reference to them. Any active light house is
marked on the chart and it's light signal described.
>>
>>>Bubble sextants were certainly part of the standard equipment on the
>>>Vulcan, so why not the B-52?
>>
>>The last (I believe) U.S. made aircraft that had the ability to use
>>celestial navigation were early models of the Boeing 747, which were
>>phased out in the 1960's. The SR071 had a automated celestial and
>>inertial navigation. The last SR-71 left service in 1989. The last
>>Vulcan was delivered in 1965.
>>
>>You are talking about old technology.
>
>enough to give horizon and solar/star sighting at the same time.
>There are even specialist gyro stabilised bubble sextants designed for
>the purpose, and tables to offset horizon angle by altitude.
>Battery life isn't really much of a problem in the duration of any
>normal aircraft flight, and on water you can pick your moment over a
>much larger timescale.
Yup, certainly. But no windows :-) And, without a bubble sextant it is
awful hard, at 30,000 ft to get a good horizon. And if a fancy
electronically stabilized sextant then why not just use GPS.
By the way, to accurately locate the seismic lines used in oil field
exploitation they haven't used a sextant in years and years. All GPS
these days.
But why all the excitement about sextants? Just use your D.R. and when
you get close look for a landmark. All sailing directions have a
wealth of descriptions of landmarks.
And, there are days, sometimes weeks, that you can't see well enough
to get a sight, and other days when it is too rough to get a good
sight and even when you do your "cocked hat" is probably a mile on
more on a side... if you are really good and more then likely, in a
small boat, a lot bigger.
Even in rough weather and a solid overcast a GPS will give you a
location within feet :-)
>piston engines, complete with magnetos.
I made a very quick check and I don't believe that the USAF has any
reciprocating engine aircraft in use. At least every thing I see with
a propeller is a turbo-prop.
>>
>>I did, how ever, work on what may have been the last of the
>>reciprocating powered bombers that the USAF had - the B-50 which did
>>have magnetos.... however to start the engines the system used
>>"voltage boosters" that served to feed a higher voltage to the
>>ignition system than the magnetos could produce at starting RPM. The
>>"voltage boosters" were operated by the air craft's electrical system,
>>that for starting was powered by an external power supply.
to avoid voltage leaks at high altitude and they definitely had a
voltage booster for each of the two mags.
The old tried and true of making a rough check of whether the mags are
putting out was to grab a spark plug lead and tell the guy to "hit the
starter". The shock was enough to jolt you but it did make for a quick
check.
I once watched a bloke try the same thing with the R-4360, which had
voltage boosters, and it almost knocked him off the stand :-)
>IIRC, magnetos don't lose much in the way of sparks at low revs - it's
>more to compensate for the voltage sag that engaging the starter
>causes.
Nope, magnetos produce a lower voltage at starting revs. Way back they
used what was refereed to as an "impulse coupling" to sort of kick
start the mag to get enough voltage to fire the plugs at starting.
>Magnetos, you may recall, work perfectly well on motorcycles with
>kickstarters!
But, you get more revs from the kick starter on a bike than the
starter on a large aircraft engine.
>>> That goes pear-shaped pretty quickly if you then can't find
>>>a runway to land on as soon as the power goes off! This is also why
>>>at least a basic set of primary instruments are vacuum powered, so you
>>>can at least keep the aircraft flying the right way up and in the
>>>right direction if all the smoke comes out of the electrical system.
and it didn't have any vacuum instruments in it.
>>>>
>>>>>The snarky remark was meant about people who have
>>>>>no orientation at all without GPS (can't even find
>>>>>their own bathroom)
>>>>>
>>>Yes, a good sailor should be able to maintain and repair the boat, as
>>>well as drive it. Anything can break if sufficiently abused over a
>>>long enough period, and extended abuse is not a bad working
>>>diefinition of a trans-oceanic voyage in a small boat!
>>>Of course, if you creep around the coastal areas, you can generally
>>>find a port to put into if (when) something goes wrong or the weather
>>>turns nasty.
>>
>>That sounds like a very logical argument... Until one discovers that
>>few if any commercial shipping carry sufficient personal and/or
>>equipment to "to maintain and repair the boat". The Emma Maersk, for
>>example carries a crew of 13, 4 Deck Officers, 2 Engine Officers, 3
>>ABs, 2 OS, 2 Oilers. Who do you think repairs the navigation gear? Or
>>the bow/stern thrusters?
>
>Or do you think they just keep going and play blind-mans-buff?
>Who replaces the lamps in navigation lights if (when) they fail?
Which navigation antenna is that? The GPS antenna? Or the big radome?
>
>Of course, a yacht is a rather different proposition. Not many yachts
>(and even less of their normal equipment) are really designed with
>genuinely extreme weather in mind, so if you're going to use one for
>trans-oceanic voyages (or anything too far out to be able to run for
>the nearest port at the first hint of a bad forecast), you do need to
>be able to make-do-and-mend, unless you only sail in events with
>safety rescue boats available.
If you are crossing oceans there is no running for harbour so you try
to make your crossing in the benign seasons :-) Talk to anyone who is
doing a sailing circumnavigation and you find that they seem to spend
lots of time in harbour. You get to Thailand and you have to wait for
the monsoons to change before you can set out for the Indian Ocean.
>To a large extent, similar constraints apply to those of bicycle
>components, as weight and size matter. And the biggest market for
>equipment is the weekend user who spends as much time looking after
>their equipment as they do actually using it.
--
cheers,
John B.
John B.
Dec 22, 2015, 9:14:13 PM12/22/15
to
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:03:27 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:01:17
>I don't believe I ever did describe navigation IN the UK, just that
>required for a rating under UK regulations. I'm fairly sure that
>celestial navigation is still taught in the Royal Navy - it certainly
>is in the Merchant Navy, and it would be a bit strange for Naval
>Reservists to out-qualify their full time Naval counterparts.
>Nearly all training is about what you need to do when things go wrong,
>not when they are going right, and electrical failure is certainly not
>an unanticipated failure mode.
>intended primarily for maritime use, but can be used by suitably
>equipped craft. You can even DF on commercial stations fairly easily
>if you have the (not particularly expensive) equipment.
>>
Come now. You wrote, "I'm fairly sure that in
I reply that I've never seen such a thing and then you tell me that,
"They certainly do have radio beacons in Asia".
Well, of course they do. Intended for aircraft use, not in light
houses. And of course, if one has the required equipment one can get a
direction fix from any radio transmitter.
But how many ships and boats have radio direction finding equipment.
In fact, how many commercial ships still carry a Radioman or have a
"radio room".
>>>>
>>>>>Bubble sextants were certainly part of the standard equipment on the
>>>>>Vulcan, so why not the B-52?
>>>>
>>>>The last (I believe) U.S. made aircraft that had the ability to use
>>>>celestial navigation were early models of the Boeing 747, which were
>>>>phased out in the 1960's. The SR071 had a automated celestial and
>>>>inertial navigation. The last SR-71 left service in 1989. The last
>>>>Vulcan was delivered in 1965.
>>>>
>>>>You are talking about old technology.
>>>
>>>Which you certainly CAN use in anything which has outside windows big
>>>enough to give horizon and solar/star sighting at the same time.
>>>There are even specialist gyro stabilised bubble sextants designed for
>>>the purpose, and tables to offset horizon angle by altitude.
>>>Battery life isn't really much of a problem in the duration of any
>>>normal aircraft flight, and on water you can pick your moment over a
>>>much larger timescale.
>>
>>Yup, certainly. But no windows :-) And, without a bubble sextant it is
>>awful hard, at 30,000 ft to get a good horizon. And if a fancy
>>electronically stabilized sextant then why not just use GPS.
>
>Well, a military aircraft should anticipate the possibility of the GPS
>constellation being knocked out.
But there is no necessity. You said, above, that you could use radio
beacons and other radio stations to navigate by.
>>By the way, to accurately locate the seismic lines used in oil field
>>exploitation they haven't used a sextant in years and years. All GPS
>>these days.
>
>Well, that's a commercial decision, so you use the cheapest that works
>(or your shareholders are going to complain).
Well, an intermittent soaking with sea water will pretty much destroy
your charts and your H.O. tables and having a sextant without these
two accessories is pretty much a futile exercise in navigation :-)
But more realistically, most yachtsmen, on offshore voyages, carry at
least two GPS receivers, and sometimes even more. I've even got a
wrist watch device that includes GPS. Some boats carry "chart
plotters" and don't use paper charts at all any more.
>They still have at least one Slingsby Firefly, with it's Lycoming
>engine, based at Edwards AFB, and believe it or not, an AN-2, but the
>main reason so few piston engine aircraft are still officially used is
>that they outsourced nearly all of their primary training, and the
>aircraft that went with it! Despite that, there are still 25 T-53As
>(Cirrus SR20) in the inventory, and I believe a few T-52As (Diamond
>DA40), although these may have all been replaced by T-53s now.
>There are even 3 T-51As (Cessna C150) still in use.
The USAF has done, probably the majority of their primary flight
training, through outside contractors for years and years. My first
job after school was at an airfield in a small town in Georgia
operated by Southern Airways Corp. that provided primary flight
training for the Air Force... using the original T-6.
As for Edwards AFB, they have a lot of odds and ends of aircraft
there. Some, and I suspect the Slingsby Firefly, as there were a
couple of crashes with that aircraft, that Edwards did some flight
testing to see if the aircraft would recover from one particular
maneuver. The aircraft passed the tests I believe :-)
>On large aircraft engines, maybe, but I've not had much to do with
>them. I do know that motorcycle kickstarters are very variable,
>partly depending on size. Big singles (500+cc) are particularly slow.
Really, I had a Harley 80 cu. inch, flat head, and had no problem kick
starting it. I never owned a 500 c.c. bike but I did ride a mate's 500
c.c Norton single and it started easily. (In fact, the first
motorcycle I saw with an electric starter, I wondered about whether it
was intended for the ladies :-)
>>
>>>>> That goes pear-shaped pretty quickly if you then can't find
>>>>>a runway to land on as soon as the power goes off! This is also why
>>>>>at least a basic set of primary instruments are vacuum powered, so you
>>>>>can at least keep the aircraft flying the right way up and in the
>>>>>right direction if all the smoke comes out of the electrical system.
>>
>>Come now. I flew with my father when I was just a lad, in a Piper J-3
>>and it didn't have any vacuum instruments in it.
>>
>Only because it only had pitot/static instruments and a turn & slip
>indicator!
No turn and slip indicator. An altimeter, magnetic compass and air
speed was all the flight instruments it had.
<some snipped >
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:01:17
>required for a rating under UK regulations. I'm fairly sure that
>celestial navigation is still taught in the Royal Navy - it certainly
>is in the Merchant Navy, and it would be a bit strange for Naval
>Reservists to out-qualify their full time Naval counterparts.
>Nearly all training is about what you need to do when things go wrong,
>not when they are going right, and electrical failure is certainly not
>an unanticipated failure mode.
>
>>Re costal radio beacons. It might be an anomaly but I certainly have
>>never seen them anywhere in Asia, nor have I seen a reference to them
>>and certainly if they were in common use navigation charts and sailing
>>directions would have reference to them. Any active light house is
>>marked on the chart and it's light signal described.
>>
>They certainly do have radio beacons in Asia - they may not be
>>Re costal radio beacons. It might be an anomaly but I certainly have
>>never seen them anywhere in Asia, nor have I seen a reference to them
>>and certainly if they were in common use navigation charts and sailing
>>directions would have reference to them. Any active light house is
>>marked on the chart and it's light signal described.
>>
>intended primarily for maritime use, but can be used by suitably
>equipped craft. You can even DF on commercial stations fairly easily
>if you have the (not particularly expensive) equipment.
>>
Come now. You wrote, "I'm fairly sure that in
coastal waters, ships use a similar system of beacons, mostly housed
in what used to be primarily lighthouses".
I reply that I've never seen such a thing and then you tell me that,
"They certainly do have radio beacons in Asia".
Well, of course they do. Intended for aircraft use, not in light
houses. And of course, if one has the required equipment one can get a
direction fix from any radio transmitter.
But how many ships and boats have radio direction finding equipment.
In fact, how many commercial ships still carry a Radioman or have a
"radio room".
>>>>
>>>>>Bubble sextants were certainly part of the standard equipment on the
>>>>>Vulcan, so why not the B-52?
>>>>
>>>>The last (I believe) U.S. made aircraft that had the ability to use
>>>>celestial navigation were early models of the Boeing 747, which were
>>>>phased out in the 1960's. The SR071 had a automated celestial and
>>>>inertial navigation. The last SR-71 left service in 1989. The last
>>>>Vulcan was delivered in 1965.
>>>>
>>>>You are talking about old technology.
>>>
>>>Which you certainly CAN use in anything which has outside windows big
>>>enough to give horizon and solar/star sighting at the same time.
>>>There are even specialist gyro stabilised bubble sextants designed for
>>>the purpose, and tables to offset horizon angle by altitude.
>>>Battery life isn't really much of a problem in the duration of any
>>>normal aircraft flight, and on water you can pick your moment over a
>>>much larger timescale.
>>
>>Yup, certainly. But no windows :-) And, without a bubble sextant it is
>>awful hard, at 30,000 ft to get a good horizon. And if a fancy
>>electronically stabilized sextant then why not just use GPS.
>
>constellation being knocked out.
But there is no necessity. You said, above, that you could use radio
beacons and other radio stations to navigate by.
>>By the way, to accurately locate the seismic lines used in oil field
>>exploitation they haven't used a sextant in years and years. All GPS
>>these days.
>
>(or your shareholders are going to complain).
>>
>>But why all the excitement about sextants? Just use your D.R. and when
>>you get close look for a landmark. All sailing directions have a
>>wealth of descriptions of landmarks.
>>
>>And, there are days, sometimes weeks, that you can't see well enough
>>to get a sight, and other days when it is too rough to get a good
>>sight and even when you do your "cocked hat" is probably a mile on
>>more on a side... if you are really good and more then likely, in a
>>small boat, a lot bigger.
>>
>>Even in rough weather and a solid overcast a GPS will give you a
>>location within feet :-)
>>
>After an intermittent soaking with seawater?
>>But why all the excitement about sextants? Just use your D.R. and when
>>you get close look for a landmark. All sailing directions have a
>>wealth of descriptions of landmarks.
>>
>>And, there are days, sometimes weeks, that you can't see well enough
>>to get a sight, and other days when it is too rough to get a good
>>sight and even when you do your "cocked hat" is probably a mile on
>>more on a side... if you are really good and more then likely, in a
>>small boat, a lot bigger.
>>
>>Even in rough weather and a solid overcast a GPS will give you a
>>location within feet :-)
>>
Well, an intermittent soaking with sea water will pretty much destroy
your charts and your H.O. tables and having a sextant without these
two accessories is pretty much a futile exercise in navigation :-)
But more realistically, most yachtsmen, on offshore voyages, carry at
least two GPS receivers, and sometimes even more. I've even got a
wrist watch device that includes GPS. Some boats carry "chart
plotters" and don't use paper charts at all any more.
>engine, based at Edwards AFB, and believe it or not, an AN-2, but the
>main reason so few piston engine aircraft are still officially used is
>that they outsourced nearly all of their primary training, and the
>aircraft that went with it! Despite that, there are still 25 T-53As
>(Cirrus SR20) in the inventory, and I believe a few T-52As (Diamond
>DA40), although these may have all been replaced by T-53s now.
>There are even 3 T-51As (Cessna C150) still in use.
The USAF has done, probably the majority of their primary flight
training, through outside contractors for years and years. My first
job after school was at an airfield in a small town in Georgia
operated by Southern Airways Corp. that provided primary flight
training for the Air Force... using the original T-6.
As for Edwards AFB, they have a lot of odds and ends of aircraft
there. Some, and I suspect the Slingsby Firefly, as there were a
couple of crashes with that aircraft, that Edwards did some flight
testing to see if the aircraft would recover from one particular
maneuver. The aircraft passed the tests I believe :-)
>them. I do know that motorcycle kickstarters are very variable,
>partly depending on size. Big singles (500+cc) are particularly slow.
Really, I had a Harley 80 cu. inch, flat head, and had no problem kick
starting it. I never owned a 500 c.c. bike but I did ride a mate's 500
c.c Norton single and it started easily. (In fact, the first
motorcycle I saw with an electric starter, I wondered about whether it
was intended for the ladies :-)
>>
>>>>> That goes pear-shaped pretty quickly if you then can't find
>>>>>a runway to land on as soon as the power goes off! This is also why
>>>>>at least a basic set of primary instruments are vacuum powered, so you
>>>>>can at least keep the aircraft flying the right way up and in the
>>>>>right direction if all the smoke comes out of the electrical system.
>>
>>Come now. I flew with my father when I was just a lad, in a Piper J-3
>>and it didn't have any vacuum instruments in it.
>>
>indicator!
No turn and slip indicator. An altimeter, magnetic compass and air
speed was all the flight instruments it had.
<some snipped >
--
cheers,
John B.
John B.
Dec 24, 2015, 8:28:19 PM12/24/15
to
rOn Thu, 24 Dec 2015 20:47:53 +0000, Phil W Lee
<ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Wed, 23 Dec 2015 09:14:08
>>>Well, a military aircraft should anticipate the possibility of the GPS
>>>constellation being knocked out.
>>
>>But there is no necessity. You said, above, that you could use radio
>>beacons and other radio stations to navigate by.
>
>Or INS, or celestial navigation.
Are you serious? Celestial navigation? In an airplane? It probably
takes 10 to 15 minutes to actually make a minimum of two star sights
and work out a position. Which is possibly accurate to, say a 2 mile
radius. In an aircraft flying at, again say, 500 MPH (Boeing 747
cruise M-0.85)?
In 10 minutes the airplane travels ~80 miles while you are fanatically
making a series of fixes. All accurate to a location 75 miles behind
you.
< More snipped >
>>
A rechargeable one :-)
Which can be re-charged from either the solar panel or the wind
generator.
< and yet more snipped >
>>As for Edwards AFB, they have a lot of odds and ends of aircraft
>>there. Some, and I suspect the Slingsby Firefly, as there were a
>>couple of crashes with that aircraft, that Edwards did some flight
>>testing to see if the aircraft would recover from one particular
>>maneuver. The aircraft passed the tests I believe :-)
>>
>Yes, the aircraft didn't have a problem - the crashes were all put
>down to pilot error. But I don't know why they retained that
>aircraft, let alone the AN-2.
At least when I was stationed there were a lot of old aircraft
scattered around. At one time - maybe in the very late 1960's - I saw
what may have been a Hiller X-18, which flew its last flight in 1961.
And of course the B-52A (only 3 ever built) that had carried the X
aircraft :-)
>>>>But, you get more revs from the kick starter on a bike than the
>>>>starter on a large aircraft engine.
>>>
>>>On large aircraft engines, maybe, but I've not had much to do with
>>>them. I do know that motorcycle kickstarters are very variable,
>>>partly depending on size. Big singles (500+cc) are particularly slow.
>>
>>Really, I had a Harley 80 cu. inch, flat head, and had no problem kick
>>starting it. I never owned a 500 c.c. bike but I did ride a mate's 500
>>c.c Norton single and it started easily. (In fact, the first
>>motorcycle I saw with an electric starter, I wondered about whether it
>>was intended for the ladies :-)
>>
>Did your Harley have magneto ignition?
Nope, but your remark about the "big" 500 cc bikes I assumed that you
were referring to engine size.
>The Norton's (and similar BSAs, Matchless, etc) difficulty in starting
>was almost directly determined by the state of tune - the higher the
>power it was tuned for, the more difficult it was to start.
>But the point (pardon the pun) is how fast the engine needs to spin to
>give a useful spark. I'll bet that it was too slow to even register
>on the rev counter until the thing was running. It has been on every
>four stroke I've ever owned with a kickstarter.
Yes, likely due to advanced Ignition timing. I once helped to push
start a Norton 500 cc "feather bed" racing bike at the Daytona Beach
races that the rider said was impossible to kick start.
>>>>Come now. I flew with my father when I was just a lad, in a Piper J-3
>>>>and it didn't have any vacuum instruments in it.
>>>>
>>>Only because it only had pitot/static instruments and a turn & slip
>>>indicator!
>>
>>No turn and slip indicator. An altimeter, magnetic compass and air
>>speed was all the flight instruments it had.
>>
>Yeah, I knew they didn't have a lot.
>The continued existence of aircraft like that is one reason why it's
>still legal to operate NORDO (outside controlled airspace) - because
>you can't fit a radio to something without an electrical system.
>Of course, the same is true of some yachts, and the conditions under
>which they can operate is potentially far more hostile to electrical
>systems, both in severity and duration.
The preferred navigation method was to follow the railroads :-)
By the way, there is a research paper titled "Vision-Based
Road-Following Using a Small Autonomous Aircraft" done at the AINS
Center for Collaborative Control of Unmanned Vehicles, University of
California, Berkeley, which apparently is dated 2003, which describes
the method :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
<ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Wed, 23 Dec 2015 09:14:08
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>
< A great deal of redundancy snipped >
>
>>>Well, a military aircraft should anticipate the possibility of the GPS
>>>constellation being knocked out.
>>
>>But there is no necessity. You said, above, that you could use radio
>>beacons and other radio stations to navigate by.
>
Are you serious? Celestial navigation? In an airplane? It probably
takes 10 to 15 minutes to actually make a minimum of two star sights
and work out a position. Which is possibly accurate to, say a 2 mile
radius. In an aircraft flying at, again say, 500 MPH (Boeing 747
cruise M-0.85)?
In 10 minutes the airplane travels ~80 miles while you are fanatically
making a series of fixes. All accurate to a location 75 miles behind
you.
< More snipped >
>>But more realistically, most yachtsmen, on offshore voyages, carry at
>>least two GPS receivers, and sometimes even more. I've even got a
>>wrist watch device that includes GPS. Some boats carry "chart
>>plotters" and don't use paper charts at all any more.
>>
>What kind of battery life does your wrist GPS have?
>>least two GPS receivers, and sometimes even more. I've even got a
>>wrist watch device that includes GPS. Some boats carry "chart
>>plotters" and don't use paper charts at all any more.
>>
>>
A rechargeable one :-)
Which can be re-charged from either the solar panel or the wind
generator.
< and yet more snipped >
>>As for Edwards AFB, they have a lot of odds and ends of aircraft
>>there. Some, and I suspect the Slingsby Firefly, as there were a
>>couple of crashes with that aircraft, that Edwards did some flight
>>testing to see if the aircraft would recover from one particular
>>maneuver. The aircraft passed the tests I believe :-)
>>
>down to pilot error. But I don't know why they retained that
>aircraft, let alone the AN-2.
At least when I was stationed there were a lot of old aircraft
scattered around. At one time - maybe in the very late 1960's - I saw
what may have been a Hiller X-18, which flew its last flight in 1961.
And of course the B-52A (only 3 ever built) that had carried the X
aircraft :-)
>>>>But, you get more revs from the kick starter on a bike than the
>>>>starter on a large aircraft engine.
>>>
>>>On large aircraft engines, maybe, but I've not had much to do with
>>>them. I do know that motorcycle kickstarters are very variable,
>>>partly depending on size. Big singles (500+cc) are particularly slow.
>>
>>Really, I had a Harley 80 cu. inch, flat head, and had no problem kick
>>starting it. I never owned a 500 c.c. bike but I did ride a mate's 500
>>c.c Norton single and it started easily. (In fact, the first
>>motorcycle I saw with an electric starter, I wondered about whether it
>>was intended for the ladies :-)
>>
Nope, but your remark about the "big" 500 cc bikes I assumed that you
were referring to engine size.
>The Norton's (and similar BSAs, Matchless, etc) difficulty in starting
>was almost directly determined by the state of tune - the higher the
>power it was tuned for, the more difficult it was to start.
>But the point (pardon the pun) is how fast the engine needs to spin to
>give a useful spark. I'll bet that it was too slow to even register
>on the rev counter until the thing was running. It has been on every
>four stroke I've ever owned with a kickstarter.
Yes, likely due to advanced Ignition timing. I once helped to push
start a Norton 500 cc "feather bed" racing bike at the Daytona Beach
races that the rider said was impossible to kick start.
>>>>Come now. I flew with my father when I was just a lad, in a Piper J-3
>>>>and it didn't have any vacuum instruments in it.
>>>>
>>>Only because it only had pitot/static instruments and a turn & slip
>>>indicator!
>>
>>No turn and slip indicator. An altimeter, magnetic compass and air
>>speed was all the flight instruments it had.
>>
>The continued existence of aircraft like that is one reason why it's
>still legal to operate NORDO (outside controlled airspace) - because
>you can't fit a radio to something without an electrical system.
>Of course, the same is true of some yachts, and the conditions under
>which they can operate is potentially far more hostile to electrical
>systems, both in severity and duration.
The preferred navigation method was to follow the railroads :-)
By the way, there is a research paper titled "Vision-Based
Road-Following Using a Small Autonomous Aircraft" done at the AINS
Center for Collaborative Control of Unmanned Vehicles, University of
California, Berkeley, which apparently is dated 2003, which describes
the method :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
John B.
Dec 27, 2015, 12:39:21 AM12/27/15
to
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 18:02:59 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Fri, 25 Dec 2015 08:28:15
>making occasional fixes allows you to correct for the difference
>between forecast winds aloft and actual - which is all you need.
>Unless you are skirting very close to controlled or restricted
>airspace, you only need to know where you are to within a couple of
>miles, at least while you are at altitude and over featureless terrain
>or ocean.
>It's a bit like self-steering gear. Nice to have, but a good sailor
>should know their boat well enough to be able to balance it on most
>points of sailing, or if it is badly balanced, at least know which
>points of sailing it will or won't hold without manual steering and
>sheet management. Heck, even roller reefing (or more particularly,
>the gooseneck it uses between boom and mast) is a weakness that a good
>sailor should be able to manage without if necessary.
>>
Frankly, I hear that a lot, from shore bound folks, but in reality
when you go to sea there are a lot of things that can't be repaired
without outside help. I've never seen a sailing yacht with more then
one auxiliary motor and the cry, "Oh! I'll just sail it." is not
really a solution, in some cases when the engine fails. I knew a bloke
who's transmission failed about 10 miles out from Phi-Phi Island, in
Thailand, when he was trying to get to Langkawi in Malaysia - about a
hundred miles - during the S.W. monsoon when there are very light to
no winds in that region. It took him nearly two weeks and much of the
time he was drifting with the tide and anchoring when the tide turned.
The VL cargo ships have only a single engine and propeller.
If the gooseneck breaks, depending largely on the type of rig, the
boat could probably be sailed with the main loose footed as the boom
actually only serves to make the sail easier to handle - single sheet
- and allows for more control of sail shape - out haul.
Self steering :-) ever try hand steering a boat for days and days? I
have and it is not really something that I care to repeat.
As for "balanced without manual steering", very few sloops - probably
the most common yacht - can be sailed that way. And saying "which
points of sailing it will or won't hold without manual steering" is
even worse. The N.E. Monsoon will blow for the next 5 months and I
want to, have to, go north. No sloop I've seen will sail to windward
hands off.
>>< and yet more snipped >
>>
>>>>As for Edwards AFB, they have a lot of odds and ends of aircraft
>>>>there. Some, and I suspect the Slingsby Firefly, as there were a
>>>>couple of crashes with that aircraft, that Edwards did some flight
>>>>testing to see if the aircraft would recover from one particular
>>>>maneuver. The aircraft passed the tests I believe :-)
>>>>
>>>Yes, the aircraft didn't have a problem - the crashes were all put
>>>down to pilot error. But I don't know why they retained that
>>>aircraft, let alone the AN-2.
>>
>>At least when I was stationed there were a lot of old aircraft
>>scattered around. At one time - maybe in the very late 1960's - I saw
>>what may have been a Hiller X-18, which flew its last flight in 1961.
>>And of course the B-52A (only 3 ever built) that had carried the X
>>aircraft :-)
>>
>All the large and medium sized aircraft are now turbine, yes.
>They tend to be more expensive initially, but with much lower running
>costs, so if you keep them long and do lots of hours, the total cost
>of ownership is lower.
>>
They also produce far more power from a smaller, lighter package :-)
Some of the H-34's (I think it was) were converted from Recip engines
to turbo and had a rather surprising amount of ballast added to
compensate for the reduced power plant weight.
>>>>>>But, you get more revs from the kick starter on a bike than the
>>>>>>starter on a large aircraft engine.
>>>>>
>>>>>On large aircraft engines, maybe, but I've not had much to do with
>>>>>them. I do know that motorcycle kickstarters are very variable,
>>>>>partly depending on size. Big singles (500+cc) are particularly slow.
>>>>
>>>>Really, I had a Harley 80 cu. inch, flat head, and had no problem kick
>>>>starting it. I never owned a 500 c.c. bike but I did ride a mate's 500
>>>>c.c Norton single and it started easily. (In fact, the first
>>>>motorcycle I saw with an electric starter, I wondered about whether it
>>>>was intended for the ladies :-)
>>>>
>>>Did your Harley have magneto ignition?
>>
>>Nope, but your remark about the "big" 500 cc bikes I assumed that you
>>were referring to engine size.
>
>It's more individual cylinder size, as that's what you are compressing
>in one go in order to start it. And of course, if it's not magneto
>ignition, the minimum speed at which a magneto will give a spark is
>irrelevant, as you have a battery to do that.
Well, the 500cc single engine has a 30.5 cubic inch cylinder while the
80 cubic inch Harley twin had a 40 cubic inch cylinder, and, to the
best of my knowledge the Harley "80" was made only with a manual kick
starter :-)
>>
>>>The Norton's (and similar BSAs, Matchless, etc) difficulty in starting
>>>was almost directly determined by the state of tune - the higher the
>>>power it was tuned for, the more difficult it was to start.
>>>But the point (pardon the pun) is how fast the engine needs to spin to
>>>give a useful spark. I'll bet that it was too slow to even register
>>>on the rev counter until the thing was running. It has been on every
>>>four stroke I've ever owned with a kickstarter.
>>
I never owned a "big Bike" that had a "rev counter"
>>Yes, likely due to advanced Ignition timing. I once helped to push
>>start a Norton 500 cc "feather bed" racing bike at the Daytona Beach
>>races that the rider said was impossible to kick start.
>
>It's only partly ignition timing - compression ratio and valve timing
>are also significant factors. Pure racing machines often did away
>with the kickstarter altogether, because it was both useless and added
>extra weight.
>But you can get a spark from magneto ignition down to about 100rpm -
>so if you can make the kickstarter turn it, you can usually start it.
>If it cranks much below that, then yes, you probably need an impulse
>coupling, so aircraft which are hand started by swinging the prop, or
>large piston engines pretty much need them. But even on those, the
>ignition system is self-contained, and has no connection to any
>external power or even the battery.
>
>To drag this slightly close to being on topic (warning - thread
>collision possibility), bicycle generators are technically (low
>tension) magnetos, as they don't have field coils but permanent
>magnets.
Piper Cubs were only flown VFR!!!!
>>
>>By the way, there is a research paper titled "Vision-Based
>>Road-Following Using a Small Autonomous Aircraft" done at the AINS
>>Center for Collaborative Control of Unmanned Vehicles, University of
>>California, Berkeley, which apparently is dated 2003, which describes
>>the method :-)
>
>There's also a whole set of RFCs on the carriage of datagrams by avian
>carrier, with and without quality of service and even encryption -
>bandwidth is quite high, but latency issues make it unsuitable for
>most applications :)
>But while such things are amusing, there are actually some genuine
>rules for following what are termed "line features" in aircraft
>navigation, mostly to avoid meeting another aircraft following the
>same feature in the opposite direction. This can result in a rather
>bad landing for both aircraft (a good landing being one you can walk
>away from, and a great landing being one where the aircraft is
>reusable). In a nutshell, you keep the line feature on your left
>(giving horizontal separation), and choose your height according to
>your magnetic track (giving vertical separation) - meaning you need to
>get at least two things wrong before there is any danger. Well, three
>really, since looking where you are going is also highly recommended
>:)
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Fri, 25 Dec 2015 08:28:15
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>>rOn Thu, 24 Dec 2015 20:47:53 +0000, Phil W Lee
>><ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Wed, 23 Dec 2015 09:14:08
>>>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>< A great deal of redundancy snipped >
>>
>>
>>>>>Well, a military aircraft should anticipate the possibility of the GPS
>>>>>constellation being knocked out.
>>>>
>>>>But there is no necessity. You said, above, that you could use radio
>>>>beacons and other radio stations to navigate by.
>>>
>>>Or INS, or celestial navigation.
>>
>>Are you serious? Celestial navigation? In an airplane? It probably
>>takes 10 to 15 minutes to actually make a minimum of two star sights
>>and work out a position. Which is possibly accurate to, say a 2 mile
>>radius. In an aircraft flying at, again say, 500 MPH (Boeing 747
>>cruise M-0.85)?
>>
>>In 10 minutes the airplane travels ~80 miles while you are fanatically
>>making a series of fixes. All accurate to a location 75 miles behind
>>you.
>>
>But you know how fast you are flying, and in what direction, so just
>
>>rOn Thu, 24 Dec 2015 20:47:53 +0000, Phil W Lee
>><ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Wed, 23 Dec 2015 09:14:08
>>>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>< A great deal of redundancy snipped >
>>
>>
>>>>>Well, a military aircraft should anticipate the possibility of the GPS
>>>>>constellation being knocked out.
>>>>
>>>>But there is no necessity. You said, above, that you could use radio
>>>>beacons and other radio stations to navigate by.
>>>
>>>Or INS, or celestial navigation.
>>
>>Are you serious? Celestial navigation? In an airplane? It probably
>>takes 10 to 15 minutes to actually make a minimum of two star sights
>>and work out a position. Which is possibly accurate to, say a 2 mile
>>radius. In an aircraft flying at, again say, 500 MPH (Boeing 747
>>cruise M-0.85)?
>>
>>In 10 minutes the airplane travels ~80 miles while you are fanatically
>>making a series of fixes. All accurate to a location 75 miles behind
>>you.
>>
>making occasional fixes allows you to correct for the difference
>between forecast winds aloft and actual - which is all you need.
>Unless you are skirting very close to controlled or restricted
>airspace, you only need to know where you are to within a couple of
>miles, at least while you are at altitude and over featureless terrain
>or ocean.
>
>>< More snipped >
>>>>But more realistically, most yachtsmen, on offshore voyages, carry at
>>>>least two GPS receivers, and sometimes even more. I've even got a
>>>>wrist watch device that includes GPS. Some boats carry "chart
>>>>plotters" and don't use paper charts at all any more.
>>>>
>>>What kind of battery life does your wrist GPS have?
>>>>
>>A rechargeable one :-)
>>
>>Which can be re-charged from either the solar panel or the wind
>>generator.
>
>Either of which can be damaged or destroyed by adverse weather.
>>< More snipped >
>>>>But more realistically, most yachtsmen, on offshore voyages, carry at
>>>>least two GPS receivers, and sometimes even more. I've even got a
>>>>wrist watch device that includes GPS. Some boats carry "chart
>>>>plotters" and don't use paper charts at all any more.
>>>>
>>>What kind of battery life does your wrist GPS have?
>>>>
>>A rechargeable one :-)
>>
>>Which can be re-charged from either the solar panel or the wind
>>generator.
>
>It's a bit like self-steering gear. Nice to have, but a good sailor
>should know their boat well enough to be able to balance it on most
>points of sailing, or if it is badly balanced, at least know which
>points of sailing it will or won't hold without manual steering and
>sheet management. Heck, even roller reefing (or more particularly,
>the gooseneck it uses between boom and mast) is a weakness that a good
>sailor should be able to manage without if necessary.
>>
Frankly, I hear that a lot, from shore bound folks, but in reality
when you go to sea there are a lot of things that can't be repaired
without outside help. I've never seen a sailing yacht with more then
one auxiliary motor and the cry, "Oh! I'll just sail it." is not
really a solution, in some cases when the engine fails. I knew a bloke
who's transmission failed about 10 miles out from Phi-Phi Island, in
Thailand, when he was trying to get to Langkawi in Malaysia - about a
hundred miles - during the S.W. monsoon when there are very light to
no winds in that region. It took him nearly two weeks and much of the
time he was drifting with the tide and anchoring when the tide turned.
The VL cargo ships have only a single engine and propeller.
If the gooseneck breaks, depending largely on the type of rig, the
boat could probably be sailed with the main loose footed as the boom
actually only serves to make the sail easier to handle - single sheet
- and allows for more control of sail shape - out haul.
Self steering :-) ever try hand steering a boat for days and days? I
have and it is not really something that I care to repeat.
As for "balanced without manual steering", very few sloops - probably
the most common yacht - can be sailed that way. And saying "which
points of sailing it will or won't hold without manual steering" is
even worse. The N.E. Monsoon will blow for the next 5 months and I
want to, have to, go north. No sloop I've seen will sail to windward
hands off.
>>< and yet more snipped >
>>
>>>>As for Edwards AFB, they have a lot of odds and ends of aircraft
>>>>there. Some, and I suspect the Slingsby Firefly, as there were a
>>>>couple of crashes with that aircraft, that Edwards did some flight
>>>>testing to see if the aircraft would recover from one particular
>>>>maneuver. The aircraft passed the tests I believe :-)
>>>>
>>>Yes, the aircraft didn't have a problem - the crashes were all put
>>>down to pilot error. But I don't know why they retained that
>>>aircraft, let alone the AN-2.
>>
>>At least when I was stationed there were a lot of old aircraft
>>scattered around. At one time - maybe in the very late 1960's - I saw
>>what may have been a Hiller X-18, which flew its last flight in 1961.
>>And of course the B-52A (only 3 ever built) that had carried the X
>>aircraft :-)
>>
>They tend to be more expensive initially, but with much lower running
>costs, so if you keep them long and do lots of hours, the total cost
>of ownership is lower.
>>
They also produce far more power from a smaller, lighter package :-)
Some of the H-34's (I think it was) were converted from Recip engines
to turbo and had a rather surprising amount of ballast added to
compensate for the reduced power plant weight.
>>>>>>But, you get more revs from the kick starter on a bike than the
>>>>>>starter on a large aircraft engine.
>>>>>
>>>>>On large aircraft engines, maybe, but I've not had much to do with
>>>>>them. I do know that motorcycle kickstarters are very variable,
>>>>>partly depending on size. Big singles (500+cc) are particularly slow.
>>>>
>>>>Really, I had a Harley 80 cu. inch, flat head, and had no problem kick
>>>>starting it. I never owned a 500 c.c. bike but I did ride a mate's 500
>>>>c.c Norton single and it started easily. (In fact, the first
>>>>motorcycle I saw with an electric starter, I wondered about whether it
>>>>was intended for the ladies :-)
>>>>
>>>Did your Harley have magneto ignition?
>>
>>Nope, but your remark about the "big" 500 cc bikes I assumed that you
>>were referring to engine size.
>
>in one go in order to start it. And of course, if it's not magneto
>ignition, the minimum speed at which a magneto will give a spark is
>irrelevant, as you have a battery to do that.
Well, the 500cc single engine has a 30.5 cubic inch cylinder while the
80 cubic inch Harley twin had a 40 cubic inch cylinder, and, to the
best of my knowledge the Harley "80" was made only with a manual kick
starter :-)
>>
>>>The Norton's (and similar BSAs, Matchless, etc) difficulty in starting
>>>was almost directly determined by the state of tune - the higher the
>>>power it was tuned for, the more difficult it was to start.
>>>But the point (pardon the pun) is how fast the engine needs to spin to
>>>give a useful spark. I'll bet that it was too slow to even register
>>>on the rev counter until the thing was running. It has been on every
>>>four stroke I've ever owned with a kickstarter.
>>
>>Yes, likely due to advanced Ignition timing. I once helped to push
>>start a Norton 500 cc "feather bed" racing bike at the Daytona Beach
>>races that the rider said was impossible to kick start.
>
>are also significant factors. Pure racing machines often did away
>with the kickstarter altogether, because it was both useless and added
>extra weight.
>But you can get a spark from magneto ignition down to about 100rpm -
>so if you can make the kickstarter turn it, you can usually start it.
>If it cranks much below that, then yes, you probably need an impulse
>coupling, so aircraft which are hand started by swinging the prop, or
>large piston engines pretty much need them. But even on those, the
>ignition system is self-contained, and has no connection to any
>external power or even the battery.
>
>To drag this slightly close to being on topic (warning - thread
>collision possibility), bicycle generators are technically (low
>tension) magnetos, as they don't have field coils but permanent
>magnets.
>>
>>>>>>Come now. I flew with my father when I was just a lad, in a Piper J-3
>>>>>>and it didn't have any vacuum instruments in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Only because it only had pitot/static instruments and a turn & slip
>>>>>indicator!
>>>>
>>>>No turn and slip indicator. An altimeter, magnetic compass and air
>>>>speed was all the flight instruments it had.
>>>>
>>>Yeah, I knew they didn't have a lot.
>>>The continued existence of aircraft like that is one reason why it's
>>>still legal to operate NORDO (outside controlled airspace) - because
>>>you can't fit a radio to something without an electrical system.
>>>Of course, the same is true of some yachts, and the conditions under
>>>which they can operate is potentially far more hostile to electrical
>>>systems, both in severity and duration.
>>
>>The preferred navigation method was to follow the railroads :-)
>
>That only works in VFR below the clouds.
>>>>>>Come now. I flew with my father when I was just a lad, in a Piper J-3
>>>>>>and it didn't have any vacuum instruments in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Only because it only had pitot/static instruments and a turn & slip
>>>>>indicator!
>>>>
>>>>No turn and slip indicator. An altimeter, magnetic compass and air
>>>>speed was all the flight instruments it had.
>>>>
>>>Yeah, I knew they didn't have a lot.
>>>The continued existence of aircraft like that is one reason why it's
>>>still legal to operate NORDO (outside controlled airspace) - because
>>>you can't fit a radio to something without an electrical system.
>>>Of course, the same is true of some yachts, and the conditions under
>>>which they can operate is potentially far more hostile to electrical
>>>systems, both in severity and duration.
>>
>>The preferred navigation method was to follow the railroads :-)
>
Piper Cubs were only flown VFR!!!!
>>
>>By the way, there is a research paper titled "Vision-Based
>>Road-Following Using a Small Autonomous Aircraft" done at the AINS
>>Center for Collaborative Control of Unmanned Vehicles, University of
>>California, Berkeley, which apparently is dated 2003, which describes
>>the method :-)
>
>carrier, with and without quality of service and even encryption -
>bandwidth is quite high, but latency issues make it unsuitable for
>most applications :)
>But while such things are amusing, there are actually some genuine
>rules for following what are termed "line features" in aircraft
>navigation, mostly to avoid meeting another aircraft following the
>same feature in the opposite direction. This can result in a rather
>bad landing for both aircraft (a good landing being one you can walk
>away from, and a great landing being one where the aircraft is
>reusable). In a nutshell, you keep the line feature on your left
>(giving horizontal separation), and choose your height according to
>your magnetic track (giving vertical separation) - meaning you need to
>get at least two things wrong before there is any danger. Well, three
>really, since looking where you are going is also highly recommended
>:)
--
cheers,
John B.
John B.
Dec 28, 2015, 7:24:19 PM12/28/15
to
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 23:46:43 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Sun, 27 Dec 2015 12:39:16
>That depends partly on how far you are going and how well you can sail
>it, maybe?
Not really. It depends very much on where you are. My understanding is
that in the British Isles wind is practically an every day occurrence
but in the monsoon areas it may hardly blow at all for months out of
the year.
>Sir Robin Knox-Johnston never once used his engine on his ketch
>Suhaili all the way from Falmouth to Falmouth, 313 days at sea, 30,123
>nautical miles. When he tried to turn it over fairly early in the
>voyage (to use as an auxiliary battery charger), he discovered it had
>seized.
Yup, and I mention below about the guy that takes almost a month to
drift something less then 100 miles.
>His self-steering broke before he was half-way, and his gooseneck
>after only a third. He ended up doing without the former altogether,
>but kept repairing the latter, although of course there were lengthy
>periods while it was being repaired when he was managing without,
>usually in the worst weather conditions.
One can only speculate. I know probably 20 people who have made a
circumnavigation and neither their wind vane nor their gooseneck
broke.
>> I knew a bloke
>>who's transmission failed about 10 miles out from Phi-Phi Island, in
>>Thailand, when he was trying to get to Langkawi in Malaysia - about a
>>hundred miles - during the S.W. monsoon when there are very light to
>>no winds in that region. It took him nearly two weeks and much of the
>>time he was drifting with the tide and anchoring when the tide turned.
>
>That's a situation where he should have turned back.
>He could have got it fixed and still arrived at Langkawi sooner than
>he did, and far more safely.
How?
>>The VL cargo ships have only a single engine and propeller.
>
>And thrusters, which although they are intended for use when mooring,
>can also be used to keep the ship from ending up broadside to the seas
>if the prop or shaft are damaged.
The point is that there is little forward motion without the motor
driving the propeller and I doubt that one can cross the pacific using
only the bow and stern thrusters :-)
>>
>>If the gooseneck breaks, depending largely on the type of rig, the
>>boat could probably be sailed with the main loose footed as the boom
>>actually only serves to make the sail easier to handle - single sheet
>>- and allows for more control of sail shape - out haul.
>
>Or you can lash the boom to the mast, depending on the rig and the
>circumstances.
>a very well balanced boat.
>sails - you have less choice of balance available. And having such
>relatively large sails makes them more difficult to handle if things
>are going pear-shaped.
>>
I don't believe you have ever sailed, or at least not much :-) One
doesn't have large sails when things are going pear shaped.
>>>>< and yet more snipped >
>>>>
>>>>>>As for Edwards AFB, they have a lot of odds and ends of aircraft
>>>>>>there. Some, and I suspect the Slingsby Firefly, as there were a
>>>>>>couple of crashes with that aircraft, that Edwards did some flight
>>>>>>testing to see if the aircraft would recover from one particular
>>>>>>maneuver. The aircraft passed the tests I believe :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, the aircraft didn't have a problem - the crashes were all put
>>>>>down to pilot error. But I don't know why they retained that
>>>>>aircraft, let alone the AN-2.
>>>>
>>>>At least when I was stationed there were a lot of old aircraft
>>>>scattered around. At one time - maybe in the very late 1960's - I saw
>>>>what may have been a Hiller X-18, which flew its last flight in 1961.
>>>>And of course the B-52A (only 3 ever built) that had carried the X
>>>>aircraft :-)
>>>>
>>>All the large and medium sized aircraft are now turbine, yes.
>>>They tend to be more expensive initially, but with much lower running
>>>costs, so if you keep them long and do lots of hours, the total cost
>>>of ownership is lower.
>>>>
>>
>>They also produce far more power from a smaller, lighter package :-)
>
>Well, yes - that's partly what makes the running cost lower.
>that can be a problem with conversions.
>you can just use low gearing on the kickstarter.
>And the Harley 80 was a pretty soft state of tune anyway, at least
>compared to the sportier of the 500 singles.
Well "soft" maybe. It was a lot of years ago now but my 80 cu. inch
bike (actually bored and stroked to 92 cu.in.) was, at the time,
unbeaten in quarter mile drag racing, in the Miami Florida area. Be
either 2 or 4 wheels :-)
>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Norton's (and similar BSAs, Matchless, etc) difficulty in starting
>>>>>was almost directly determined by the state of tune - the higher the
>>>>>power it was tuned for, the more difficult it was to start.
>>>>>But the point (pardon the pun) is how fast the engine needs to spin to
>>>>>give a useful spark. I'll bet that it was too slow to even register
>>>>>on the rev counter until the thing was running. It has been on every
>>>>>four stroke I've ever owned with a kickstarter.
>>>>
>>I never owned a "big Bike" that had a "rev counter"
>
>So not all that highly tuned then?
>More highly tuned engines tend to need them, as one result of tuning
>them to give a higher output is to narrow the engine speed range over
>which it's produced.
But why bother? Just built a bigger motor :-)
>Come to think of it, I've only ever owned one 4 stroke motorcycle
>without a rev counter, and that was a 50cc moped!
>>
< snipped >
>>>That only works in VFR below the clouds.
>>
>>Piper Cubs were only flown VFR!!!!
>>
>Of course.
>You can't fly IFR without instruments and a radio.
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Sun, 27 Dec 2015 12:39:16
>it, maybe?
Not really. It depends very much on where you are. My understanding is
that in the British Isles wind is practically an every day occurrence
but in the monsoon areas it may hardly blow at all for months out of
the year.
>Sir Robin Knox-Johnston never once used his engine on his ketch
>Suhaili all the way from Falmouth to Falmouth, 313 days at sea, 30,123
>nautical miles. When he tried to turn it over fairly early in the
>voyage (to use as an auxiliary battery charger), he discovered it had
>seized.
Yup, and I mention below about the guy that takes almost a month to
drift something less then 100 miles.
>His self-steering broke before he was half-way, and his gooseneck
>after only a third. He ended up doing without the former altogether,
>but kept repairing the latter, although of course there were lengthy
>periods while it was being repaired when he was managing without,
>usually in the worst weather conditions.
One can only speculate. I know probably 20 people who have made a
circumnavigation and neither their wind vane nor their gooseneck
broke.
>> I knew a bloke
>>who's transmission failed about 10 miles out from Phi-Phi Island, in
>>Thailand, when he was trying to get to Langkawi in Malaysia - about a
>>hundred miles - during the S.W. monsoon when there are very light to
>>no winds in that region. It took him nearly two weeks and much of the
>>time he was drifting with the tide and anchoring when the tide turned.
>
>He could have got it fixed and still arrived at Langkawi sooner than
>he did, and far more safely.
How?
>>The VL cargo ships have only a single engine and propeller.
>
>can also be used to keep the ship from ending up broadside to the seas
>if the prop or shaft are damaged.
The point is that there is little forward motion without the motor
driving the propeller and I doubt that one can cross the pacific using
only the bow and stern thrusters :-)
>>
>>If the gooseneck breaks, depending largely on the type of rig, the
>>boat could probably be sailed with the main loose footed as the boom
>>actually only serves to make the sail easier to handle - single sheet
>>- and allows for more control of sail shape - out haul.
>
>circumstances.
>
>>Self steering :-) ever try hand steering a boat for days and days? I
>>have and it is not really something that I care to repeat.
>
>RKJ reckoned he spent more time sewing than steering, but Suhaili was
>>Self steering :-) ever try hand steering a boat for days and days? I
>>have and it is not really something that I care to repeat.
>
>a very well balanced boat.
>>
>>As for "balanced without manual steering", very few sloops - probably
>>the most common yacht - can be sailed that way. And saying "which
>>points of sailing it will or won't hold without manual steering" is
>>even worse. The N.E. Monsoon will blow for the next 5 months and I
>>want to, have to, go north. No sloop I've seen will sail to windward
>>hands off.
>>
>Well, that's an inevitable consequence of having only one mast and two
>>As for "balanced without manual steering", very few sloops - probably
>>the most common yacht - can be sailed that way. And saying "which
>>points of sailing it will or won't hold without manual steering" is
>>even worse. The N.E. Monsoon will blow for the next 5 months and I
>>want to, have to, go north. No sloop I've seen will sail to windward
>>hands off.
>>
>sails - you have less choice of balance available. And having such
>relatively large sails makes them more difficult to handle if things
>are going pear-shaped.
>>
I don't believe you have ever sailed, or at least not much :-) One
doesn't have large sails when things are going pear shaped.
>>>>< and yet more snipped >
>>>>
>>>>>>As for Edwards AFB, they have a lot of odds and ends of aircraft
>>>>>>there. Some, and I suspect the Slingsby Firefly, as there were a
>>>>>>couple of crashes with that aircraft, that Edwards did some flight
>>>>>>testing to see if the aircraft would recover from one particular
>>>>>>maneuver. The aircraft passed the tests I believe :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, the aircraft didn't have a problem - the crashes were all put
>>>>>down to pilot error. But I don't know why they retained that
>>>>>aircraft, let alone the AN-2.
>>>>
>>>>At least when I was stationed there were a lot of old aircraft
>>>>scattered around. At one time - maybe in the very late 1960's - I saw
>>>>what may have been a Hiller X-18, which flew its last flight in 1961.
>>>>And of course the B-52A (only 3 ever built) that had carried the X
>>>>aircraft :-)
>>>>
>>>All the large and medium sized aircraft are now turbine, yes.
>>>They tend to be more expensive initially, but with much lower running
>>>costs, so if you keep them long and do lots of hours, the total cost
>>>of ownership is lower.
>>>>
>>
>>They also produce far more power from a smaller, lighter package :-)
>
>>
>>Some of the H-34's (I think it was) were converted from Recip engines
>>to turbo and had a rather surprising amount of ballast added to
>>compensate for the reduced power plant weight.
>
>Yes, depending on how the overall weight and balance is originally,
>>Some of the H-34's (I think it was) were converted from Recip engines
>>to turbo and had a rather surprising amount of ballast added to
>>compensate for the reduced power plant weight.
>
>that can be a problem with conversions.
>>
>>>>>>>>But, you get more revs from the kick starter on a bike than the
>>>>>>>>starter on a large aircraft engine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On large aircraft engines, maybe, but I've not had much to do with
>>>>>>>them. I do know that motorcycle kickstarters are very variable,
>>>>>>>partly depending on size. Big singles (500+cc) are particularly slow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really, I had a Harley 80 cu. inch, flat head, and had no problem kick
>>>>>>starting it. I never owned a 500 c.c. bike but I did ride a mate's 500
>>>>>>c.c Norton single and it started easily. (In fact, the first
>>>>>>motorcycle I saw with an electric starter, I wondered about whether it
>>>>>>was intended for the ladies :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>Did your Harley have magneto ignition?
>>>>
>>>>Nope, but your remark about the "big" 500 cc bikes I assumed that you
>>>>were referring to engine size.
>>>
>>>It's more individual cylinder size, as that's what you are compressing
>>>in one go in order to start it. And of course, if it's not magneto
>>>ignition, the minimum speed at which a magneto will give a spark is
>>>irrelevant, as you have a battery to do that.
>>
>>Well, the 500cc single engine has a 30.5 cubic inch cylinder while the
>>80 cubic inch Harley twin had a 40 cubic inch cylinder, and, to the
>>best of my knowledge the Harley "80" was made only with a manual kick
>>starter :-)
>>
>But not magneto, so no minimum speed to get it to spark, which means
>>>>>>>>But, you get more revs from the kick starter on a bike than the
>>>>>>>>starter on a large aircraft engine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On large aircraft engines, maybe, but I've not had much to do with
>>>>>>>them. I do know that motorcycle kickstarters are very variable,
>>>>>>>partly depending on size. Big singles (500+cc) are particularly slow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really, I had a Harley 80 cu. inch, flat head, and had no problem kick
>>>>>>starting it. I never owned a 500 c.c. bike but I did ride a mate's 500
>>>>>>c.c Norton single and it started easily. (In fact, the first
>>>>>>motorcycle I saw with an electric starter, I wondered about whether it
>>>>>>was intended for the ladies :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>Did your Harley have magneto ignition?
>>>>
>>>>Nope, but your remark about the "big" 500 cc bikes I assumed that you
>>>>were referring to engine size.
>>>
>>>It's more individual cylinder size, as that's what you are compressing
>>>in one go in order to start it. And of course, if it's not magneto
>>>ignition, the minimum speed at which a magneto will give a spark is
>>>irrelevant, as you have a battery to do that.
>>
>>Well, the 500cc single engine has a 30.5 cubic inch cylinder while the
>>80 cubic inch Harley twin had a 40 cubic inch cylinder, and, to the
>>best of my knowledge the Harley "80" was made only with a manual kick
>>starter :-)
>>
>you can just use low gearing on the kickstarter.
>And the Harley 80 was a pretty soft state of tune anyway, at least
>compared to the sportier of the 500 singles.
Well "soft" maybe. It was a lot of years ago now but my 80 cu. inch
bike (actually bored and stroked to 92 cu.in.) was, at the time,
unbeaten in quarter mile drag racing, in the Miami Florida area. Be
either 2 or 4 wheels :-)
>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Norton's (and similar BSAs, Matchless, etc) difficulty in starting
>>>>>was almost directly determined by the state of tune - the higher the
>>>>>power it was tuned for, the more difficult it was to start.
>>>>>But the point (pardon the pun) is how fast the engine needs to spin to
>>>>>give a useful spark. I'll bet that it was too slow to even register
>>>>>on the rev counter until the thing was running. It has been on every
>>>>>four stroke I've ever owned with a kickstarter.
>>>>
>>I never owned a "big Bike" that had a "rev counter"
>
>More highly tuned engines tend to need them, as one result of tuning
>them to give a higher output is to narrow the engine speed range over
>which it's produced.
But why bother? Just built a bigger motor :-)
>Come to think of it, I've only ever owned one 4 stroke motorcycle
>without a rev counter, and that was a 50cc moped!
>>
< snipped >
>>>That only works in VFR below the clouds.
>>
>>Piper Cubs were only flown VFR!!!!
>>
>You can't fly IFR without instruments and a radio.
--
cheers,
John B.
Jakob Krieger
Dec 29, 2015, 7:11:17 PM12/29/15
to
- Frank Krygowski / Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:41:53 +0100
>> The snarky remark was meant about people who have
>> no orientation at all without GPS (can't even find
>> their own bathroom)
[sorry for not responding for quite some time]
> I'm just back from an almost-an-hour drive to attend a friend's party.
>
> On my way there, the country highway to his house was unexpectedly
> closed. I think it may have been due to a bad car crash, since it was
> open on my way home, and there was no sign of construction work. Oh,
> and there were no detour signs, which would have been normal for
> construction work.
>
> So I made my way by dead reckoning over very minor country lanes. I was
> interested to note that I was navigating - or at least, confirming my
> direction - by looking at the stars. First time in a long time!
So you are not an Englishman. They doubt the existence of
lights in the sky behind the fog.
But you do confirm my thesis that a sailor / navigator
should have more skills than relying on GPS only.
jk
--
no sig
>> The snarky remark was meant about people who have
>> no orientation at all without GPS (can't even find
>> their own bathroom)
> I'm just back from an almost-an-hour drive to attend a friend's party.
>
> On my way there, the country highway to his house was unexpectedly
> closed. I think it may have been due to a bad car crash, since it was
> open on my way home, and there was no sign of construction work. Oh,
> and there were no detour signs, which would have been normal for
> construction work.
>
> So I made my way by dead reckoning over very minor country lanes. I was
> interested to note that I was navigating - or at least, confirming my
> direction - by looking at the stars. First time in a long time!
lights in the sky behind the fog.
But you do confirm my thesis that a sailor / navigator
should have more skills than relying on GPS only.
jk
--
no sig
Jakob Krieger
Dec 29, 2015, 7:21:07 PM12/29/15
to
- John B. / Sun, 20 Dec 2015 11:50:33 +0100
[sorry for late reply]
>> Nobody with a little bit of experience (bike or car drivers
>> included) relies on GPS only.
> I see. Do you really think that the 1st officer on, say the Emma
> Maersk" is out on the bridge wing every day taking his noon sight? Or
> that a B-52 comes equipped with a sextant? Or that any modern
> commercial or military vehicle comes with a copy of the six H.O.
> tables?
I definitely know that at least one Apollo mission (13?)
did it's return by using a sextant after computers had no
more enrgy to work.
> The U.S. navel Academy stopped teaching celestial navigation nearly 20
> years ago stating that while celestial was accurate to a 3 mile radius
> that GPS was accurate to a 60 ft. radius.
That's a fault.
If you don't know a fall-back at all when electronics strike,
you are not a navigator.
I begin to understand why MH370 drowned.
jk
--
no sig
[sorry for late reply]
>> Nobody with a little bit of experience (bike or car drivers
>> included) relies on GPS only.
> I see. Do you really think that the 1st officer on, say the Emma
> Maersk" is out on the bridge wing every day taking his noon sight? Or
> that a B-52 comes equipped with a sextant? Or that any modern
> commercial or military vehicle comes with a copy of the six H.O.
> tables?
did it's return by using a sextant after computers had no
more enrgy to work.
> The U.S. navel Academy stopped teaching celestial navigation nearly 20
> years ago stating that while celestial was accurate to a 3 mile radius
> that GPS was accurate to a 60 ft. radius.
If you don't know a fall-back at all when electronics strike,
you are not a navigator.
I begin to understand why MH370 drowned.
jk
--
no sig
Jakob Krieger
Dec 29, 2015, 7:27:12 PM12/29/15
to
- John B. / Fri, 25 Dec 2015 02:28:15 +0100
> Are you serious? Celestial navigation? In an airplane?
Without instruments, you have no orientaion.
If you can spot the North Star, you have principial
orientation (if seen starboard, you fly to west).
Nobody talks about _exact_ celestial positioning,
but I'd never trust a pilot who doesn't even know
the basics.
jk
--
no sig
> Are you serious? Celestial navigation? In an airplane?
If you can spot the North Star, you have principial
orientation (if seen starboard, you fly to west).
Nobody talks about _exact_ celestial positioning,
but I'd never trust a pilot who doesn't even know
the basics.
jk
--
no sig
Jakob Krieger
Dec 31, 2015, 7:46:17 PM12/31/15
to
- Phil W Lee / Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:40:03 +0100
... happy new year to everyone ...
>>> So I made my way by dead reckoning over very minor country lanes. I was
>>> interested to note that I was navigating - or at least, confirming my
>>> direction - by looking at the stars. First time in a long time!
>> So you are not an Englishman. They doubt the existence of
>> lights in the sky behind the fog.
> It's mostly light pollution that kills our view of the stars these
> days, and it affects vast areas, including nearly all cities and
> conurbations, not just in the UK, but in most developed countries.
> Regular atmospheric pollution makes this worse.
True, light pollution is very impressive when coming home to the
city after a mountain tour.
> The night sky is a mystery to MOST people these days, as most live in
> those very cities and conurbations that are producing the pollution.
I don't find the link right now -- on youtube, there is a very funny
story told by Neil deGrasse Tyson (the NY astronomer) how, as a boy,
his parents wanted to show the planetarium to him. His (if not true
then well-invented) answer was: »but I already know all four stars
there are in the sky« ...
> ... In Namibia, I found it was possible (with about 5 minutes
> of adjustment for my eyes) to walk safely outside at night by
> starlight, with no moon visible.
I can even read in total darkness. At least since I got an iPad
;o)
... which by the way offers (even free) basic astronomy apps.
A lot easier to learn about star constellations than by books.
>> But you do confirm my thesis that a sailor / navigator
>> should have more skills than relying on GPS only.
> Even the most simple minded should have a basic knowledge of celestial
> navigation - even if it is just locating Polaris (the northern pole
> star) or an approximate location of Sigma Octantis (the southern pole
> star) - even though that star is not normally visible, it's position
> can be located with sufficient accuracy for any normal purpose from
> it's fixed position relative to the Southern Cross.
That's what I think about this, too.
> It's unbelievably easy to accidentally misdirect a compass with the
> strangest of objects ...
... or GPS. Our city busses have an info system (»next stop: xyz«)
based on GPS. When there is fog or snow in the air, the system tends
to talk total crap.
> ... so having an absolute reference for direction is
> essential, and those two references are visible without too much
> difficulty in all but the worst conditions unless obscured by clouds.
Electronics is good, but I'd never trust on it alone.
Even if there are redundand systems. Planes crashed because
pilots were unable to judge which one was defect and which
one to trust.
jk
--
no sig
... happy new year to everyone ...
>>> So I made my way by dead reckoning over very minor country lanes. I was
>>> interested to note that I was navigating - or at least, confirming my
>>> direction - by looking at the stars. First time in a long time!
>> So you are not an Englishman. They doubt the existence of
>> lights in the sky behind the fog.
> days, and it affects vast areas, including nearly all cities and
> conurbations, not just in the UK, but in most developed countries.
> Regular atmospheric pollution makes this worse.
True, light pollution is very impressive when coming home to the
city after a mountain tour.
> The night sky is a mystery to MOST people these days, as most live in
> those very cities and conurbations that are producing the pollution.
I don't find the link right now -- on youtube, there is a very funny
story told by Neil deGrasse Tyson (the NY astronomer) how, as a boy,
his parents wanted to show the planetarium to him. His (if not true
then well-invented) answer was: »but I already know all four stars
there are in the sky« ...
> ... In Namibia, I found it was possible (with about 5 minutes
> of adjustment for my eyes) to walk safely outside at night by
> starlight, with no moon visible.
I can even read in total darkness. At least since I got an iPad
;o)
... which by the way offers (even free) basic astronomy apps.
A lot easier to learn about star constellations than by books.
>> But you do confirm my thesis that a sailor / navigator
>> should have more skills than relying on GPS only.
> navigation - even if it is just locating Polaris (the northern pole
> star) or an approximate location of Sigma Octantis (the southern pole
> star) - even though that star is not normally visible, it's position
> can be located with sufficient accuracy for any normal purpose from
> it's fixed position relative to the Southern Cross.
That's what I think about this, too.
> It's unbelievably easy to accidentally misdirect a compass with the
> strangest of objects ...
... or GPS. Our city busses have an info system (»next stop: xyz«)
based on GPS. When there is fog or snow in the air, the system tends
to talk total crap.
> ... so having an absolute reference for direction is
> essential, and those two references are visible without too much
> difficulty in all but the worst conditions unless obscured by clouds.
Electronics is good, but I'd never trust on it alone.
Even if there are redundand systems. Planes crashed because
pilots were unable to judge which one was defect and which
one to trust.
jk
--
no sig
Jakob Krieger
Jan 4, 2016, 10:49:53 PM1/4/16
to
- Phil W Lee / Fri, 01 Jan 2016 20:40:10 +0100
>> Electronics is good, but I'd never trust on it alone.
>> Even if there are redundand systems. Planes crashed because
>> pilots were unable to judge which one was defect and which
>> one to trust.
> JFK Jr. to cite a well-known example, but there are many others.
Or AF-447, the Airbus A330 that came down half way between Rio and Paris
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447>
jk
--
no sig
>> Electronics is good, but I'd never trust on it alone.
>> Even if there are redundand systems. Planes crashed because
>> pilots were unable to judge which one was defect and which
>> one to trust.
Or AF-447, the Airbus A330 that came down half way between Rio and Paris
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447>
jk
--
no sig
W. Wesley Groleau
Feb 24, 2016, 12:30:32 PM2/24/16
to
On 12-20-2015 00:41, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> So I made my way by dead reckoning over very minor country lanes. I was
> interested to note that I was navigating - or at least, confirming my
> direction - by looking at the stars. First time in a long time!
When I awoke in the Ozarks to find that my son had ignored my
> So I made my way by dead reckoning over very minor country lanes. I was
> interested to note that I was navigating - or at least, confirming my
> direction - by looking at the stars. First time in a long time!
instructions to "keep the blue dot on the purple line," with no cell or
WiFi to get another route (and clouds hiding the stars), we had to use
the compass to pick the northernmost route at each intersection.
--
Wes Groleau
W. Wesley Groleau
Feb 24, 2016, 12:31:42 PM2/24/16
to
On 12-11-2015 20:25, John B. wrote:
> A modern sailor, for example uses one or two (disregarding one's dress
> shoes) the square knot and a bowline.
That was not true when I left the Navy in 1984. But I guess that means
> A modern sailor, for example uses one or two (disregarding one's dress
> shoes) the square knot and a bowline.
I'm not a "modern" sailor.
--
Wes Groleau
W. Wesley Groleau
Feb 24, 2016, 12:40:15 PM2/24/16
to
On 12-20-2015 05:50, John B. wrote:
> The U.S. navel Academy stopped teaching celestial navigation nearly 20
> years ago stating that while celestial was accurate to a 3 mile radius
> that GPS was accurate to a 60 ft. radius.
GPS is accurate to ten meters (better with recent extensions) if the
> The U.S. navel Academy stopped teaching celestial navigation nearly 20
> years ago stating that while celestial was accurate to a 3 mile radius
> that GPS was accurate to a 60 ft. radius.
signals are not blocked. But when I left the Navy, we were still using
LORAN, sightings, and dead reckoning; though GPS was available (without
SA blurring).
--
Wes Groleau
W. Wesley Groleau
Feb 24, 2016, 12:48:37 PM2/24/16
to
On 12-11-2015 22:19, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:53:09 -0800 (PST),rdelan...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> >Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list
> [snip nice list].
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:53:09 -0800 (PST),rdelan...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> >Anyway, I'm looking for a 'most useful' list
I also use a taut-line hitch a LOT.
--
Wes Groleau
W. Wesley Groleau
Feb 24, 2016, 12:50:12 PM2/24/16
to
On 12-15-2015 19:58, Joy Beeson wrote:
> As taught to me, the taut-line hitch was intended to fasten a rope to
> a tent peg. That situation doesn't come up very often.
I use it a lot for clotheslines and shipping things, but my tent works
> As taught to me, the taut-line hitch was intended to fasten a rope to
> a tent peg. That situation doesn't come up very often.
without ropes.
--
Wes Groleau
W. Wesley Groleau
Feb 25, 2016, 1:43:37 AM2/25/16
to
a few feet away.
--
Wes Groleau
0 new messages