NavList:

   

Reply

The maximum gross weight of a Cessna is 2300 pounds. The plane I am
planning on using has an empty weight of 1538 so the useful load is 762
pounds. Full tanks of 40 gallons weigh 240 pounds leaving a cabin load
of only 522 pounds or three people.So it looks like we go with three
people at a time.Full tanks last about five hours so we won't need to
have the tanks full for our mission.

gl


Greg R. wrote:
> Mike Burkes wrote:
>
> > just bringing the AN 5851 Mk5 will overgross a 172!
>
> Not quite sure I follow you there, since the 5851 only weighs ~7 lbs.
> (and that's the shipping weight) according to the Celestaire catalog:
> http://celestaire.com/pdf/AircraftSextants.pdf
>
> --
> GregR
>
>
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Mike Burkes 
>     *To:* navlist@fer3.com 
>     *Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2009 12:35 PM
>     *Subject:* RE: [NavList 11301] Celesital Navigation Through Clouds
>
>     Good point GR I am sure Gary has taken that into account. I weigh
>     185 give or take a few lbs and just bringing the AN 5851 Mk5 will
>     overgross a 172! Definitely looking forward to it who knows maybe
>     we might start and/or revive a cool science.
>     Mike Burkes
>
>     > From: gregr_ingest@yahoo.com 
>     > To: navlist@fer3.com 
>     > Subject: Re: [NavList 11299] Celesital Navigation Through Clouds
>     > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:41:24 -0800
>     >
>     > "Gary LaPook"  wrote:
>     >
>     > > Here are my thoughts. I can rent a Cessna 172 at Santa Paula
>     airport,
>     > > near Ventura California for about a hundred bucks an hour and
>     we will
>     > > have to share this cost. It holds four people, one pilot and three
>     > > navigators. We fill all the seats and take off and fly out
>     over the
>     > > ocean and take sights.
>     >
>     > Not wanting to second-guess your piloting skills, but you might
>     want to get
>     > a weight-check on the prospective navigators first - I don't
>     know of any 172
>     > that will hold 4 "average-sized" people + full fuel (or maybe
>     you can
>     > arrange with the FBO to not re-fuel it on the last flight before
>     this one?),
>     > not to mention the relatively-short runway at SZP.
>     >
>     > Also, what sort of refractive correction would need to be made
>     for the
>     > Plexiglas windscreen and windows, or is it insignificant enough
>     not to worry
>     > about? Though I guess it could also be determined "empirically"
>     using the
>     > known GPS position as a reference, and then factoring in
>     whatever extra
>     > correction is needed to make the celestial LOP agree with that.
>     >
>     > > I will try to get out to the airport next week and see if it
>     is possible
>     > > to use a sextant in back since I have never tried this before.
>     >
>     > It's been a while since I was in the rear seat of a 172, but if
>     I remember
>     > right the top of the passenger windows slopes downwards from the
>     front -
>     > might be problematic for 2 people trying to take sights
>     together, but might
>     > work OK for one person if they had to crouch down to get a clear
>     sight
>     > through the window.
>     >
>     > > Did I mention that it was 77 degrees here today?
>     >
>     > And people wonder why we put up with all the "inconveniences" to
>     live
>     > here..... ;-)
>     >
>     > --
>     > GregR
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > ----- Original Message -----
>     > From: "Gary LaPook" 
>     > To: 
>     > Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:00 AM
>     > Subject: Re: [NavList 11293] Celesital Navigation Through Clouds
>     >
>     >
>     > > Here are my thoughts. I can rent a Cessna 172 at Santa Paula
>     airport,
>     > > near Ventura California for about a hundred bucks an hour and
>     we will
>     > > have to share this cost. It holds four people, one pilot and three
>     > > navigators. We fill all the seats and take off and fly out
>     over the
>     > > ocean and take sights. You can bring your own bubble sextant
>     and I can
>     > > supply a variety of bubble sextants, MA-1, MA-2, A-10A, A-7
>     and the
>     > > navigators can take a number of sights each using different
>     instruments
>     > > if they choose. The navigator siting in the right seat can
>     take the
>     > > sights while the navigators in the back seats can record data.
>     We will
>     > > push the button on the GPS at the mid time of each sight so we can
>     > > determine the accuracy of the sights, the navigator with the worst
>     > > average buys the beer. Since the plane won't allow the
>     navigators to
>     > > change seats in flight we will land at the Oxnard airport,
>     right next to
>     > > the beach, to allow the navigators to change seats and a new
>     navigator
>     > > to start taking sights. I estimate that it will take each
>     navigator
>     > > about a half hour so the plane cost should be about fifty
>     bucks each. It
>     > > may be possible to lower this cost somewhat if it is possible
>     to take
>     > > sights from the back seats through the back window as this would
>     > > eliminate the necessity of landing to change shooters. I will
>     try to get
>     > > out to the airport next week and see if it is possible to use
>     a sextant
>     > > in back since I have never tried this before. If more than three
>     > > navigators are interested in participating we can switch out
>     crews at
>     > > the Oxnard airport.
>     > >
>     > > I believe the best dates for this would be January 9-10;
>     February 6-7;
>     > > or February 20-21 or possibly later in the year. We should plan on
>     > > flying on a Saturday and keep Sunday as a backup in case of
>     bad weather
>     > > on Saturday. The reason I suggest these dates is that the sun
>     and the
>     > > moon will both be visible with good cuts for daytime fixes.
>     > >
>     > > If anybody is coming from afar, the Burbank (BUR) airport is
>     the most
>     > > convenient. LAX is a bit farther and Long Beach (LGB) is about as
>     > > convenient as LAX (it might not look like it on a map but a
>     map doesn't
>     > > show the traffic coming from LAX on the 405 over the Sepulveda
>     pass.)
>     > > Ontario (ONT) is also doable so shop for the best airfare.
>     Things to do
>     > > in the area include Santa Barbara for wine tours, an hour
>     drive up the
>     > > coast. San Diego is about a three hour drive down the coast or
>     one can
>     > > take a train. You can go aboard the Star of India and the carrier
>     > > Midway. Long Beach for the Queen Mary and a Russian submarine.
>     Near Long
>     > > Beach in San Pedro is the Lane Victory (a victory ship) and a good
>     > > maritime museum. One can also drive five hours and see
>     Yosemite which is
>     > > beautiful in winter. A different five hour drive up the coast
>     takes you
>     > > to San Francisco or you can take a train or fly.You can visit the
>     > > Pampanito submarine (SS-383) and several historic vessels
>     including a
>     > > liberty ship, the Jeremiah O'Brien. A four hour drive from here is
>     > > Vegas, baby. There are plenty of flights from BUR to Vegas
>     also. A three
>     > > hour drive takes you to Palm Springs. A two hour drive takes
>     you to the
>     > > ski slopes.
>     > >
>     > > Did I mention that it was 77 degrees here today?
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=93021
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > gl
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > frankreed@HistoricalAtlas.com wrote:
>     > > >
>     > > > Peter Monta, you wrote:
>     > > > "Wouldn't a UAV be the logical solution here? I'm not sure
>     units with
>     > > > 40000ft capability are all that cheap yet, though. A very small
>     > > > payload might suffice for sun sights (small camera).
>     Establishing the
>     > > > offset from UAV position to ship would probably come free
>     with the
>     > > > overall control scheme to get the thing back, and the 2D
>     offset would
>     > > > only be a mile or two anyway. Fixed wing might be best for
>     smallest
>     > > > platform jitter when taking the sight."
>     > > >
>     > > > Nice! That's a very clever solution to the problem of the
>     40,000 foot
>     > > > mast. And if the sensor package is cheap enough (a camera
>     and a radio
>     > > > with a ten-mile range?) then you could make them expendable
>     and launch
>     > > > on weather balloons. The price of the balloon might turn out
>     to be
>     > > > greater than the cel nav package. Whether that's more
>     economical than
>     > > > a mini/micro-UAV or not would depend on the cost of the "toy
>     plane"
>     > > > and the expected loss rate. In any case, a system like this
>     means no
>     > > > sextant and no navigator holding said sextant, so it
>     certainly takes
>     > > > the charm out of it, but at least it would still be real
>     celestial
>     > > > navigation.
>     > > >
>     > > > -FER
>     > > >
>     > > > --
>     > > > NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
>     > > > Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
>     > > > To , email NavList+@fer3.com
>     > >
>     > > --
>     > > NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
>     > > Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
>     > > To , email NavList+@fer3.com
>     >
>     > --
>     > NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
>     > Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
>     > To , email NavList+@fer3.com
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
>      --
>     NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
>     Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
>     To , email NavList+@fer3.com
>
> --
> NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
> Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
> To , email NavList+@fer3.com

--
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList+@fer3.com

   

Reply