NavList:

   

Reply

I wrote:
> Except for the first (which comes from the Navy report), I calculated
> those points on both a Mercator grid and a Lambert conformal conic grid,
> the latter with standard parallels N25°20' and N30°40'.

Those are the standard parallels of the modern Miami sectional
aeronautical chart. It can hold the entire route, though the north point
of the triangle is on the opposite side of the chart from the other two.

A similar chart may have been used to plot the navigational problem back
in 1945. By then the Coast and Geodetic Survey had decided on the
Lambert conformal conic projection for aeronautical charts, and the
whole country was covered by 1:500,000 charts in a scheme similar to
today's. Modern sectionals use the same scale, but are larger. For
example, in the 1939 edition of "Practical Air Navigation", published by
the C&GS, the diagram of sectional charts shows the Miami one does not
extend as far east as the present day chart. You couldn't have plotted
the Flight 19 route on it.

> If they had started the second nav leg from SS Sapona instead of the 
> island, that would have offset the rest of the flight a few miles to the 
> south, and put the end point closer to the airfield. This may very well 
> have been the intent of the exercise.

That route would end at N26°10.5' W080°10.6', 8.2 NM from the departure
point. It's not much improvement.

-- 


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

   

Reply