Gary wrote:
"I have many precomputed sets, HO 229, HO 214, HO 216, plus tables HO 211, HO 208, Weems Line of position book, Nories and Hughes. HO 229, six volumes versus three for HO 249 but the thing I dislike most about 229 is the arrangement of the tables by LHA rather than by latitude as was done with the older HO 249 and HO 214, who came up with that idea?. So solving a round of sights with HO 229 requires much page flipping while with HO 249 you find your data on, at most, six consecutive pages. If you are staying in just one latitude band you can zerox those six pages and leave the rest of HO 249 on your bookshelf."
Are there any advantages to using any of these tabular methods as opposed to the Law of Cosines method?
JMcD
From: NoReply_LaPook@fer3.com
To: jacksonmcdonald@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 06:46:31 -0700
Subject: [NavList] Re: Why do we ocean navigators defer to 249 when 229 is better?
I have many precomputed sets, HO 229, HO 214, HO 216, plus tables HO 211, HO 208, Weems Line of position book, Nories and Hughes. HO 229, six volumes versus three for HO 249 but the thing I dislike most about 229 is the arrangement of the tables by LHA rather than by latitude as was done with the older HO 249 and HO 214, who came up with that idea?. So solving a round of sights with HO 229 requires much page flipping while with HO 249 you find your data on, at most, six consecutive pages.
If you are staying in just one latitude band you can zerox those six pages and leave the rest of HO 249 on your bookshelf.
gl
From: Sean C <NoReply_SeanC@fer3.com>
To: garylapook---.net
Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 7:51 AM
Subject: [NavList] Re: Why do we ocean navigators defer to 249 when 229 is better?
"an alamanac" ...Ha! Whoops. Obviously I meant "almanac". :o
