![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
OK, I'll give it a shot.
First, remember that a Lambert Conformal projection only *approximates* a sphere for the latitudes it covers. You can't, actually, have such a chart that covers the entire northern hemisphere because the North Pole would be the apex on the cone of the conformal projection. Because the chart only approximates a sphere, any line drawn between two points only approximates a great circle. If you have access to the AOPA flight planner, plan a route between NYC and LA. You'll see that there is a considerable "curve" to the route plotted on the screen. That's the curve you would have to follow, constantly changing you heading to do so. Now use DeLorme Street Atlas or some other land-based program to draw a straight line between the same two points. You'll see that the straight line doesn't match up very well with the line drawn by flight planner. To perfectly fly a great circle between two points you do have to constantly change heading. The idea behind a rhumb line is "segment" the circle so that you can fly a constant heading between the points that define the rhumb line. This will make the rhumb line course slightly longer. How much longer depends on the number of points: more points equals a closer approximation of the circle but is harder to fly. Unless you're flying very long distances it makes very little sense to worry about the difference between a great circle and a straight line on a chart. For example, the great circle between my home base here in MA and my mother's home in SoCal would take me over terrain I don't want to fly over anyway, so the GC is meaningless. On shorter trips the delta is so small as to be insignificant. IOW, don't sweat it. Dave Reinhart xerj wrote: Not that it matters terribly much, but there's a few things I don't get. On a WAC, which is a Lambert chart, a straight line is more or less a great circle, right? However, to fly a great circle, you have to constantly adjust your heading. I still can't conceptually work out why, I must say. Any pointers? If you had a WAC chart that displayed the entire Northern Hemisphere on one chart, you could draw a straight line from Los Angeles to New York. Wouldn't this be a great circle? And if it is, why couldn't you just fly the single heading of that line? Is it that because of the fact that a chart that big would have different magnetic north references at different meridians, and what you would actually be drawing is a rhumb line? And speaking of rhumb lines, if you fly one by keeping a constant magnetic heading between two points, does that mean you actually describe a curve over the earth's surface? Thanks in advance, because I'm pretty confused. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Great circle formulae, True course and actual heading | Ed Williams | Piloting | 2 | October 10th 03 04:24 AM |
One more question regarding great circle and two intersecting course. | Sims | Piloting | 7 | October 9th 03 07:25 PM |
NACO charts - why have a reference circle? | Bob Gardner | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | September 6th 03 01:15 PM |
How I got to Oshkosh (long) | Doug | Owning | 2 | August 18th 03 12:05 AM |