Compass trouble

On Apr 17, 9:15*am, Jay Somerset wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:03:18 GMT, (Drew





Dalgleish) wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:19:27 +0000 (UTC),
(Alan) wrote:

In article (Drew Dalgleish) writes:

My home airport has a compass rose and I use that. Taxiing aroud and
getting lined up on each heading takes me quite a bit longer than
that. Having a helper would speed things I'm sure but if we consider
man hours since the OP was about mechanics time then double your
15minutes.

*It is easier to shut down and just turn the plane from heading to
heading manually.

I was going to ask how do you know if it's an accurate land
compass but it occurs to me that a GPS would do the job and then you
could do it by yourself .

*How?

*A GPS knows where it is, not which way it is facing.

* * * *Alan
Do it while flying. The GPS know which way it's going.

You really don't seem to understand -- heading and track are two
different things. *They are only aligned if you are flying directly
into, or away from, the wind.

So your GPS is pretty well useless in flight for aligning a compass,
as you can never tell precisely the wind direction aloft. *Certainly
not within the +/- 3 degrees that you should be trying to calibrate
against.
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Someone explained it pretty clearly earlier... use the GPS on the
ground. Taxi slowly to get your heading/track where you want it then
stop slowly and smoothly.

Steve
KDMW

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:46:24 -0700 (PDT), Steve - KDMW
wrote:

On Apr 17, 9:15*am, Jay Somerset wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:03:18 GMT, (Drew





Dalgleish) wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:19:27 +0000 (UTC),
(Alan) wrote:

In article (Drew Dalgleish) writes:

My home airport has a compass rose and I use that. Taxiing aroud and
getting lined up on each heading takes me quite a bit longer than
that. Having a helper would speed things I'm sure but if we consider
man hours since the OP was about mechanics time then double your
15minutes.

*It is easier to shut down and just turn the plane from heading to
heading manually.

I was going to ask how do you know if it's an accurate land
compass but it occurs to me that a GPS would do the job and then you
could do it by yourself .

*How?

*A GPS knows where it is, not which way it is facing.

* * * *Alan
Do it while flying. The GPS know which way it's going.

You really don't seem to understand -- heading and track are two
different things. *They are only aligned if you are flying directly
into, or away from, the wind.

So your GPS is pretty well useless in flight for aligning a compass,
as you can never tell precisely the wind direction aloft. *Certainly
not within the +/- 3 degrees that you should be trying to calibrate
against.
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Someone explained it pretty clearly earlier... use the GPS on the
ground. Taxi slowly to get your heading/track where you want it then
stop slowly and smoothly.

Yes, if you have a large enough ground area to do that at the 6
different directions (back and forth) that you need. Most GA airports
do not have anything like that amount of space. You would have to taxi
for at least 50-100 yards to have a reliable track.

But yes, in theory, this would work.
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

Do you really have to quote a hundred lines of previous text for a four line
answer?

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford



"Jay Somerset" wrote in message
...

Yes, if you have a large enough ground area to do that at the 6
different directions (back and forth) that you need. Most GA airports
do not have anything like that amount of space. You would have to taxi
for at least 50-100 yards to have a reliable track.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:48:40 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:

Do you really have to quote a hundred lines of previous text for a four line
answer?

Jim

Gee. Guess that's what happens when one tries to keep the enough
context in a thread so that someone who comes into the discussion
without having seen all the earlier posts can understand the issues.

But it was only 48 lines -- why exaggerate?
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

On 2008-04-19, Jay Somerset wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:48:40 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:
Do you really have to quote a hundred lines of previous text for a four line
answer?
Gee. Guess that's what happens when one tries to keep the enough
context in a thread so that someone who comes into the discussion
without having seen all the earlier posts can understand the issues.

Usenet etiquette has, for at least two decades, been to trim away what
you're not commenting on, keeping just enough text to make your answer
comprehensible.

There are folks around here who refuse to trim at all. I use a 43-line
terminal window to read Usenet with, and when it's full of stuff quoted 7
layers deep, I just hit N and go to the next message.

Posting like that just gives ammunition to those who argue that people
should adopt the equally abhorrent practice of top-posting.

If someone wants context, they can use the "read parent article" function of
their newsreader.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

For this very reason...

I LOVE top posters!



Dave (and I trim too!)




On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:21:27 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote:

On 2008-04-19, Jay Somerset wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:48:40 -0700, "RST Engineering"

---Snip---
There are folks around here who refuse to trim at all. I use a 43-line
terminal window to read Usenet with, and when it's full of stuff quoted 7
layers deep, I just hit N and go to the next message.

Posting like that just gives ammunition to those who argue that people
should adopt the equally abhorrent practice of top-posting.

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-04-19, Jay Somerset wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:48:40 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:
Do you really have to quote a hundred lines of previous text for a four
line
answer?
There are folks around here who refuse to trim at all. I use a 43-line
terminal window to read Usenet with, and when it's full of stuff quoted 7
layers deep, I just hit N and go to the next message.

Apparently your curiosity got the best of you since you bothered to not only
scroll through to find the 4 new lines of text but also (roughly) counted
the quoted text.

Some post on top. Some post at the bottom. Some trim. Some don't.

Using a mouse wheel to scroll works pretty well. There have been times when
people trim excessively and I have to go find a past post that didn't trim
to refresh my memory as to the context. I would rather have excessive
quoting that requires a fraction of a second to scroll past than excessive
trimming that makes me unfilter read articles, find the thread in the long
list, re-find my position in the thread and then find a post that has enough
context to be useful.

Email threads are typically top post oriented. That makes it much simpler,
doesn't it? The new text is right at the top and the rest is an easy scroll
away but easily ignored.

It seems that the phylosophy to bottom post is causing the problem. Bottom
posting makes all the intermediate text get in the way and trimming becomes
the curtious thing to do. Just top post and leave it all there. When the
thread gets too long, it's probably time to move on to something else
anyway.

I have been bottom posting and trimming just to go along with the vocal few
that seem to get all bent out of shape otherwise. After thinking about, I
think I'll start top posting.

Of course, mixed top and bottom does get a little confusing...

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

On 2008-04-19, Travis Marlatte wrote:
Using a mouse wheel to scroll works pretty well.

Not when reading news in a text mode reader in a terminal window, it
doesn't.

I would rather have excessive quoting that requires a fraction of a second
to scroll past than excessive trimming that makes me unfilter read
articles, find the thread in the long list, re-find my position in the
thread and then find a post that has enough context to be useful.

Optimize for the common case. Out of how many articles do you have to do
this once?

Further, your newsreader almost certainly has a function to read the parent
of the article you're currently on. Try using that; it makes life a lot
simpler.

Email threads are typically top post oriented. That makes it much simpler,
doesn't it? The new text is right at the top and the rest is an easy scroll
away but easily ignored.

Just because Microsoft screwed this up is no reason to enshrine it in
practice.

It seems that the phylosophy to bottom post is causing the problem. Bottom
posting makes all the intermediate text get in the way and trimming becomes
the curtious thing to do. Just top post and leave it all there. When the
thread gets too long, it's probably time to move on to something else
anyway.

Top posting is evil because it totally divorces your response from what
you're responding to, thus destroying any context in your replies.

Do you have conversations backwards? Then why post that way?

I have been bottom posting and trimming just to go along with the vocal few
that seem to get all bent out of shape otherwise. After thinking about, I
think I'll start top posting.

There are a nonzero number of people who ignore those discourteous enough to
top post.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

In article ,
"Travis Marlatte" wrote:

no. because we read top down not bottom up.


away but easily ignored.
doesn't it? The new text is right at the top and the rest is an easy scroll
Email threads are typically top post oriented. That makes it much simpler,

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Jay Somerset"
You would have to taxi
for at least 50-100 yards to have a reliable track.

But yes, in theory, this would work.
--
Jay

No. 10 or 20 feet will be just fine.