Don't sell your loran

In article fU%hc.5538$YP5.537273@attbi_s02, "Bob Gardner"
wrote:

Off the top of my head, I don't think that sunspots in and of themselves
will be a problem much of the time. However, some kind of backup is
needed.
Having spent a portion of my life on the transmitter end of loran, I
understand its limitations...but I have to wonder...how often will solar
activity and precip static coincide when I am flying? The odds are pretty
good in my favor.

the problem with Lorans and precip static is that you get
precip static in the clouds pretty easily with Loran and IMC
is exactly when you need Loran to work.

--
Bob Noel

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 02:22:11 GMT, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article xxYhc.4538$cF6.228992@attbi_s04, "Bob Gardner"
wrote:

At the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference, one-time FAA
Administrator Langhorn Bond told me that loran is coming back as a backup
to
GPS.

otoh - keeping LORAN working properly with precip static is not
easy...

The LORAN receivers that many of us have in our GA planes are based on
15-20 year old technology. Newer LORAN receivers utilize magnetic
field antennas and advanced DSP processing to greatly improve
reception and immunity to airborne static issues.

In my opinion, the leader in the LORAN industry is LOCUS in Madison
Wisconsin. Take a look at their website, they have many interesting
whitepapers on LORAN as a backup/compliment to GPS.

http://www.locusinc.com/articles.html

-Nathan

"Bob Gardner" wrote
Honestly, I'm not at all sure that the existing boxes will fill the bill
when this all comes to pass. I can see a combo GPS/Loran box in the
future...the distant future.

You mean like the Northstar M2?

Michael

wrote
I would prefer to have one of those boxes (I forget what they're called
- they're from before my time 8^) ) that creates virtual waypoints using
VORs and DME. I would think that would be the ideal alternative to GPS,
seeing as the VOR/DME signals are less susceptible to environmentally
caused signal degradation.

They're caller rho-theta RNAV (also VOR-DME RNAV). The KNS-80 was
probably the most popular, and it works well, but there are quirks.
Most importantly, it won't usbstitute for the underlying navaid on an
approach, the way GPS and LORAN will - get low and you lose the VOR
and/or DME signal.

I've never used a LORAN either, so I don't have any personal experience
with how they behave overall. But if they can be compared to NDB/ADF
behavior in any way, count me out.

They can't. Actually, I use LORAN all the time. IMO the hot setup is
LORAN and GPS in separate boxes with separate power sources.

Michael

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:zLYhc.4691$0u6.982801@attbi_s03...
Actually, the reason I wasn't going to sell my LORAN was that last time
I looked on eBay someone had one up for $9 which got no bids...

Heck, might be a good time to pick up a used LORAN!

-c

Michael wrote:

wrote
I would prefer to have one of those boxes (I forget what they're called
- they're from before my time 8^) ) that creates virtual waypoints using
VORs and DME. I would think that would be the ideal alternative to GPS,
seeing as the VOR/DME signals are less susceptible to environmentally
caused signal degradation.

They're caller rho-theta RNAV (also VOR-DME RNAV). The KNS-80 was
probably the most popular, and it works well, but there are quirks.
Most importantly, it won't usbstitute for the underlying navaid on an
approach, the way GPS and LORAN will - get low and you lose the VOR
and/or DME signal.

[...]

They can't. Actually, I use LORAN all the time. IMO the hot setup is
LORAN and GPS in separate boxes with separate power sources.

I like the idea of two separate units[1], but why not have both be "combo"
units like (I think) one you mentioned earlier on this thread. In fact,
why not have that "combo" unit also exploit VOR/DME input? There's really
no reason why the current GPS UIs couldn't be put on a box that uses any
(reasonably accurate {8^) means of navigation.

The fact that some signals disappear under certain conditions (satellite
view, sunspots, descending below VOR coverage, etc.) must become part of
the procedure for using the box...but this is already the case, just on
separate devices.

Ultimately, I hope, adding a new navigation sensor (ie. GA-cheap inertial
navigation {8^) will make no real difference in the procedures through
which we use our navigation devices.

- Andrew

[1] I just flew a GPS approach today that had a GPS-only
missed. As I fly with only a single IFR-certified GPS,
these make me somewhat uncomfortable.

gatt wrote:

Heck, might be a good time to pick up a used LORAN!

Do your research first. Check to make sure the database is still supported. If it is
still supported, check to make sure they still load all the airports.

George Patterson
If you don't lie, you never have to remember what you said.

We have an old Loran (Airnav) in our 172 as a backup to our
new Airmap 1000..

One of the batts is dead (the one that stores last known
position) so we have to initialize it at each startup (about a 10
second procedure) untill we get the batt replaced...

Testing it alongside the Airmap, it is deadly .. accuracy is
very good, and it is east to use despite no "moving map"....

..........but I have retained my loran on my boat as well..
works good, reliable, and a positioning device comes under the heading
of "one is good, two is better" category..

As long as it works, it has a home in my panel...

Dave

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:01:54 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Michael wrote:

wrote
I would prefer to have one of those boxes (I forget what they're called
- they're from before my time 8^) ) that creates virtual waypoints using
VORs and DME. I would think that would be the ideal alternative to GPS,
seeing as the VOR/DME signals are less susceptible to environmentally
caused signal degradation.

They're caller rho-theta RNAV (also VOR-DME RNAV). The KNS-80 was
probably the most popular, and it works well, but there are quirks.
Most importantly, it won't usbstitute for the underlying navaid on an
approach, the way GPS and LORAN will - get low and you lose the VOR
and/or DME signal.

[...]

They can't. Actually, I use LORAN all the time. IMO the hot setup is
LORAN and GPS in separate boxes with separate power sources.

I like the idea of two separate units[1], but why not have both be "combo"
units like (I think) one you mentioned earlier on this thread. In fact,
why not have that "combo" unit also exploit VOR/DME input? There's really
no reason why the current GPS UIs couldn't be put on a box that uses any
(reasonably accurate {8^) means of navigation.

The fact that some signals disappear under certain conditions (satellite
view, sunspots, descending below VOR coverage, etc.) must become part of
the procedure for using the box...but this is already the case, just on
separate devices.

Ultimately, I hope, adding a new navigation sensor (ie. GA-cheap inertial
navigation {8^) will make no real difference in the procedures through
which we use our navigation devices.

- Andrew

[1] I just flew a GPS approach today that had a GPS-only
missed. As I fly with only a single IFR-certified GPS,
these make me somewhat uncomfortable.

Speaking of which; I have an Apollo 618C Loran. I would like to get updated
data base chips but can't find out where (if they are still available). I see
Garmin bought them out but can't find anything on their web site.

Jim

"JFLEISC" wrote in message
...
Speaking of which; I have an Apollo 618C Loran. I would like to get
updated
data base chips but can't find out where (if they are still available). I
see
Garmin bought them out but can't find anything on their web site.

Jim

One possibility is to replace your 618 with a Flybuddy 800 (slide in
replacement) unit and get an updated Flybrary card from Garmin AT or Jepp.
I assume the Flybrary cards are still being updated since they were used on
some of the newer Apollo equipment. Two Flybuddy lorans recently sold on
eBay for less than $100 each.

Joe