The big VOR topic

[enamel 4]

After playing around with VOR navigation a bunch today, I figured out a way to do it using SkyVector. Instead of making a flight plan that includes airports, you make a flight plan that includes your VORs as start/end points and the intersection you are interested in flying to as a way point. This wil give you the intersecting radials for both VORs.

 

This was actually quite handy, as I could use SkyVector in the Steam overlay browser, quickly going back and forth between mapping my jobs in the planner, and dialing in the radials to practice. Even when I had to use the Kona VOR, I could drop a waypoint on the GPS coordinates where it used to be since it is still on the chart, and get a radial from that spot.

 

Even did a job to Hilo in dense fog using VORs and the apporach plate for Hilo's ILS sucessfully.

[RoboRay 126]

After playing around with VOR navigation a bunch today, I figured out a way to do it using SkyVector. Instead of making a flight plan that includes airports, you make a flight plan that includes your VORs as start/end points and the intersection you are interested in flying to as a way point. This wil give you the intersecting radials for both VORs.

 

This was actually quite handy, as I could use SkyVector in the Steam overlay browser, quickly going back and forth between mapping my jobs in the planner, and dialing in the radials to practice. Even when I had to use the Kona VOR, I could drop a waypoint on the GPS coordinates where it used to be since it is still on the chart, and get a radial from that spot.

 

Even did a job to Hilo in dense fog using VORs and the apporach plate for Hilo's ILS sucessfully.

 

Very nice! Using the Steam Browser that way is a great idea.

[Guest]

VORs are based on Magnetic North. To convert the value given by Google Earth to a VOR radial, you need to subtract VOR’s magnetic deviation from the heading determined by Google Earth if the deviation is East, otherwise, if the deviation is West, you need to add them together. In this case, the ITO VOR magnetic deviation is E9.549° and 322.73°-9.549° = 313.18°.

• There is a Magnetic Course to True Course converter (as well as the reverse) at http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Wind.aspx
  

 

Interesting! I think I will give this method a try today. I think it may become even more helpful when Alaska is released! A few questions though:

 

- that VOR kmz has the VORs from all over the world...? So can it be used for Alaska (in the future) too?

- does that Hawaii kmz has all the Flight airports or more (or less)? Is there s similar file for Alaska already?

- is the magnetic deviation always and everywhere 9.549...?

- when I copy 322.73 into that calculator you linked to, I simply get 323 as a result... I don't see how to use that calculator to get to 313.18. I guess simply using a calculator is a easier solution.

 

Anyway, it would be nice to have a solution for setting up flights with one program instead of sometimes looking at Airnav and sometimes using the ingame map. I am curious how exact the numbers are.

 

I asked about Alaska because I don't want to use a method that would become useless as soon as Alaska has been released.

[Heimi 91]

Thats a circumstantial way to do it.

Why not using skyvector? It has everything inbuilt.

 

http://skyvector.com/?ll=21.04629966678195,-157.81283506800386&chart=38&zoom=6

[Guest]

After playing around with VOR navigation a bunch today, I figured out a way to do it using SkyVector. Instead of making a flight plan that includes airports, you make a flight plan that includes your VORs as start/end points and the intersection you are interested in flying to as a way point. This wil give you the intersecting radials for both VORs.

 

Thats a circumstantial way to do it.

Why not using skyvector? It has everything inbuilt.

 

http://skyvector.com...chart=38&zoom=6

 

Ah, interesting! But I suppose those headings aren't radials either (like in the Google Earth tutorial)? And I wonder how you can add intersections...? Who likes to make a Skyvector-VOR-planning-tutorial?

[Heimi 91]

http://skyvector.com.../video-tutorial

 

Just read and look, everything is there.

 

Here an example i made

 

http://skyvector.com/?ll=21.779781773192862,-159.1158734118539&chart=38&zoom=3&plan=A.PH.PHDH:V.PH.LIH:A.PH.PHPA

[Propane 16]

- when I copy 322.73 into that calculator you linked to, I simply get 323 as a result... I don't see how to use that calculator to get to 313.18. I guess simply using a calculator is a easier solution.

That's the fun with working with Magnetic North & True North or Magnetic Heading & True Heading ;). The deviation listed there should be variation if I'm not mistaken. It basically means that the radial North points almost 10 degrees East of the True North. So if you simply take radial 322, you would be flying on a true heading of about 332. Therefore you subtract that variation to get the true heading you need to fly. I hope that makes sense to you :P.

 

If you want to use that method, I'd suggest reading up on magnetic variation and deviation. The term deviation seems to be used in error in those screenshots. To my knowledge it really should list variation at the station.

[Guest]

That's the fun with working with Magnetic North & True North or Magnetic Heading & True Heading ;). The deviation listed there should be variation if I'm not mistaken. It basically means that the radial North points almost 10 degrees East of the True North. So if you simply take radial 322, you would be flying on a true heading of about 332. Therefore you subtract that variation to get the true heading you need to fly. I hope that makes sense to you :P.

 

It makes sense, yes.

 

However, I've been fooling around with the various options (the real map, the ingame map, Skyvector) and I have to say most options were of by a few degree... None were exact.

 

So guess what I tried next... Plan-G for FSX! I used that one to find out the radials to a few airports and the radials were EXACTLY the same as you will find on Airnav or (a few times) at most 1 deegree off! Without the need to calculate any deviation! And (of course) they were SPOT ON in Flight too!!! So I guess that to plan my VOR flights for Flight as exact as possible, I will use good old Plan-G from now on!

 

It may be stupid but I never thought about using an FSX-planner for Flight...!

 

Here's how I do it. I create a plan using Plan-G's Quick option. Then I edit the plan by dragging the middle point to the first VOR I want to use for triangulation. The heading to the destination is the exact radial. Then I drag that same waypoint to the other VOR I want to use. And again the heading to the destination is the exact radial.

I tested this a few times by setting the radio's and the radials I found this way and then start a Flight by using the 'Start in the air' option: this puts you right above the middle or the airport and everytime the CDI's were centered!

 

Obviously for longer flights you will need to be a bit creative figuring out if you are going to use intersections or fly straight to VORs etc. But Plan-G is the best tool for the job right now for me!

[RoboRay 126]

However, I've been fooling around with the various options (the real map, the ingame map, Skyvector) and I have to say most options were of by a few degree... None were exact.

 

You may be seeing some variation simply from when the data was compiled. The magnetic poles do drift. This is one of the reasons charts are constantly expiring and being updated. The "mis-matched" data may have been correct when collected, but if the different sources were collected several years apart then there will be differences.

 

Over time, even runway numbers can change and need to be repainted!

 

FWIW, you can see one of the magnetic variation lines printed on the sectional image I linked earlier...

 

 

The purple dashed line near the bottom, marked "9° 40' E" shows the MAG VAR along that line. Looking at multiple lines drawn along the full-sized chart does give a better picture of how they flow, of course. As the poles drift, those lines have to be redetermined and reprinted.

[Guest]

You may be seeing some variation simply from when the data was compiled. The magnetic poles do drift. This is one of the reasons charts are constantly expiring and being updated. The "mis-matched" data may have been correct when collected, but if the different sources were collected several years apart then there will be differences.

 

Over time, even runway numbers can change and need to be repainted!

 

FWIW, you can see one of the magnetic variation lines printed on the sectional image I linked earlier...

 

The purple dashed line near the bottom, marked "9° 40' E" shows the MAG VAR along that line. Looking at multiple lines drawn along the full-sized chart does give a better picture of how they flow, of course. As the poles drift, those lines have to be redetermined and reprinted.

 

Ah, clear! Thanks for the information! But er... to me that makes using Plan-G instead of real maps even more the best choice!

[RoboRay 126]

Ah, clear! Thanks for the information! But er... to me that makes using Plan-G instead of real maps even more the best choice!

 

Indeed. Now I have another reason I'm happy to have kept my very-expired paper Hawaii sectional. I hadn't even considered changes in MAG VAR until now.

 

I wish I knew the age of the source data they're using to build Alaska... I'd start looking for some old charts! :Thinking:

[Guest]

Indeed. Now I have another reason I'm happy to have kept my very-expired paper Hawaii sectional. I hadn't even considered changes in MAG VAR until now.

 

I wish I knew the age of the source data they're using to build Alaska... I'd start looking for some old charts! :Thinking:

 

LOL

 

Well, it seems to me they are using the same data as they did for FSX... I also checked FS Commander (didn't work as nice as Plan-G) and both FSC and Plan-G use the old Kona VOR.... and since both programs simply use the FSX database, I guess Flight uses the FXS database too. (Which is a shame, really, but that's another story so don't let's go there.)

[RoboRay 126]

Well, it makes sense that if they have all this data already on-hand and ready for use, they'd simply reuse it and save some money. It's not like we're doing anything serious with it, anyway, so it doesn't matter if it's dated.

 

And incidentally, if doing so maintains some backward-compatibility with 3rd-party FSX resources, so much the better.

 

I also did a quick search for information on the old Kona VOR and didn't find much current stuff, except for a PDF contract from 2011 for it's demolition. I guess it's either gone, or soon will be.

 

However, I did do a low pass over it in Flight and can confirm that it's still there! :good:

 

If you haven't actually seen a VOR before, this is what they usually look like:

 

[jcomm 5,992]

Also, since VORs use Magnetic Variation, and their North is alligned with local Magentic North, they suffer adjustments with time, as well as the charts tha list the "V" airways or their counterparts in other places of the World.

 

When our navaids database is out of date with the charts we are using, this can lead to some errors.

 

ELITE, for instance, has an easy to use interface we can use to modifiy the MagVar for a given station just in case we do not buy their latest navaids database...

[sightseer 895]

There IS an option on the map screen ( or options?) to display Navaids. They are OFF by default.

 

Sorry but I'm away from my PC now, and can't exactly recall the command but if you don't find out how I'm sure someone else will step in...

You have to select them under the Legend menu on your Map screen. After that, they'll show up along with the airport info. However, I don't believe they are visible when zoomed all the way out... You have to zoom in a little to see them, just like some of the small airports don't show up until you zoom in closer.

 

Thanks to you both. I will look for that.