The big VOR topic

[Sigma54 0]

I think some people have already answered but I had written a reply offline so here it is:

 

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

For sure, it should be good for Alaska and the rest of the world! The only thing being that the file is from around 2009 I believe.

Therefore, changes since then aren't reflected in that file (for example, the Kona IAI VOR shows up in this file even though it no longer exists - in this

case, however, Flight's information is also a little behind so they still have IAI and not the newer replacement VOR.) As someone pointed out though, there is little info about the new Kona VOR and most old charts and FSX use the old one.

 

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

Yes, it includes all the Hawaii airports and airstrips. I don't have a file for Alaska. I downloaded the Hawaii file from this forum or another Flight forum. I'm sure someone will make one when Alaska comes out - I can make one as long as there aren't too many airports! I would assume that there won't be tons of airports in Alaska as most would probably be either water aerodromes or ice pads which may not be actual permanent airports (if you know what I mean). For now, I think you can check to show Airports in the list in the bottom left corner although I assume it wouldn't show water aerodromes or ice runways.

 

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

No, it depends on on latitude and longitude. If you click on a VOR, it will give you the exact deviation. For Hawaii, 9.5E is good enough - there isn't too much difference between one end of the island chain to the other since it isn't that wide (or tall). Things that are very North, may not use any deviation as their charts (and VORs I would assume) use True Headings only (I read this somewhere, will have to try to find more info).

But for Hawaii, it you take the true heading and subtract 9.5, you will get the approximate magnetic heading (within about a half a degree so definitely close enough).

 

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.

I guess that calculator isn't that helpful as all it does is add or subtract. You have to put the deviation in the second box. As the calculator shows, you put a positive number if the deviation is W, or a negative number if the deviation is E.

 

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.

Well, I used it to get to the Pepeeko airport... Couldn't find it at all by sight alone because it's so well hidden in the country-side but I was able to place myself right above it using the Hilo VOR Radial 313 and DME 9.4 which was calculated above!

 

I asked about Alaska because I don't want to use a method that would become

useless as soon as Alaska has been released.

Exactly. This method should also work for other simulators... It might be particularly useful in Alaska if there are water aerodromes and such that might not have an airport code (which some other tools require). You could still use this as long as you can find the location on the map!

[enamel 4]

Example of finding VOR intersections with http://skyvector.com/

 

Here is an example of how to use SkyVector to find intersecting VOR radials, using the old Kona VOR:

 

1) Right click the first VOR that makes the intersection, add to plan (IAI - old Kona VOR in this example)

2) Right click the intersection you are interested in add to plan, this is your destination (PHMU in this example)

3) Right click the second VOR that makes the intersection, add to plan (ITO in this example)

 

#4a and 4b is the outbound radial from VOR 1

#5a and 5b is the inbound radial from VOR 2

 

6) To get reciprocals of these values, hit "Reverse"

 

[Sigma54 0]

Things that are very North, may not use any deviation as their charts (and VORs I would assume) use True Headings only (I read this somewhere, will have to try to find more info).

 

This is for Canadian Northern Airspace (from http://polarpilots.ca/index.php/flight-planning-and-weather/62-weather/76-canadian-flight-planning)

In Northern Domestic Airspace, runway headings, tracks etc, are given in degrees TRUE, rather than magnetic, due to the great magnetic deviation when you get this far north.

 

Not sure if this applies to Alaska!

[RoboRay 126]

LOL, It figures that right after I post a picture of what a VOR station looks like, I find out that the morning aerocache is to buzz a VOR station, so you'll get to see what it looks like anyway. :Doh:

[Guest]

How to use Plan-G for planning VOR-flights in Flight

 

Well, here is yet another tutorial. Hope you all don't mind. This topic is becoming quite 'heavy', haha!

 

In this one I will show you how I use Plan-G for figuring out the radials for triangulation in Flight and how to use VORs for evading mountains. Of course you can also simply use the plan that you end up with in the end (simply flying the headings), but I like to use the VORs so I can be certain I will get where I want to. The advantage of using Plan-G is that the radials are VERY exact!

 

One problem... Plan-G generates its own database by looking at the database from FSX... so you need FSX in order to use Plan-G... If I am not mistaken it is possible to backup the Plan-G database as soon as that one has been generated, so once you've done that, you can use the backup of the database in the future whenever you need to reinstall everything, but if you don't have FSX I think you are out of luck. Unless it's allowed to upload the database somewhere...? (I doubt if you may do that...)

 

I want to fly from Bradshaw (PHSF) to Peleau (HI02). I've got two problems. 1. Peleau has no VOR on field so how to get there and 2. I don't want to fly over Mauna Kea so I need to plot a way around it.

The first thing I did was use the Quick Plan option to create the basic flightplan. You can see it here.

 

 

Now the first thing I want to do is find out which radials of which VORs intersect above HI02 so I can get there using triangulation. I decide to use the HILO and KAMUELA VORs. I also decide that I want to intercept the KAMUELA radial at a nice distance from HI05 and use the HILO radial only to check when I have arrived at HI02. (As I said before I usually don't fly straight to an intersection but I always pick one radial to fly on and on for cross checking.)

 

I am already in Edit mode (see the square in the middle of the flightplan line above) so I drag that square over the HILO VOR. You see the VOR is added to the plan. On the right you can see that the heading from the VOR to HI02 is 310: that's the radial I need for triangulation! You can also see the distance is 13.9 nm! That's handy additional information.

 

 

Now let's find out the KAMUALE radial that goes over HI02. I drag the waypoint above HILO to KAMUELA (do not add a new waypoint because that will make things complicated). Here you can see the waypoint now above KAMUELA. At the right you can see the heading to HI02 is 090 and the distance is 29 nm! So the triangulation is done now!

You could simply take off now and try to intercept one of the radials, but I want to plan my flight more precise, so let's proceed.

 

 

First I am going to look at where I want to intercept the KAMUELA 090 radial. When you drag an existing waypoint over the map in Plan-G you still see the plan as it was before you started dragging. So I now simply drag the waypoint above KAMUELA to the spot where I want to intercept the radial. Here you can see how it looks when I still have the mouse button pressed.

 

 

And here is here is how it looks when I let go of the mouse. I have to add that I did edit the waypoint a little to make sure the heading towards HI02 is 090 (which is the KAMUELA radial.) I will intercept the 090 radial at a distance of 4.4 nm of HI02 which is good enough for me.

 

 

Ok, so now I know how to get to HI02 and where I want to intercept the KAMUELA radial. But I don't want to fly over Mauna Kea. I could of course simply add a waypoint somewhere between Pu'u Huluhul and Hilo Forest Reserver, but since this is the big VOR topic I am going to use the HILO VOR again. So I first drag the little square on the first leg to the HILO VOR...

 

 

...and then I drag the new first square to the location where I want to fly before I fly towards the KAMUELA radial. As you can see this means I will have to take off and fly a heading of 107 until I hit the (075 + 180 = ) 255 radial of the HILO VOR which should be around 22.8 nm out of that VOR. When I reach that point, I can turn left to fly towards the KAMUELA radial. Which heading...?

 

 

Well, I deleted the HILO waypoint (which I only used to figure out the radial) and now I see that when I go left I should fly in a heading of 026 to intercept the KAMUELA 090 radial a at 4.4 from HI02!

 

 

So the actual flightplan is:

 

- take off from Bradshaw, fly a heading of 107 until I hit the HILO 255 radial and/or until I am at a distance of 22.8 nm of that same VOR.

- turn left at a heading of 026 until I intercept the KAMUELA 090 radial.

- fly on the 090 radial until I hit the HILO 310 radial! I should be 29 nm from KAMUELA and 13.9 NM from the HILO VOR. exactly above HI02!

 

I think I would use NAV 1 for the KAMUELA VOR and NAV 2 for the HILO VOR. During the flight all I have to change is the radial of the HILO VOR (from 255 to 310) while flying towards the KAMUELA radial.

[trevorbee 0]

Well, I finally found the time to do my first ever VOR/ILS flight this afternoon, following you instructions Jeroan.

 

I never could get the hang of it in FS9. Rod Macado always ran out of patience and said "well since this does not seem to be going very well etc".

 

I still have a long way to go but at least I now understand how this works.

 

I think that this is the most helpful thread in this whole forum and really helps to broaden the whole scope of the Flight experience. I would recommend it should be pinned.

 

Thanks to everyone who has contributed.

 

Cheers

Trevor

[Guest]

Well, I finally found the time to do my first ever VOR/ILS flight this afternoon

 

 

 

Congrats on your first VOR flight! If you still have some problems with specific aspects of flying with VOR, please ask! The more questions, the better. As I said, I am quite new to VOR myself, but as soon as you understand the basics you already forget why it was so difficult to understand it all before, and so it could very well be that I forgot some obvious information in some of my posts because by now it's obvious to me while it may not be obvious to others. If you know what I mean. (Sometimes I talk too much... waaaaaay too much... )

 

Flying with VOR indeed 'broadens the whole scope of the Flight experience'! I said is before, but I am very glad MS added (at least ) VORs to this first version of Flight: I think that up to now 95% of my Flight-time involved VOR!

[trevorbee 0]

as soon as you understand the basics you already forget why it was so difficult to understand it all before

 

Joroen (spealt it right this time) thank you for starting this thread and for promoting this subject. For me, this makes it worth staying with Flight. The quality of the default aircraft and scenery are definitely the best of any sim we have had so far but the content remains pretty meagre. But now there is a whole lot more to learn and do in this very small area of the world while we wait for the next expansion.

[pipeorgan 0]

thank you for starting this thread and for promoting this subject. For me, this makes it worth staying with Flight

 

I agree, having this thread has changed my use of Flight and made it much more interesting. In fact it is the best thread ever on this forum, should in fact now be pinned. .

[Guest]

Well, thank you, you're all very welcome. And also thanks of course to everyone who contributed to this topic. And to everyone on the Flight forum who helped me understand VOR in the first place after not 'getting it' it for years...! I also wonder if I still would be flying in Flight if it hadn't had VOR...

 

Joroen (spealt it right this time)

 

LOL You're getting close. Keep on trying, troverbee.

[nbz 4]

I have done PC flying since FS2000, but never learned this stuff. The possibility was there, but I just did not feel like looking into the matter - flying either visually, or following a magenta line instead. But I always knew that I was missing out on something, but something I could get into anytime I wanted.

 

Just a moment ago I finished my first two flights using VOR, thanks to the very good and compact instructions presented in this thread. The first flight was in "dense fog", using VOR to navigate to, and ILS to land on the airport. The second flight was to another island, in "inclement weather" where even at altitude the visibility was often very bad.... which didn't matter as I was confident about knowing where I was. I had a blast on both flights.

 

BIG Thank You to the thread starter and all contributors!

[jcomm 5,997]

Yes, THIS IS A GREAT THREAD, not only showing the potential in FLIGHT but also contributing to a better knowledge if RW navigation :-)

 

Thx Jeroen!

[enamel 4]

I for one am really glad for the lack of GPS in Flight at the moment. I would have never learned any of this stuff and would have been worse off for it!

 

It really adds a lot of depth to the game, and flying jobs with the destination marker disabled, using only VOR navigation is a lot of fun.

[Guest]

I for one am really glad for the lack of GPS in Flight at the moment. I would have never learned any of this stuff and would have been worse off for it!

 

It really adds a lot of depth to the game, and flying jobs with the destination marker disabled, using only VOR navigation is a lot of fun.

 

+1

 

I could have posted the exact same! (I probably already did several times all over this forum... )

[dburne 2]

Indeed, this is one of the best threads I have seen on this forum in quite some time!

 

Awesome job Jeroen, first in learning this and then in taking the time and effort to transpose what you have learned here for the help of others interested in doing the same - like myself!

 

As I get older, I find my attention span getting shorter - and this topic just seemed way to overwhelming for me early on, now it certainly looks like something I can learn relatively easily.

 

My hat is off to you - and thank you!