Brett_Henderson

Just some additional food for thought.. as I surely don't want you to be discouraged..ON a planned flight (especially a filed, instrument flight), you'd have the leisure of working out how you'd deal with each leg, with the luxury of time to spare.. dove-tail it nicely while analyzing winds aloft for each leg (where you'l learn that mixing not only a heading/course difference.. wind compensation, with mixed sensing, becomes an un-needed mess).. with a nice little nav-log of VOR frequecies and courses/radials.. including alternates, with a big En-route chart spread out in front of you .. :Cuppa:Per some of the examples though, you're talking about just suddenly deciding, or needing to fly to a certain VOR, via a specific radial. We can limit this to VFR, as your own reference for such an event while IFR, shows we'd avail ATC vectors (where instinctual situational awareness eliminates finger-walking and compass shading). So....the first question would be, "why not just fly directly TO the VOR from your current location ?" .. simply set the OBS to a centered CDI (up arrow), and just fly that course ?If the answer is; airspace restictions or terrain.. then we have two tools. Terrain can be avoided by using the Mk1 eyebal device **grin**, until you intercecpt the radial radial you'd track to the VOR. Since you know the inbound course.. why do anything other than set it, and wait for positive-sensing interception/tracking, complete with logical To/From indication ?Airspace is a bit trickier to avoid.. as you can't "see" its boundaries, aside from obvious ground references (ie. get past that lake and it's safe start turning inbound). At this point, you cannot just venture toward the radial, via shaded compass, course estimations without risking airspace violation. You'll need another nav-aid.. even an NDB will do (I can navigate VFR from Columbus, Ohio - to - Mackinac Island, Michigan, and back; avoiding all airspaces by periodically checking the bearings by ADF, to the powerful AM radio stations in Columbus/Detroit/Chicago.. no VOR or GPS needed). If an NDB is conveniently located (and still in service), you might be able to just fly TO or FROM it (flying to/from NDBs, compensating for winds aloft-no radials and nifty CDIs-is a navigational lesson unto itself, using instincts develpoed because you didn't learn VOR by short-cut), until you intercept the desired radial.. But more likely, you'll need find a VOR radial that will keep you clear of the airspace. And then again I'd ask.. why do anything other than set the OBS for the course you'll fly, and use normal sensing and logical TO/FROM to intercept/track that raidial ? If, with chart in hand, you don't know your position relative to that "space avoidance" radial, and resort to shaded-compasses, you might blast through some OTHER restricted area, or waste a bunch of time/fuel figuring it out..My big point, is and always has been.. that consistent, instinctive, logical CDI, TO/FROM, use, will serve you best in the long run.. and you've already got all the intuition needed to master it.. :(

Sure, it's applicable in any situation.. just a bit counter-intuitive, and adds un-needed variables to something that is straight-forward.In your last post (#19) the link is for moderately complex course. I read through it, many times.. and can only conclude that it needed to be lengthy and wordy itself, because of where he starts explaing simple radial tracking, in the first place.I'd sum it up like this:You now have before you, a multi-leg, radial-based course.. all you have to do, is have each leg's course dialed in on the OBS, and then logical CDI.. To/From, indications will take you all the way through it.. be it by one, or alternating VOR recievers.. no need for walking fingers, or mentally shaded compass cards..If, at that point, your situational awareness is that vague, you got bigger problems than what method of radial intercepting/tracking you choose (and it's where I'd suggest the weak situational awareness IS a product of using VOR learning, short-cuts)..

I hope he takes your invitation to join this discussion..

"I would love to have some sort of challenge or lesson to see if I can get it done in MS Flight using the SHI method and to see if I do get confused...!!!"OK.. lets pretend that airspaces, and terrain require a more direct course (or even a convoluted course), much more stringent that funneling down the "cone".. and that the VOR locations, and actual defined waypoints now needed, will have you flying both to and from the same VOR (or both, or three).. much like a strict, defined, filed IFR flight plan ...And somewhere along the way you'll need to fly a hold based on intersecting radials, but where neither side of the hold is one of those radials.. and at the conclusion, you'll need to transition from radial-tracking, to a published VOR approach IAF on a course to facilitate easy entry, where the FAF, is a radial from a terminal VOR that intersects the inbound course, that you won't even be able to recieve until 25nm out.. :oWithout being able to count on consistent, logical CDI deflection reading at a glance.. you WILL lose track of not only to/from orientation, but which waypoint you just passsed (because it changed fron reverse to normal sensing) or even where the heck you are..lolYou'll just have to trust me when I say that little more work(learning) now, will save gobs of work (re-learning) down the road.. if you push the limits, and/or ever learn instrument flight for real.What's that old adage ? Instructors vexed by bad habbits (or short-cuts) learned by students while simming ? This would be a textbook case..

It is relative, I guess.. and this is not a railroading forum full of train enthusiasts.But ponder the reverse.. you all as aircraft enthusiasts who might frequent railroad forums. In a general discussion area of a railorad forum (where they are really calling this out, BTW).. would you just accept a post describing jet reverse-thrust in a completely innacurate way, so long as it conveys that it aids in braking after landing ?Like.. "As the pilot applies reverse thrust.. the engine thrust now powers a mechanism that resists wheel roll".. It is that erroneous.. just sayin'

Just for fun.. consider your other tutorial (flying to a VOR intersection).For the sake of pointing out the tools at hand.. I'll pretend I have no idea where I am..Firstly, tune both VORs in and then spin the OBS's until both needles center with TO (arrow up) indication. This not only tells me exactly where I am (we know that a 'TO' indication means the actual radial is the reciprocal); it lets me decide the boolean TO/FROM combination (TO/TO TO/FROM FROM/TO FROM/FROM), IOW, am I inside, or outside of the "cone" made up of the radials "from" the destination , in terms of heading needed to fly efficiently to the intersection (airport in this case).Now we see the invaluable, subconscious math used when noting the amount of deflection per change in selected radial (that homework), because a CDI is not supposed to just point at 1/2 the compass.. the amount of deflection, and rate of deflection change per OBS movement, is a volume of useful information, even a sort of DME within a certain distance. By periodically checking each VOR, you can get a more direct course (based on an estimation per your initial position check), as opposed to flying all the way into one side of the "cone" and following that radial (this is where a consistent, methodical use of the CDI comes in, ala no reverse sensing).. I promise you that you'll forget, or be at least momentarialy confused, trying to remember which VOR CDI is reversed, or even which is which.. lol ... while trying to maintain an efficient course, constantly checking each VOR by OBS adjustment..Ideally, you'll see both CDIs center at once.. because of the intimate understanding of the winds you gained by en-route position checking.. :)ANYway.. yes, this requires more mental effort than your method, but only for simpler tasks (or if you don't mind flying much further than needed.. boucing around inside the "cone".. or don't mind an inneficient course TO the cone.. One step forward becomes two steps backward..

Fair enough :) ... But just to let you know, you already understand VOR navigation pretty darn well.. pretty much self-taught.. and grasp the big picture better than many real pilots I've come across.. As you dive deeper into it, and execute more and more of it.. dollars to donuts says you'll transition your methedology to more traditional, probably not even realizing it.. especially as you get into things like VOR approaches, and flying VOR-based holds...I've presided over countless, instrument ground school classes (been flying since 1979, instrument/commercial rated since 2005, active CFI from 2006-2009).. and would be delighted to have a handful of "yous" in a class :)

Firstly. I too want to thank you for your time and enthusiasm (why I responded by PM, instead of arguing with you about your tutorial, like a grumpy nay-sayer :) )Again, in the sprit of being positive and wanting to encourge you, and not lecture you.. I'll just quantify it like this:Your method kinda takes the edge off learning VOR fundementals (it can be very difficult to grasp), but only as it applies to a very simple application. If you get into realistic, complex VOR navigation (ie.. flying to/from a set of VOR radial intersections).. trying to keep track of which CDI is reverse-sensing, and which is not, is an un-needed variable, in a busy, IMC cockpit...Now, using the CDI as something other than what it is (ignoring reverse indications in favor of 1/2 the compass heading references), and treating the TO/FROM flag as something other than TO=up, FROM=down; takes away much of what the CDI and Flag can tell you. And putting completey aside, the purpose of the reference marks between, centered, and fully deflected (good homework); and putting completely aside using the OBS and TO/FROM flag to determine the radial you're currently on (gives you a much better intercetp reference than 1/2 or 1/4 the the possible headings), and putting aside using the OBS pre interception to gauge not only your progress, but a feel for any wind you're dealing with... Your method can become problematic for flying IMC and executing published VOR approaches, or even following ATC instructions, and position reporting.In summary.. you're sorta simplifying a simple task at the cost of complicating other, more utile tasks.

The most glaring error:"The resistance in the engine makes the wheels harder to turn"I don't think pointing that out, is pedantic.. it's fundementally wrong.

OK.. after a bit of research.. the theory is the same, but the diesel engine is in play, in that it decides how much of a generator, the traction motors become (applying electricty to the field).. But the braking action is the placing of a load across the motors-turned-generators, output.

EGAD ! How does an error like that get past editing ?I'd hate to think the engineer explained it that way..Briefly.. locomotive dynamic-brakes simply turn the traction motors into generators, and route their output to a massive resistor grid (the grid and its cooling mechanism are obvious exterior features). When you place an electrical load across a turning generator's output, it puts a physical load against the turning action. It cannot bring a locomotive to an actual stop, and is only effective above a certain speed... but above that speed, it's like riding the brakes going down a hill, without the pad wear/tear.Edit: To my understanding, the diesel engine is out of the loop, during dynamic braking..

"As to 2650 & 2700 rpm, it just works out, that full rpm is best for takeoff performance, and being slightly under is best for top speed. It's the same for quite a number of aircraft."Yeah.. there are many factors.. specific propeller designs (or flaws, or even wear/tear).. the aerodynamics of the airframe.. density altitude AT altitude.. and even engine wear that can "move" the power curve a bit. And of course the difference twixt 2650 and 2700 is not only minimal, but already at your disposal, on the ground or in the air by simply not pushing the control all the way forward .. :) .. I was just illustrating C/S propeler theory.

No shooting.. I promise.. :) .. just some clarifications to help keep all the little mis-conceptions at bay..The, high-gear / low-gear.. gearshift, analogy does not apply. Consider that an automobile in any gear, will operate across a wide RPM range. As you increase/decrease throttle for a geared car, RPMs go up/down, along with the vehicle speed.. Whereas a C/S-prop keeps the engine/prop at a set RPM, and as throttle-setting or airspeed change, it adjusts blade-pitch (AoA) to stay AT a set RPM. You can go from a takeoff roll, climb to altitude, and enter a top-speed cruise; never ever touching the prop-control.Try picturing a C/S-prop as an infinately variable transmission that is always in "D"; designed to allow the engine under power, to stay at a selected RPM at all times. It can/will go through the entire blade-pitch range, without any prop-RPM adjustment.Examine an airspeed increase at level cruise; where prop-rpm is at 2600, and MP is at 22" (I know this is not a typical setting,, this is just an illustration).. As you increase power (MP) to 25", the aiplane accelerates, but RPMS stay at 2600.A simple explanation, is that when you open the throttle, the engine "wants" to increase its RPM; and actually does, for a brief period.. this RPM increase results in a higher hydraulic pressure at the blade-pitch mechanism, which forces the blade AoA higher (not pitch, as AoA is prop-speed dependent, just like wing AoA is not an just the angle, but the airspeed ), which "holds" the RPMS as set (carefully designed differential between oil pressure and mechanism position, varied by the prop-control "valve"), translating the increased MP into increased airpseed via increased thrust, without having to increase RPMs. A geared car, in a similar scenario, would see RPMs and vehicle speed BOTH increase.The best analogy I've been taught, is to think of the C/S-prop as a pilot during takeoff. Prop-RPM is airspeed, and prop Vy is what has been set by the prop-control. Just like a pilot constantly adjusts wing AoA to maintain HIS Vy.. the C/S-prop adjusts ITS AoA to maintain its Vy (RPM as set by the prop-control).@LAdamson.."Takeoff with prop knob full forward. Engine revs to 2700 rpm, as set by the prop governor."The governor doesn't set 2700.. you set 2700 when you push the knob all the way forward. That 2700 is maintained in the same way any other RPM setting is maintained.. via prop-AoA. Prop(engine) RPM stay at 2700 throughout the takeoff roll because of a constantly-changing blade-AoA, not a mechanical governing device. I know this sounds nit-picky, so forgive me if I misundestood you. One of the key mis-conceptios around C/S-props, is that there's an RPM governor, when the the highest RPM setting, is just that. A setting at the top end of the (ground adjustable) RPM range.As I mentioned before.. if your airfram/engine/prop combo is getting max-thrust at 2650RPM, you might wanna re-adjust the governor so that a prop-control all the way forward, sets a (constantly adjusting) blade-AoA at 2650RPM. Why would you ever want to run the combo at an RPM higher than where max-thrust is generated ?

Also.. full-rich before cranking (Cessna / Piper, etc) is for carbureted engines.. fuel-injection calls for a different startup..Cold.. 1/4 throttle, mixture full rich. fuel pump on until positive fuel-flow is indicated..then mixture to cut-off.. crank immediately, richen mixture after ignition.Hot.. Hot starts are tricky.. normaly, no pump is needed. Start with throttle at idle; mixture to cut-off... crank while opening the throttle, and be quick to richen as it fires..

I just remembered a good comparison...Picture the prop-blade as an airplane wing.. The blade's "airspeed" is its RPMs.For an airplane, you "pitch for airspeed".. like your target airspeed during a climb is Vy. You adjust the wing angle-of-attack to maintain a constant airspeed.The constant speed prop continuously adjusts the blade angle-of-attack to maintain ITS constant speed (RPM)... selected by the prop control.

The most common mis-conceptions re: constant-speed props have been addressed in this thread, for the most part.. just a couple lingering, that I'll try to explain.Mis-conception: Throttle controls engine RPM, prop-control controls prop RPM.. Engine RPM (or engine output-shaft RPM for a turbine, or gear-reduced engine.. ala most big radials), and prop RPM are one in the same. They are as mechanically linked, as a fixed-pitch prop on a C172. Their RPMs go up/down as one.Mis-conception: Prop-control adjusts blade-pitch.. Blade-pitch can go from finest, to coarsest, over and over, throughout a flight, without ever touching the prop-control.Mis-conception: Prop-control is like a gear-shift.. This is a tricky one. Yes, you want the prop-control full forward for a takeoff roll, but you also want (need) it full forward to achieve top speed. The reason, in both cases, is that you want the highest available RPM. I'm not sure about turbines, but I'll assume, like a piston engine, the highest RPM is where the most HP is generated.

Hi, Harpsi .. do you mean the airplane IS on the ground, but the altimeter does not read zero ?That is not an error.. altimeters show altitude above sea-level. If the airport is above sea-level, then the altimeter shows that altitude when you are on the ground, at that airport.And the altimeter needs to be adjusted for the current, atmospheric pressure.This stuff is covered in the learning center... 'cockpit basics' / 'altimeter' ...Or.. start here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altimeter

And... it has definately made me a better, safer pilot (been flying since 1979).. by keeping that piloting, "in the cockpit", frame of mind sharp during long periods between actual flying..

I'd argue that it does a good job of relaying to the user how stick-n-rudder work translates into; pitch/roll/yaw.. climbing, descending, level-flight, climbing-turns, descending-turns... and it's all replicated very well for learning how the instruments display it all... ala.. pitching for airspeed, and powering for vertical speed, co-ordinating turns.. accounting for flap-use, stabilizing an approach, flaring, stalling, adjusting to winds.And the theories and use of everything from dead-reckoning, to instrument navigtion.. understanding and applying the differences between; course, heading, track, bearing, and relative-bearing... using a compass, and accounting for compass errors, and executing compass-turns..It also makes a good, "seeing is believing" when you go from even the simplest fligh-plan, actually accomplishing it..

That is a horribly worded question.. best sense I can make of it, is that it states, "flying at a level where atmospheric pressure is". I can only guess that they mean literally, the ambient pressure at that altitude, as in, the lower pressure at altitude, that an altimeter "sees".Whenever I see the term, "atmospheric pressure", I interpret it as the same number you'd here from a weatherman, or ATIS broadcast... same number you'd dial in to set your altimeter.. having nothing to do with your altitude.. Like, on a standard day, "atmospheric pressure" is '29.92' whether your at the beach, or sitting on a mountain.. right?Then a properly set altimeter measures the difference between atmospheric pressure, and AMBIENT pressure, wherever that altimeter might be.ANYway.. I don't think even my interpretation is correct for this weird question,, because the answer would be the difference between the altimeter setting, and what they're calling, "atmospheric pressure AT a level" .... 29.75 - 27.55 = 2.2 .... 2.2 / 0.00108147453246 = ~2034.. which isn't even one of the choices !P.S. Wanna hear who's dense ? I tried to copy/paste from the image.. LOLEdit: my conversion number (0.00108147453246) was based on a temp of 15C .. but even if you use the standard "rough conversion" of 1" = 1,000' ... the answer is, 2,200 .. Closer to the answers, but still not one of them.

Yeah.. turn the altimeter setting knob, and note the realtionship twixt displayed altitude, and the setting numbers in inches..

Yeah.. The approach I linked shows the circle-to-land option.. slightly higher MDA, and slightly better visibility, for faster aircraft.. but I think we need to help him with VFR patterns, first. :)

That's how I interpreted your original question.. allow me to elaborate:On a VFR flight, you only need to see the airport.. doesn't matter from which direction you're arriving. If it's a towered airport, you contact the tower before entering the airspace, they will tell you how they want you to end up on final.. usually tell you to enter a standard pattern on the leg of that pattern that fits current traffic.. something like: "November-five-seven-four-zero-tango, fly left base for runway 26" .. OR .. "fly right downwind for runway 04" ...At a non-towered airport, you decide how to enter the pattern, based on wind, what you see, and what you've been hearing on CTAF (other pilots coming and going).. then announce those intentions, and execute them.Now, of course if you can't see the airport.. you're flying IMC, under instrument flight rules. ATC will vector you to a point where you can then fly the published, instrument approach.. and if it's an ILS, they'll likely vector you right up to nice ILS intercept.

You're welcome :) .. but it doesn't have to be on ruway centerline either.Maybe I'm mis-understanding the OP's question. From what I read; he wants to flight-plan by radio nav-aid, but does not want to have to manually plot an arrival point from where he'd fly the final approach leg. If that's true, then even a VOR at the field, that a flight-planner would give him, could have him inbound on a radial perpendicular to the runway. He'd have to do some sort of manual plotting.. ie.. choose a radial that has him intersecting runway centerline, far enough from the runway to be able to turn to final... which of course leads me to sugest he just fly whatever published approach is useable, (or incorporate points of it into his fligh-plan).ANYway.. one way or another.. he's gonna have to plot and improvise at some point.. When plotting a VOR radial that would have him near enough runway heading, it need not be a VOR at the field.. Here's an example of a leg he could use flying into KTOL for runway 34.... an actual VOR approach, where the VOR is nearly ten miles from the airport, and nowhere near runway centerline..http://204.108.4.16/...3/00184VD34.PDF

Yes, as in the approach end of the intended runway..Same deal.... .... it doesn't have to be an on site VOR ... Even many published VOR approaches use VORs tens of miles away from the airport.