[Milsurplus] Naval Aviation Navigation

[Ben Dover]

Howdy.


>> I'm not a pilot, but I believe that planes use less fuel at altitude
than down low. <<

True...  but it takes a LOT of fuel (at climb setting) to GET there. Many
times the climb
expenditure is more than you save once you ge there, especially when your
not headed that far.


>> Also, these were not intercontinental planes in WW II and typical
missions ranges were 
in the 1000 mile or less ballpark. The carriers were likely to operate from
as closely as 
relatively safe from the target. <<

For WW2 carrier missions, 1000 miles would be FAR beyond practical range.
Typical missions
would be 250 miles or less...  150 would be typical.

To get within range of the carrier on the return trip calls for (A) knowing
the carrier's 
course and speed (which made the carrier somewhat vulnerable if the enemy
got lucky on a
guess; the carrier couldn't improvise), and (B) using dead reckoning to get
within the big
coverage circle of the nav radio. It took a bit of navigating, but
considering the ranges
involved it's not that big a deal.

Also.. consider that WW2 carrier operations were almost exclusively a
daylight only thing.
In that situation, "line of sight" takes on a whole new meaning when it
comes to navigation.
VFR played a BIG part in this game.


Mr. T., W9LBB

 




At 09:31 PM 3/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>Hue Miller wrote:
>
>> So, if you needed to get  home direction, say at the maximum distance
out of your attack
>> flight, you would climb to necessary  altitude, altho that would cost in
fuel, and probably
>> not, at least for carrier based planes, be a practicable sustained
flight altitude.
>
>I'm not a pilot, but I believe that planes use less fuel at altitude than
down low. Also, these
>were not intercontinental planes in WW II and typical missions ranges were
in the 1000 mile or
>less ballpark. The carriers were likely to operate from as closely as
relatively safe from the
>target.
>
>Also, a 117 mile distance to the horizon (234 mile circle) is a fairly
large target. The angle
>it subtends increases as you approach the carrier also. You could easily
find that with a
>compass or by estimating the sun's azimuth. Finding the carrier w/o the
radio would be next to
>impossible in comparison.
>
>FWIW,
>-John
>
>______________________________________________________________
>Milsurplus mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
>