Quote:
Originally Posted by Pisces
I'd still like to see a drawing to go with this, if you please. Since I don't understand how or why that line at 2000 yards is plotted. You state it is perpendicular to own course. Are you sure it's not supposed to be perpendicular to the bearing of 340? Or is it perpendicular to own course because the bearing is set to 0 in the TDC when you set the AOB to 90. Well, I'm probably just having trouble understanding because I'm tired as a dog.
|
I'll work it up in another thread. Nisgeis could be correct about the rate of degrees per unit time changing as the range changes, lending some inaccuracy to the plot. That was simply a thought experiment, not backed up by any real analysis. You have to remember that in astronomy, stars essentially have infinite range and zero size. The situation is much simpler than with a submarine in some respects. The important thing will be to analyze how tolerant the method is to angles not exactly 90º. In other words are you pretty okay 30º off in either direction? 45º? At what point does the angle become a deal-killer? If plus or minus 30º would give you a 60º slop factor with a pretty guaranteed success wouldn't you take that as useful? You could pretty well visually narrow it down that far without measurement. But if the tolerance is only plus or minus 15º we might not be so happy.
By the way folks, Nisgeis is primarily responsible for popularizing the vector analysis method. He originated the concept and chose the name of the John P Cromwell method. Many times he has set me straight when I got something regarding the TDC slightly (or greatly
) wrong. Please take a bow sir!