SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

JScones · 09-03-06, 08:37 PM

Having never gone through the Kiel Canal, I thought I would be in a perfect position to test your statement Jmack, so for the first time ever I just left Kiel bound for the Canal.

I tested using GWX, which as we know has the bridge included.

Well, after manually plotting a course through the Canal, I simply set TC to 256 (at times 512), took to the Nav screen and cruised on through. I found that to sail through was prolly quicker than it took to plot the blasted route I was to follow!

I think this was an extreme test - I certainly wouldn't sail blindly through the Canal at high TC if I was being serious, but for someone who had never navigated the Canal before, I had no probs with it or TC.

In practice I'd prolly use the higher 256 and 512 TC on some parts, but a more cautious 8 or 16 on others.

09-03-06, 08:37 PM	#22
JScones Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,501 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	Having never gone through the Kiel Canal, I thought I would be in a perfect position to test your statement Jmack, so for the first time ever I just left Kiel bound for the Canal. I tested using GWX, which as we know has the bridge included. Well, after manually plotting a course through the Canal, I simply set TC to 256 (at times 512), took to the Nav screen and cruised on through. I found that to sail through was prolly quicker than it took to plot the blasted route I was to follow! I think this was an extreme test - I certainly wouldn't sail blindly through the Canal at high TC if I was being serious, but for someone who had never navigated the Canal before, I had no probs with it or TC. In practice I'd prolly use the higher 256 and 512 TC on some parts, but a more cautious 8 or 16 on others.