Power Point isn't the end all - be all of programs out there, but many of us find that we use it a lot. Power Point should be there to make planning easier, quicker. It shouldn't be a time suck, but not everyone has the same level of Power Point skills. I've created a short PPTX file that will provide resuable objects for sticks and presentations, a guide to creating timelines , and a list of keboard shortcuts that will make planning in Power Point, less of a chore.
If you have questions about other things you can do in Power Point, let me know. I'll see if there's a faster way.
v/r
RC
26 October 2009
24 September 2009
2-Step Assaults
Originally posted 4/5/08 (this is an update)
I would venture to say that most pilots prefer normal glide path assaults these days. What normal means is relative to each pilot, but somewhere between 2.5 and 3.5 degrees. Some times terrain or other factors bring you in at a higher altitude, closer to the field.
At those times a 2-step approach is required. I have created an Excel worksheet to calculate a two step approach's initial required glidepath and VVI to arrive at a 3° glideslope at 100'AGL & 2000' feet from the threshold.
In the worksheet you can actually choose your 'normal' glideslope and the desired altitude you want to be at when you intercept it.
I'd like a little feedback on this worksheet. The math should be good, but I'd appreciate on any feedback. If you find this useful, I will post a cleaned up final version and a checklist sized tab data for common speeds and approaches.
Click on the title above to download the worksheet.
UPDATE: I got to thinking today... This works pretty good for straight line 2-step assaults, but what about for a turning approach? Say off the perch or desent to final. What is my required VVI to intercept my desired final? I added some of that math at the bottom of the worksheet to add that feature. Let me know what you think.
-RC
I would venture to say that most pilots prefer normal glide path assaults these days. What normal means is relative to each pilot, but somewhere between 2.5 and 3.5 degrees. Some times terrain or other factors bring you in at a higher altitude, closer to the field.
At those times a 2-step approach is required. I have created an Excel worksheet to calculate a two step approach's initial required glidepath and VVI to arrive at a 3° glideslope at 100'AGL & 2000' feet from the threshold.
In the worksheet you can actually choose your 'normal' glideslope and the desired altitude you want to be at when you intercept it.
I'd like a little feedback on this worksheet. The math should be good, but I'd appreciate on any feedback. If you find this useful, I will post a cleaned up final version and a checklist sized tab data for common speeds and approaches.
Click on the title above to download the worksheet.
UPDATE: I got to thinking today... This works pretty good for straight line 2-step assaults, but what about for a turning approach? Say off the perch or desent to final. What is my required VVI to intercept my desired final? I added some of that math at the bottom of the worksheet to add that feature. Let me know what you think.
-RC
03 September 2009
Using Winds to Adjust Slowdown Point
Min slowdown approaches seem to be the bain of the Tactical Airlifters existence. It's not that difficult to understand. When we do penetration descents, we adjust our descent point for a ballastic wind. When we CARP an airdrop we adjust the release point based upon a ballistic wind. In both cases, the time that the wind affects that object determines how much we offset for that wind.
Similarly we look at the time that a wind affects us during slowdown to adjust that point of initiation. How do we do this?
Let's assume we're doing a level slowdown from 250 KTAS to 150 KTAS. Experience (and nothing else) has shown us that the C-130 will slow down in 0.25 NM for each 10 knots of airspeed lost. Using that rule of thumb, it will take 2.5 NM to slow to my desired speed. Based on an average speed of 200 KTAS, it will take me 45 seconds to complete the slowdown.
The wind is either pushing me faster or slower during that time. Wind doesn't change my true airspeed, so the time and distance to complete the slowdown don't change. Only my resultant position over the earth changes with the wind. The stronger the wind the more it will affect me. Wind probably won't affect me too much until at least 10 knots, so I want to know how much the wind will affect me for each 10 knots of a direct headwind or tailwind.
If I convert 10 knots into 10 NM / 3600 seconds, I can multiply that by 45 seconds (the time required to complete the slowdown). The result is 0.13 NM. If I had slowdown to 120 KTAS, the wind would have had more time to affect me and would result in 0.18 NM change for each 10 knots of wind.
The average is around 0.15 NM. Funny enough, this is the number that the Combat Planning guide tells us to use for adjusting the slowdown on a Straight-In approach.
Since our FMS only shows us distances to the first decimal place (i.e. 5.2), I recommend the following technique: Round up for tailwinds and round down for headwinds. This a more conservative way to apply. For a 30 knot tailwind I would execute the SD .5 NM earlier.
Refer to the excel spreadsheet for the calculations. Change the SD factor in the file to switch from J to E/H Model C-130.
Excel Sheet
-RC
Similarly we look at the time that a wind affects us during slowdown to adjust that point of initiation. How do we do this?
Let's assume we're doing a level slowdown from 250 KTAS to 150 KTAS. Experience (and nothing else) has shown us that the C-130 will slow down in 0.25 NM for each 10 knots of airspeed lost. Using that rule of thumb, it will take 2.5 NM to slow to my desired speed. Based on an average speed of 200 KTAS, it will take me 45 seconds to complete the slowdown.
The wind is either pushing me faster or slower during that time. Wind doesn't change my true airspeed, so the time and distance to complete the slowdown don't change. Only my resultant position over the earth changes with the wind. The stronger the wind the more it will affect me. Wind probably won't affect me too much until at least 10 knots, so I want to know how much the wind will affect me for each 10 knots of a direct headwind or tailwind.
If I convert 10 knots into 10 NM / 3600 seconds, I can multiply that by 45 seconds (the time required to complete the slowdown). The result is 0.13 NM. If I had slowdown to 120 KTAS, the wind would have had more time to affect me and would result in 0.18 NM change for each 10 knots of wind.
The average is around 0.15 NM. Funny enough, this is the number that the Combat Planning guide tells us to use for adjusting the slowdown on a Straight-In approach.
Since our FMS only shows us distances to the first decimal place (i.e. 5.2), I recommend the following technique: Round up for tailwinds and round down for headwinds. This a more conservative way to apply. For a 30 knot tailwind I would execute the SD .5 NM earlier.
Refer to the excel spreadsheet for the calculations. Change the SD factor in the file to switch from J to E/H Model C-130.
Excel Sheet
-RC
28 August 2009
Designing Tactical Approaches
Designing tactical approaches is really not all that cosmic. It is simply applied mathematics. Working from the end of the approach backwards and breaking each part of the approach into smaller math problems makes the task easy.
Use the Teardrop Approach Primer (draft) to see if you can follow through the process. This is just a draft. I intend to break it down a little further and show the flow better. Until then take a look and see if you can follow along.
Use the Teardrop Approach Primer (draft) to see if you can follow through the process. This is just a draft. I intend to break it down a little further and show the flow better. Until then take a look and see if you can follow along.
26 July 2008
New IRC MQF CBT
The 2007 February IRC MQF is now available on herk-gouge.com. Since you cannot use the MQF during testing, you can use this CBT to more easily memorize the questions (and answers, of course). Good Luck.
-RC
-RC
25 June 2008
Why all the Conversions?
If you've ever had to convert feet to nautical miles or been asked how fast you fly, you probably start to wonder why we have all these different units of measurement. The 23 June 2008 Democrat-Gazette has an article that sheds a little light on NM, miles, and KM.
Don’t know why a mile is 5,280 feet? You’re not alone
BY MARSHALL BRAIN MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
If you live in the United States, you know all about miles. We measure any long distance in miles, and we also have things like miles per hour and miles per gallon. A mile is 5,280 feet. But where did this unit of measurement come from? Why is it so bizarre? And what is the difference between a statute mile, a nautical mile and a kilometer? Let’s explore how these different measurements work. It is pretty obvious where the “foot” came from. It started with the length of a person’s foot. Anyone wearing a size-10 shoe has a sole that is almost exactly a foot long. Having a unit of measurement attached to your body is obviously quite convenient, so this unit stuck. But putting 5,280 feet into a mile is more obscure. To understand the number, you have to understand the furlong, which the English have used for measuring parcels of land for centuries. A furlong is 660 feet. A mile is 8 furlongs. Eight times 660 is 5,280 feet. In other words, the length of a mile is totally arbitrary, but at least you now understand where the obscure number came from. You might ask, “Why did the English want a unit of measurement that was about 5,000 feet long?” That’s because the Romans, who once ruled the English, had a unit called a mille passuum, which measured 1,000 paces. A pace was five feet. So a Roman mile was 5,000 feet. Since the furlong was an important unit of measurement in England, it appears that the British chose a furlong-based system when defining their own mile. And 5,280 feet was pretty close to 5,000 feet. What about a nautical mile? Instead of being based on human anatomy, a nautical mile is based on the circumference of the Earth. If you were to cut the Earth in half at the equator, you could pick up one of the halves and look at the equator as a circle. You could divide that circle into 360 degrees. You could then divide a degree into 60 minutes. A minute of arc on the Earth is 1 nautical mile. This unit of measurement is used by all nations for air and sea travel. A knot is a unit of measure for speed. If you are traveling at a speed of 1 nautical mile per hour, you are said to be traveling at a speed of 1 knot. (Sailors used to measure knots using a length of rope weighted with a log. The rope was knotted at regular intervals. The sailors would toss the log overboard and count how many knots played out through their hands as the log drifted away behind the boat. They used sandfilled hourglasses to measure the time.) And then there is the kilometer. A kilometer is also defined using Earth as a standard of distance. If you were to take the Earth and cut it in half along a line passing from the North Pole through Paris, and then measure the distance of the curve running from the North Pole to the equator on that circle, and then divide that distance by 10,000, you would have the traditional unit for the kilometer as defined in 1791 by the French Academy of Sciences. A kilometer is 1,000 meters. Today the scientific community uses the metric system. The meter has been defined as the distance that light will travel in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second. So a mile is now defined as 1,609.344 meters. To travel around the Earth at the equator, you would have to travel (360 x 60) 21,600 nautical miles, or 24,857 miles, or 40,003 kilometers.
Don’t know why a mile is 5,280 feet? You’re not alone
BY MARSHALL BRAIN MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
If you live in the United States, you know all about miles. We measure any long distance in miles, and we also have things like miles per hour and miles per gallon. A mile is 5,280 feet. But where did this unit of measurement come from? Why is it so bizarre? And what is the difference between a statute mile, a nautical mile and a kilometer? Let’s explore how these different measurements work. It is pretty obvious where the “foot” came from. It started with the length of a person’s foot. Anyone wearing a size-10 shoe has a sole that is almost exactly a foot long. Having a unit of measurement attached to your body is obviously quite convenient, so this unit stuck. But putting 5,280 feet into a mile is more obscure. To understand the number, you have to understand the furlong, which the English have used for measuring parcels of land for centuries. A furlong is 660 feet. A mile is 8 furlongs. Eight times 660 is 5,280 feet. In other words, the length of a mile is totally arbitrary, but at least you now understand where the obscure number came from. You might ask, “Why did the English want a unit of measurement that was about 5,000 feet long?” That’s because the Romans, who once ruled the English, had a unit called a mille passuum, which measured 1,000 paces. A pace was five feet. So a Roman mile was 5,000 feet. Since the furlong was an important unit of measurement in England, it appears that the British chose a furlong-based system when defining their own mile. And 5,280 feet was pretty close to 5,000 feet. What about a nautical mile? Instead of being based on human anatomy, a nautical mile is based on the circumference of the Earth. If you were to cut the Earth in half at the equator, you could pick up one of the halves and look at the equator as a circle. You could divide that circle into 360 degrees. You could then divide a degree into 60 minutes. A minute of arc on the Earth is 1 nautical mile. This unit of measurement is used by all nations for air and sea travel. A knot is a unit of measure for speed. If you are traveling at a speed of 1 nautical mile per hour, you are said to be traveling at a speed of 1 knot. (Sailors used to measure knots using a length of rope weighted with a log. The rope was knotted at regular intervals. The sailors would toss the log overboard and count how many knots played out through their hands as the log drifted away behind the boat. They used sandfilled hourglasses to measure the time.) And then there is the kilometer. A kilometer is also defined using Earth as a standard of distance. If you were to take the Earth and cut it in half along a line passing from the North Pole through Paris, and then measure the distance of the curve running from the North Pole to the equator on that circle, and then divide that distance by 10,000, you would have the traditional unit for the kilometer as defined in 1791 by the French Academy of Sciences. A kilometer is 1,000 meters. Today the scientific community uses the metric system. The meter has been defined as the distance that light will travel in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second. So a mile is now defined as 1,609.344 meters. To travel around the Earth at the equator, you would have to travel (360 x 60) 21,600 nautical miles, or 24,857 miles, or 40,003 kilometers.
05 March 2008
Shackle Math
It's taken me awhile (and a lot of help from some friends) but I've finished my Shackle tabulated data. I'll finish the caculator at a later date, but feel free to use the tab data now. Remember, this has an assumption of a 4 second roll into angle of bank. More to follow. Click the title to download or see my Kneeboard Gouge at http://www.-herk-gouge.com/
-RC
-RC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
