I am trying to get a handle on what a KC-135 pilot would experience (out 
sample flights are about 0.5-0.7 mach).  What I will probably do, for 
now, is set the visibility for 50 statute miles, since more than that 
gives me the next step down in performance.  Right now, I have been 
flying without the fog (mainly because I like observing the terrain).  
Eventually, I will probably see if I can control the fog level 
independently from the visibility, since I prefer a lighter, more 
hazie(?),  fog.

Jonathan Polley

On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 05:29 PM, Alex Perry wrote:

>> So, what you are saying is that my having set the visibility to 90
>> statute miles was not a good thing?  ;)  Any ideas as to what I should
>> expect for a worst-case visibility?  The reason I chose such a large
>> visibility is because the fog effect looked, to me, more like fog and
>> less like haze.
>
> The numbers I quoted were based on what I get in beautiful and sunny
> San Diego; I suspect the Bay Area (with out default airport) is often 
> worse.
> Worst I've seen is 100ft in ground fog while taxiing which was really 
> hard,
> but the worst you'll legally encounter in the USA is one statute mile 
> while
> in class G airspace.  Generally below 1200 ftagl; check a chart for 
> details.
>
> Bear in mind that, even in a C172, you're moving twice as fast as a car.
> Thus, visibility numbers need to be halved to scale for straight line 
> time.
> Turning radius is about quadruple a car, so for maneuvering you need to
> quarter the visibility to get comparable effects.  Finally, for 
> navigation,
> a car generally rarely looks more than a mile ahead for the next 
> roadsign,
> while the visual aircraft is looking between 2 and 10 miles to a 
> feature.
> There are _good_ reasons why so many student pilots get lost on 
> X-countrys.
>
> Flying at 160 mph in 4 mile visibility by pilotage and without ATC 
> support
> is a high stress navigation challenge and is dangerous around mountains.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Reply via email to