04-07-2023, 03:02 PM
Hello Peter,
I reduced and plotted the LOP using your 249 commercial attachment. Yes, you're correct that the LOP's with my method and yours do pass over top of each other. The problem with my method using a LHA of 55° is that the intercept was 79' (l° 19') in length which is way too long. My guess is a navigator looking at that LOP would say, "let's try a different LHA....how about 54° ?" (that will provide a "closer" intercept and not such a huge one).
Another idea I had to obtain the LHA and Ap longitude, and tell me if this isn't correct, using your example of DR longitude of E 113° 25' and Latitude of S 23° 42'
To get the Ap longitude using GHA 301° 02'
60 - 2= 58'
The value of 2' reduces your DR longitude from the whole degree of 113°. So the DR longitude (forgetting the minutes of arc) becomes 112° 58' which now become the Ap longitude.
Ap longitude= E 112° 58'
Ed
Does that makes sense or will it just
I reduced and plotted the LOP using your 249 commercial attachment. Yes, you're correct that the LOP's with my method and yours do pass over top of each other. The problem with my method using a LHA of 55° is that the intercept was 79' (l° 19') in length which is way too long. My guess is a navigator looking at that LOP would say, "let's try a different LHA....how about 54° ?" (that will provide a "closer" intercept and not such a huge one).
Another idea I had to obtain the LHA and Ap longitude, and tell me if this isn't correct, using your example of DR longitude of E 113° 25' and Latitude of S 23° 42'
To get the Ap longitude using GHA 301° 02'
60 - 2= 58'
The value of 2' reduces your DR longitude from the whole degree of 113°. So the DR longitude (forgetting the minutes of arc) becomes 112° 58' which now become the Ap longitude.
Ap longitude= E 112° 58'
Ed
Does that makes sense or will it just