Originally Posted by Flycameron

Quote:





Originally Posted by gbruyn



You are on the XYZ VOR 090° radial at 20 DME. You are instructed to proceed direct to the XYZ VOR 180° radial at 70 DME. The direct, no wind heading is:
a) 185°
b) 190°
c) 195°
d) 200°




This is a good question. I found two ways to solve it but not sure what's the best or most correct. The first is that this is a right triangle trig.
Tan X = 2/7
2/7 = .2857
Tan 16 = .2867
Thus, it's 196

The other option is to use the 60 to 1 rule. So if your at 60 DME on the 180 and want to go to the 20 DME on the 090 that is the same as a 20 degree turn. So your heading is now 360 + 20 = heading 020. We want to go the other directions so heading is now 200. So to be more accurate we have to go to 70 DME. If 60 to 1 then it's 70 to .86. So 20 X .86 =16.8. So 360 + 16.8 = heading 016.8. That's if we want to go from the 70 DME to the 20 DME going north we want to go south so the heading is 196.8.


So the answer I come up with is 196.8 but it would appear the only choices are 195 and 200. Guess I'll have to go with 195. Just sucks when the answers to choose from isn't even a correct choice.

Originally Posted by StartngOvr

By my thinking with the 60:1 rule, each radial is 0.5 NM or 2 radials per NM. I'm thinking this is reversed?

Problem is, solving this with those numbers yields 15 NM, or about 2.5 min. and 1803z isn't an answer choice!

Originally Posted by Flycameron

1810 is correct

If your at 30 DME then 1 radial is 2 miles. 60 to 1 and 30 to 2. So 30 degrees X 2 = 60. If your going 6 miles and minute and you need to cover 60 miles it will take you 10 minutes. Arrival is 1810

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

If the 60 to 1 rule says that at 60 miles two adjacent radials are one mile apart, then how can they be 2 miles apart at 30 miles? Wouldn't they be a half mile apart?

What am I missing?

Denny

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

If the 60 to 1 rule says that at 60 miles two adjacent radials are one mile apart, then how can they be 2 miles apart at 30 miles? Wouldn't they be a half mile apart?

What am I missing?

Denny

Originally Posted by buzzpat

They can't. They'd be half a mile apart. Then again, I used to know this stuff but I just plug it into the box these days. Fix to fix? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

If the 60 to 1 rule says that at 60 miles two adjacent radials are one mile apart, then how can they be 2 miles apart at 30 miles? Wouldn't they be a half mile apart?

What am I missing?

Denny

Originally Posted by Flycameron

60 TO 1 RULE

60/60 = 1 (1 radial per NM)
60/30 = 2 (2 radial per NM)
60/20 = 3 (3 radial per NM)
60/120 = 0.5 (.5 radial per NM)


Picture yourself standing 60 feet from a Car and point your hand 20 degrees to the right at a motorcycle. Now let's say you move to 30 feet from the car and want to point at the same motorcycle that was 20 degrees but now your arm has to move in order to point at the same motorcycle. Your arm would need to be at 40 degrees now since you moved closer to the car, hence twice the angle. So at 30 DME you are now two radials per NM. Make sense?

Originally Posted by Flycameron

60 TO 1 RULE

60/60 = 1 (1 radial per NM)
60/30 = 2 (2 radial per NM)
60/20 = 3 (3 radial per NM)
60/120 = 0.5 (.5 radial per NM)


Picture yourself standing 60 feet from a Car and point your hand 20 degrees to the right at a motorcycle. Now let's say you move to 30 feet from the car and want to point at the same motorcycle that was 20 degrees but now your arm has to move in order to point at the same motorcycle. Your arm would need to be at 40 degrees now since you moved closer to the car, hence twice the angle. So at 30 DME you are now two radials per NM. Make sense?