donnybrook wrote:Wouldn't the rotation of the earth change that?

And the path of the earth around the sun, depending on your frame of reference

//edit: actually, both effects won't matter as the question is defined as the height difference between the two people at the same time. If it were defined as the difference between the position where he left at the take off time and the position where he lands at landing time, then it would have to be taken into account.

AOW wrote:Archie Trammell's manual?

I'll call this the correct answer, although not Archie's manual. It is my multi-scan radar manual and I thought that their statement was interesting. Your old style weather radar will likely not pick up that solid line of CB's at 320 miles because of the curvature of the earth.

But the multi-scan, such as on the A321 is designed to be able to do so, at least at cruise altitude.

Anyways, I just thought that the sixty thousand feet below you at 320 miles was interesting.

Thanks

Right... but nobody here understands where the sixty thousand feet figure comes from. We all get 14.9nm which is ninety thousand feet. Can you explain the figure?

An airborne radar can see a target at its own altitude at double the range of a ground based radar.

pelmet wrote:I'll call this the correct answer, although not Archie's manual. It is my multi-scan radar manual and I thought that their statement was interesting. Your old style weather radar will likely not pick up that solid line of CB's at 320 miles because of the curvature of the earth.

Is the limitation the curvature of the earth or the radars power?

This was a very poorly thought of wording for the answer you were looking for.

Next time maybe: At what altitude do you have to fly to detect a 65,000' cell at 320NM.

E

esp803 wrote:

pelmet wrote:I'll call this the correct answer, although not Archie's manual. It is my multi-scan radar manual and I thought that their statement was interesting. Your old style weather radar will likely not pick up that solid line of CB's at 320 miles because of the curvature of the earth.

This was a very poorly thought of wording for the answer you were looking for.

Maybe it could have been worded better. But AOW got it no problem and knew right away we were talking about curvature of the earth. Impressive.

esp803 wrote: Next time maybe: At what altitude do you have to fly to detect a 65,000' cell at 320NM.

The question is not about 65,000 foot cells, actually.

CpnCrunch wrote:No offence to Pelmet, but it is a bit of a silly question. Kind of like those trick questions that TC likes to ask.

True, that is why the title is what it is. I didn't expect all those formulas I saw people doing to actually be done. Sorry, but perhaps I am now qualified for TC exam writing.

And I hate cryptic crosswords.

Thanks for the responses.

You still haven't explained your apparently wrong answer to your own question. From where do you get an answer of 65,000 feet?

I thought he said that 65000' was the answer given in his reading material. Maybe someone is working in statute miles and someone else in nautical?

photofly wrote:You still haven't explained your apparently wrong answer to your own question. From where do you get an answer of 65,000 feet?

As previously mentioned, it comes from the radar manual. Try a google search of Rockwell-Collins if you feel they need to amend their manuals.

Concerning the 65,000 foot number, I don't try to attempt those sorts of calculations. I see that you and others came up with different numbers but for now, I am going to lean toward believing the manufacturer.