SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
03-06-13, 04:37 PM | #16 |
Loader
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Upper Left Edge
Posts: 81
Downloads: 77
Uploads: 0
|
The object of the exercise was to develop a solution with as little information about the target as possible, i.e., speed. All other data are up to the sub driver.
|
03-06-13, 05:29 PM | #17 | |
Seasoned Skipper
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 698
Downloads: 262
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
EDIT: I continue to have a hell of a time getting this formula to work on my scientific calculator. It just doesn't want to recogize my A input as radians. I've tried everything. What would I have to multiply my angle input (A in this case) by to convert it to RADIANS within the formula? Maybe I'll have to do it that way. For instance: Lead Angle = asin (V sin (conversion value for Radians)A / (V ^ 2 + T ^ 2 - 2VT cos (conversion value for Radians)A) ^ 1/2). what would this value have to be? pi/180? A(pi)/180? A*(57.29577951 / pi), as mentioned before by pisces? I appreciate all the help thus far.
__________________
Last edited by Dignan; 03-06-13 at 10:32 PM. |
|
03-07-13, 01:06 AM | #18 |
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,975
Downloads: 153
Uploads: 11
|
Dignan, |
03-07-13, 05:52 AM | #19 |
Loader
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Upper Left Edge
Posts: 81
Downloads: 77
Uploads: 0
|
Yeah, the intercept angle is simply 180-track angle (in degrees) or 3.1416-track angle (in radians). See complete diagram below—when I submitted the original post, I was still into the whole brevity thing.
Last edited by Dorjun Driver; 03-08-13 at 03:13 AM. Reason: Corrected as per BigWalleye's point. |
03-07-13, 09:27 AM | #20 | |
Seasoned Skipper
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 698
Downloads: 262
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Ah, I think I see my mis-step. I was failing to convert the final La result into radians too. I converted the input (Ta in your formula above) to radians but not my final La output. Regarding my calculator, its something I downloaded for free on my phone. It's possible the person who made it did not do it correctly or did not include a way to automatically convert to radians. Some of them are better than others. Thanks a lot. I'll try this tonight. If it doesn't work I"ll probably just go back to drawing it out on the nav map. Not that big of a deal. I try to remind myself that somewhere under all this putzing around with mods and formulas and stuff there's a game to be played.
__________________
|
|
03-07-13, 09:34 AM | #21 | |
Seasoned Skipper
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 698
Downloads: 262
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Thanks for the new diagram. Just for my own edification, in your new diagram, the target AOB at the point of impact = the track angle, correct? And the Intercept angle is formed by the target course and your torpedo track course, correct?
__________________
|
|
03-07-13, 10:38 AM | #22 |
Loader
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Upper Left Edge
Posts: 81
Downloads: 77
Uploads: 0
|
That's a big ten–fore, Dignan.
|
03-07-13, 11:15 AM | #23 |
Sea Lord
|
Small quibble on nomenclature: In SLM-1, the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual (http://www.hnsa.org/doc/attack/index.htm), what you are referring to as the "track angle", (theta sub track on your diagram) is designated the "torpedo track angle". This is distinct from the track angle, which SLM-1 defines as "The angle at the point of intercept target ships course and the submarine's course measured to port or starboard of the target ship's bow toward the submarine. Symbol: Ta." That is, track angle, as used in the WW2 USN and in many first-person accounts, is relative to the submarine's course, not the torpedo's course. Using the two interchangeably might cause confusion to someone reading first-person accounts or patrol reports.
|
03-07-13, 11:27 AM | #24 |
Loader
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Upper Left Edge
Posts: 81
Downloads: 77
Uploads: 0
|
Correct. The first diagram represents a special case where they are the same. And indeed, the second diagram is mislabeled. Thanks for the heads up.
|
03-07-13, 12:15 PM | #25 |
Sea Lord
|
The formula in your OP is correct (IMAO!), or at least agrees with my own analysis. It produces results which agree closely - but not exactly! - with the results shown on Plates XVII and XVIII in SLM-1. There are small differences, usually less than 1 degree, which I think are due to corrections for parallax and what SLM-1 calls "torpedo advance" - the distance the torpedo travels before it settles on its gyro-dictated course. It is interesting that the equation in your OP does not appear anywhere in SLM-1, and that the method used to calculate the curves of Plates XVII and XVIII is not specified either.
|
03-07-13, 12:43 PM | #26 |
Loader
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Upper Left Edge
Posts: 81
Downloads: 77
Uploads: 0
|
No parallax, no reach, and no turning radius. KISS
|
03-07-13, 01:35 PM | #27 |
Sea Lord
|
Since it would take far better eyesight than mine to set the firing bearing to within less than one degree, your equation is accurate enough for me. My point was that SLM-1 was the official USN publication on the subject, the one R/L sub officers were taught from, and that their plots, with Heaven only knows what unspecified second- and third-order refinements, agreed with your analysis to an accuracy better than we can use.
Although I prefer KISMIF. |
03-07-13, 09:03 PM | #28 | |
Seasoned Skipper
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 698
Downloads: 262
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
La = asin˚ (V sin˚ A / (V ^ 2 + T ^ 2 - 2VT cos˚ A) ^ 1/2) V=target speed T=Torp speed A=track angle When I input the following like before V=9 T=30 A=75 ...I get 15.5 for a lead angle. Not the 17.4 Dorjun said I should get but closer. Anyone see any flaws with this formula now that the trig functions are set to radians?
__________________
Last edited by Dignan; 03-07-13 at 09:34 PM. |
|
03-07-13, 11:23 PM | #29 |
Loader
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Upper Left Edge
Posts: 81
Downloads: 77
Uploads: 0
|
I don't know what to tell ya. Using your formula above I keep getting 17.4. I could be entering the same wrong numbers repeatedly, but...
|
03-08-13, 12:09 AM | #30 |
Sea Lord
|
Maybe the point of confusion is that the intercept angle in Dorjun Driver's original diagram is NOT the track angle, but 180-the track angle. And what is marked as "theta sub track" in DD's second diagram is actually the intercept angle, again 180-the track angle. Track angle - whether ownship track angle or torpedo track angle - is equal to the AoB at the point where the tracks intersect, either ownship track and target track or torpedo track and target track. In either case, the intercept angle is 180-(AoB at intercept). I'm pretty sure Dignan will get the correct result if he uses 180-Track angle in his calculations. And DD's formula is correct for intercept angle not AoB and not track angle.
BTW, I believe that what is marked as "theta sub torpedo track" is in fact the torpedo track angle. It is only "theta sub track" which is on the wrong side of ownship track line. Or I'm trying to figure this out too late at night and have it all wrong.... "I'm getting too old for this ****"! - Danny Glover, Lethal Weapon Further clarification: Please see the diagram on Page 1-12, SLM-1. Last edited by BigWalleye; 03-08-13 at 12:26 AM. |
Tags |
torpedo, trigonometry, zero gyro |
|
|