![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
i just stumbled across this, uplifting story about this page: http://blog.wirelizard.ca/pivot/entry.php?id=43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.235.237 ( talk) 10:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
OK - my first original WikiPedia page, ever, after a couple of months of lurking, making anon minor edits, and wondering if I had something to add to the aviation sections. Editing/categorization/etc welcomed!
Should re-direction pages be set up for all the variant spellings of E6B? There does not appear to be ANY standard spelling, so I'm not sure how to approach this. -- Madpilot 01:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for setting up the original page. Never thought about doing one here before, but it's a perfect repository for info on it.
If possible, the page needs to be titled E-6B, which is its true name, along with the other variations as references. I've spent a huge sum of money and time tracking down its history, and will be updating the page with it soon. -- Kevindarling
My first contribution to wikipedia, the front E6B pic -Dajackman
Hi - just a note, this is really hard to find, as the tittle "E6B" is the name given by the guys producing the thing. However, many different companys world wide produce it, and in the UK its known as th CRP-1, 1W, 3, 6 and 6M ... The correct name for it is a "Flight Computer" .. I've just started my own article as I figured that it didn't exsist on wiki as it doesn't come up in a search (bearing in mind I live in the UK and most GA pilots in the UK don't call it a E6B, but refer to it as a "crap1" .. May I suggest a title change to reflect its "generic name" and not one of the several manufactures name? (I suggest Flight Computer, not to be confused with an FMC) DreddHK 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreddhk ( talk • contribs)
Reference above to the E-6B being called the Crap1 in the UK is true, but is only part of the story. The Crap1 is the version used by private pilots, but it is the Crap5 that is used by students for the Airline Transport Pilot Licence for their groundschool course. The Crap5 includes, for example, provision for Mach/TAS calculations which the private pilot would not need. The CRP designation as such seems to be the preserve of Pooleys, the main UK supplier of this type of instrument. Pooleys also supply a whole range of other variants, such as some with and some without 'wind arms' and also circular versions that do not use a drift slide. BroomstickPilot ( talk) 10:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
When I first came into contact with the Dalton in the late 1950s (it was an ex RAF version in the form of a box with an endless belt inside,) I seem to remember the calculation side of the computer having a different name. If I recall correctly (it was after all fifty years ago) it was referred to as the Appleyard scale. However, nobody knew who Appleyard was. Can anybody please throw some light upon this? BroomstickPilot ( talk) 10:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The Jeppesen CR-1, while similar in function to the E-6B, is NOT the same thing. The CR-series lacks the movable slide and is just the circular portion. Here's a picture of the CR-3: [1] Captain Packrat ( talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just reformatted the provided equations so that they don't display as flat text anymore. Could the original author (if possible) or another Wikipedian familiar with the formula check my work and make sure I haven't made any glaring errors? -- Yvh11a 13:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I corrected the WCA equations. Groundspeed is weird, too. Please correct.
Ok, I corrected the GS equations, too. -- 64.254.245.130 19:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe you need a negative sign before the WCA formula, and I think the GS formula should have a subtraction before the cosine term. I checked these using my real E-6B, and I think I'm right.
Also remember there are two ways of doing the Wind/Velocity math - either "wind up" or "wind down" .. each method works fine, but have slightly different ways of getting to the answer! DreddHK 17:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreddhk ( talk • contribs)
Hi,
I'm sure that there should be a minus-sign in front of the sin-1 calculation. That would really calculate the WCA. The formula as it is stated right now calculates the Drift.
And I'm wondering about the GS calculation. I think it should read the formula mentioned in http://e6b.quickseek.com?
The current GS formula on this Wiki doesn't even come close to the right GS when using
Track=64 TAS=104 W/V=180/22
(should be about 112)
Regards! Arjan
Correction on the things I say above: both formula's come up with about the same GS.
But when using "B sqrt(1-(D sin(A-C) / B)2) - D cos(A-C)" it comes up with 111,7471031 (=112)
When using the formula stated here, it comes up with 111,0764888 (=111)
Can anybody explain the differences between the two formulas? And which is the correct one? :-)
Regards! Arjan
Does anyone hold the copyright or patent for the E-6B style flight computer? (ie, a transparent rotating slider over concentric circles on one side with a logarithmic circular slide rule on the other) Sancho McCann 02:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to disclose that the link that I added a few months ago to the online e-6b applet was a link to my own website. I didn't realize at the time that this is not appropriate. So, I would like to open discussion as regards the appropriateness of this link. I believe it improves the article by allowing a reader to interact with a simulated E-6B. As regards the conflict of interest, it is not a monetary interest, as the website is a university website and the E-6B software is released under the GPL. Sancho 06:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The model given to USAF Navigators has MB-4A stamped on the top, contra this article.-- 72.191.31.112 ( talk) 04:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I am the person who wrote up the majority of the history. As noted in the article, a later designation starting in the early 1950s was MB-4. It, and CPU-26, have been used since then. - Kevin Darling ( talk) 02:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Both MB-4A and E-6B are merely the two most common examples of a DR computer, which is the device's proper name as evidenced by both FAA manuals as well as flight manuals from all military services. Clepsydrae ( talk) 00:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
On November 12 I added an external link to my webpage showing the derivation to solution of the triangle of velocities, rather than just the equations. The link was removed as spam. I didn't realise external links were inappropriate. While my website is a commercial photography site the page the link pointed to, and all the other aviation related pages on the site, are all free with no commercial interest. I would like to open discussion as regards the appropriateness of this link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.36.31 ( talk) 09:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
To obtain the ground speed vector one has to add the wind velocity vector to the air velocity vector. See the wind triangle diagram. The law of cosines can be used but care must be used to determine the relative angle between them. It is the supplementary angle of their difference. The direction of the air velocity vector is A - WCA and that of the the wind is C. Their difference is C - A + WCA. The supplement is 180° - C + A - WCA and the cosine of this is -cos(C - A + WCA). The ground speed is then,
Note the plus sign before cosine term. -- Jbergquist ( talk) 23:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
For completeness we could add a derivation for the WCA. Let a be the direction of motion relative to the air, d the desired course and w the direction the wind is moving. The corresponding speeds are,
The WCA, Δa = d - a, is defined in terms of the motion through the air.
So,
And the forula for the WCA is,
In the same notation the ground speed is,
One doesn't need to know the desired course to compute the ground speed if the air speed and heading are known. -- Jbergquist ( talk) 06:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The article states a metal and plastic flight computer will wear out before an equivalent cardboard one. My experience says this to be false, having inherited several old metal flight computers, and a single paper one. The metal ones are all in good condition, and contrary to the article have gotten stiffer over the years rather than spinning freely as the plastic is worn. The paper one however has nearly disintegrated and is harder to read, enough to avoid carrying it on an actual flight. My primary flight computer is labeled Piper Flight Computer PC-3, those wishing to rename the article "Flight Computer" should take note, was my father's and was carried by him during over 7000 hours of long cross country flights and the associated planning, and it is so stiff I have to rub a bit of pencil graphite under the rotating portion so I can use it one-handed in the cockpit. Additionally, while the E6B moniker is used colloquially in the United States, I hear it used often by pilots in reference to the electronic flight computers as well, which are currently not covered here, so renaming the article Flight Computer and redirecting E6B and variant names seems like the best course of action. Davidlvann ( talk) 23:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
My experience with my metal and cardboard E-6B's agrees with the article; My very first paper E-6B is still very usable and the wheels and slide still have some friction. My first aluminum one wasn't very well constructed to begin with (the A and B scales don't quite line up perfectly) and the slide falls out and the A-side wheel spins freely; no friction at all. In addition, the aluminum version is prone to scratching, denting and bending, where a cardboard one isn't.
I will agree with Davidlvann about the name. American pilots tend to refer to any flight computer as an E-6B, whether mechanical or digital. Some digital computers are even marketed as "electronic E-6B's." If the page gets renamed "Flight computer," other mechanical computers and digital computers also need mention. I personally feel that the E-6B-style computer is notable by itself to warrant it's own page. 65.191.125.142 ( talk) 18:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I have seen many incorrectly titled Wikipedia articles, and this article is a prime example of what no other encyclopedia would ever allow, for many reasons:
Thus, the only term which is common to all military and civilian governing agencies worldwide, one which is neither a superset nor a subset of the actual device, is "dead reckoning computer."
Below we find a list of possible titles for this Wikipedia page:
Recommendations:
While some of the elements in this section are reasonably accurate, the section lacks proper citation and remains horrendously NPOV towards the name, "E-6B," to the point of being grossly inaccurate and in part, flat out fabricated out of thin air. As a "history," it fails, miserably. Clepsydrae ( talk) 10:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Gee, I didn't realize doing the right thing was subject to a popularity contest. You do realize the second "Oppose" actually and clearly stated the case FOR the move, don't you? Go back and re-read it again. Clepsydrae ( talk) 04:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 01:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
E6B →
Dead reckoning computer – see talk discussions and recent moves in log. An editor has requested that the article be renamed. -
Clepsydrae (
talk) 02:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.
samee
talk
06:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
i just stumbled across this, uplifting story about this page: http://blog.wirelizard.ca/pivot/entry.php?id=43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.235.237 ( talk) 10:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
OK - my first original WikiPedia page, ever, after a couple of months of lurking, making anon minor edits, and wondering if I had something to add to the aviation sections. Editing/categorization/etc welcomed!
Should re-direction pages be set up for all the variant spellings of E6B? There does not appear to be ANY standard spelling, so I'm not sure how to approach this. -- Madpilot 01:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for setting up the original page. Never thought about doing one here before, but it's a perfect repository for info on it.
If possible, the page needs to be titled E-6B, which is its true name, along with the other variations as references. I've spent a huge sum of money and time tracking down its history, and will be updating the page with it soon. -- Kevindarling
My first contribution to wikipedia, the front E6B pic -Dajackman
Hi - just a note, this is really hard to find, as the tittle "E6B" is the name given by the guys producing the thing. However, many different companys world wide produce it, and in the UK its known as th CRP-1, 1W, 3, 6 and 6M ... The correct name for it is a "Flight Computer" .. I've just started my own article as I figured that it didn't exsist on wiki as it doesn't come up in a search (bearing in mind I live in the UK and most GA pilots in the UK don't call it a E6B, but refer to it as a "crap1" .. May I suggest a title change to reflect its "generic name" and not one of the several manufactures name? (I suggest Flight Computer, not to be confused with an FMC) DreddHK 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreddhk ( talk • contribs)
Reference above to the E-6B being called the Crap1 in the UK is true, but is only part of the story. The Crap1 is the version used by private pilots, but it is the Crap5 that is used by students for the Airline Transport Pilot Licence for their groundschool course. The Crap5 includes, for example, provision for Mach/TAS calculations which the private pilot would not need. The CRP designation as such seems to be the preserve of Pooleys, the main UK supplier of this type of instrument. Pooleys also supply a whole range of other variants, such as some with and some without 'wind arms' and also circular versions that do not use a drift slide. BroomstickPilot ( talk) 10:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
When I first came into contact with the Dalton in the late 1950s (it was an ex RAF version in the form of a box with an endless belt inside,) I seem to remember the calculation side of the computer having a different name. If I recall correctly (it was after all fifty years ago) it was referred to as the Appleyard scale. However, nobody knew who Appleyard was. Can anybody please throw some light upon this? BroomstickPilot ( talk) 10:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The Jeppesen CR-1, while similar in function to the E-6B, is NOT the same thing. The CR-series lacks the movable slide and is just the circular portion. Here's a picture of the CR-3: [1] Captain Packrat ( talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just reformatted the provided equations so that they don't display as flat text anymore. Could the original author (if possible) or another Wikipedian familiar with the formula check my work and make sure I haven't made any glaring errors? -- Yvh11a 13:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I corrected the WCA equations. Groundspeed is weird, too. Please correct.
Ok, I corrected the GS equations, too. -- 64.254.245.130 19:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe you need a negative sign before the WCA formula, and I think the GS formula should have a subtraction before the cosine term. I checked these using my real E-6B, and I think I'm right.
Also remember there are two ways of doing the Wind/Velocity math - either "wind up" or "wind down" .. each method works fine, but have slightly different ways of getting to the answer! DreddHK 17:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreddhk ( talk • contribs)
Hi,
I'm sure that there should be a minus-sign in front of the sin-1 calculation. That would really calculate the WCA. The formula as it is stated right now calculates the Drift.
And I'm wondering about the GS calculation. I think it should read the formula mentioned in http://e6b.quickseek.com?
The current GS formula on this Wiki doesn't even come close to the right GS when using
Track=64 TAS=104 W/V=180/22
(should be about 112)
Regards! Arjan
Correction on the things I say above: both formula's come up with about the same GS.
But when using "B sqrt(1-(D sin(A-C) / B)2) - D cos(A-C)" it comes up with 111,7471031 (=112)
When using the formula stated here, it comes up with 111,0764888 (=111)
Can anybody explain the differences between the two formulas? And which is the correct one? :-)
Regards! Arjan
Does anyone hold the copyright or patent for the E-6B style flight computer? (ie, a transparent rotating slider over concentric circles on one side with a logarithmic circular slide rule on the other) Sancho McCann 02:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to disclose that the link that I added a few months ago to the online e-6b applet was a link to my own website. I didn't realize at the time that this is not appropriate. So, I would like to open discussion as regards the appropriateness of this link. I believe it improves the article by allowing a reader to interact with a simulated E-6B. As regards the conflict of interest, it is not a monetary interest, as the website is a university website and the E-6B software is released under the GPL. Sancho 06:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The model given to USAF Navigators has MB-4A stamped on the top, contra this article.-- 72.191.31.112 ( talk) 04:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I am the person who wrote up the majority of the history. As noted in the article, a later designation starting in the early 1950s was MB-4. It, and CPU-26, have been used since then. - Kevin Darling ( talk) 02:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Both MB-4A and E-6B are merely the two most common examples of a DR computer, which is the device's proper name as evidenced by both FAA manuals as well as flight manuals from all military services. Clepsydrae ( talk) 00:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
On November 12 I added an external link to my webpage showing the derivation to solution of the triangle of velocities, rather than just the equations. The link was removed as spam. I didn't realise external links were inappropriate. While my website is a commercial photography site the page the link pointed to, and all the other aviation related pages on the site, are all free with no commercial interest. I would like to open discussion as regards the appropriateness of this link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.36.31 ( talk) 09:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
To obtain the ground speed vector one has to add the wind velocity vector to the air velocity vector. See the wind triangle diagram. The law of cosines can be used but care must be used to determine the relative angle between them. It is the supplementary angle of their difference. The direction of the air velocity vector is A - WCA and that of the the wind is C. Their difference is C - A + WCA. The supplement is 180° - C + A - WCA and the cosine of this is -cos(C - A + WCA). The ground speed is then,
Note the plus sign before cosine term. -- Jbergquist ( talk) 23:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
For completeness we could add a derivation for the WCA. Let a be the direction of motion relative to the air, d the desired course and w the direction the wind is moving. The corresponding speeds are,
The WCA, Δa = d - a, is defined in terms of the motion through the air.
So,
And the forula for the WCA is,
In the same notation the ground speed is,
One doesn't need to know the desired course to compute the ground speed if the air speed and heading are known. -- Jbergquist ( talk) 06:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The article states a metal and plastic flight computer will wear out before an equivalent cardboard one. My experience says this to be false, having inherited several old metal flight computers, and a single paper one. The metal ones are all in good condition, and contrary to the article have gotten stiffer over the years rather than spinning freely as the plastic is worn. The paper one however has nearly disintegrated and is harder to read, enough to avoid carrying it on an actual flight. My primary flight computer is labeled Piper Flight Computer PC-3, those wishing to rename the article "Flight Computer" should take note, was my father's and was carried by him during over 7000 hours of long cross country flights and the associated planning, and it is so stiff I have to rub a bit of pencil graphite under the rotating portion so I can use it one-handed in the cockpit. Additionally, while the E6B moniker is used colloquially in the United States, I hear it used often by pilots in reference to the electronic flight computers as well, which are currently not covered here, so renaming the article Flight Computer and redirecting E6B and variant names seems like the best course of action. Davidlvann ( talk) 23:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
My experience with my metal and cardboard E-6B's agrees with the article; My very first paper E-6B is still very usable and the wheels and slide still have some friction. My first aluminum one wasn't very well constructed to begin with (the A and B scales don't quite line up perfectly) and the slide falls out and the A-side wheel spins freely; no friction at all. In addition, the aluminum version is prone to scratching, denting and bending, where a cardboard one isn't.
I will agree with Davidlvann about the name. American pilots tend to refer to any flight computer as an E-6B, whether mechanical or digital. Some digital computers are even marketed as "electronic E-6B's." If the page gets renamed "Flight computer," other mechanical computers and digital computers also need mention. I personally feel that the E-6B-style computer is notable by itself to warrant it's own page. 65.191.125.142 ( talk) 18:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I have seen many incorrectly titled Wikipedia articles, and this article is a prime example of what no other encyclopedia would ever allow, for many reasons:
Thus, the only term which is common to all military and civilian governing agencies worldwide, one which is neither a superset nor a subset of the actual device, is "dead reckoning computer."
Below we find a list of possible titles for this Wikipedia page:
Recommendations:
While some of the elements in this section are reasonably accurate, the section lacks proper citation and remains horrendously NPOV towards the name, "E-6B," to the point of being grossly inaccurate and in part, flat out fabricated out of thin air. As a "history," it fails, miserably. Clepsydrae ( talk) 10:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Gee, I didn't realize doing the right thing was subject to a popularity contest. You do realize the second "Oppose" actually and clearly stated the case FOR the move, don't you? Go back and re-read it again. Clepsydrae ( talk) 04:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 01:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
E6B →
Dead reckoning computer – see talk discussions and recent moves in log. An editor has requested that the article be renamed. -
Clepsydrae (
talk) 02:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.
samee
talk
06:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)