Why no VOR on the boat?

[MasterBates]

I have always wondered this. I have heard "ideas" but have never heard "facts".

A4s?

 

[mules83]

Is there a NDB?

 

[HooverPilot]

Do you mean why TACAN instead of VOR?

A TACAN provides the same info in a more accurate format. No twisting dials until you find what radial you are on, a TACAN once tuned, will always point to the station, DME is built in as a a function of the station not an additional equipment to the station, etc.

Sorry, more ideas not facts...

 

[goosegagnon2]

Is there a NDB?

They barely use those in the civy world anymore. I doubt the Navy would use them..

 

[skidkid]

TACAN is UHF while VOR is VHF. This coresponds with the whole military freqs UHF and Civ VHF. This is just a guess.

 

[NavyLonghorn]

Do you mean why TACAN instead of VOR?

A TACAN provides the same info in a more accurate format. No twisting dials until you find what radial you are on, a TACAN once tuned, will always point to the station, DME is built in as a a function of the station not an additional equipment to the station, etc.

Sorry, more ideas not facts...

Ive never had to "twist dials" to figure out what radial I am on with a VOR. Tweet, C-12, and P-3 all had either an RMI, or HSI, or both.

I am with you on the DME part though.

Nice thing about a VOR though, is a nice warm fuzzy to from, rather then the whole minimum DME bit. I hate public math.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Do you mean why TACAN instead of VOR?

A TACAN provides the same info in a more accurate format. No twisting dials until you find what radial you are on, a TACAN once tuned, will always point to the station, DME is built in as a a function of the station not an additional equipment to the station, etc.

Sorry, more ideas not facts...

I believe the VOR is actually more accurate.

You can have a VOR with an RMI card. Most corporate jets and airliners have both CDI's and RMIs.

 

[nittany03]

I would go with the whole DME idea. You use that to find the correct abeam distance in order to start your approach turn (0.9-1.1 in T-45). I would definitely put VOR as more accurate; seems whenever I'm tuing a TACAN there is a much greater "squiggle factor" in where the needle is pointing. Not to mention the whole cone-of-confusion business.

 

[Pags]

I had heard something about the TACAN being less affected by the pitch and roll of a ship. But just an idea.

 

[Fly Navy]

Nice thing about a VOR though, is a nice warm fuzzy to from, rather then the whole minimum DME bit. I hate public math.

You know the needle of the TACAN solves that one for you, right?

 

[Fly Navy]

My two-cents: range.

 

[Pags]

Here's some stuff from other sites:

http://radarpages.co.uk/mob/navaids/tacan/tacan1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACAN

both sites say that TACAN is theoretically more accurate.

 

[HH-60H]

...Not to mention the whole cone-of-confusion business.

VOR also has the cone of confusion.

 

[HH-60H]

both sites say that TACAN is theoretically more accurate.

Actually, they both say TACAN is theoretically 9 times more accurate, but the wikpedia source states a 1.5-2 times realized improvement. I am not sure what the source is for wikpedia.

 

[HH-60H]

While I am post whoring here:

Benefits
Because the azimuth and range units are combined in one system it provides for simpler installation. Less space is required than a VOR because a VOR requires a large counterpoise and a fairly complex phased antenna system. A TACAN system theoretically might be placed on a building, a large truck or ship and be operational in a short period of time.

Source is the wikpedia entry listed above.