Good morning,
I have been studying over my flight data from two different altimeters from a recent flight, and am seeing two very different velocities, and I wasn't sure which one was generally accepted as being more accurate.
My Jolly Logic Altimeter III is an inertial accelerometer, and displayed an altitude of 6,322 feet and a peak velocity of 642 mph (Mach 0.8).
My Stratologger CF-100 is a data-logging barometric altimeter, which controls my ejection charges. It read an altitude of 6,300 feet (A difference of 22 feet, or 0.34% difference between the Altimeter III...close enough for me).
Both altimeters log velocity and altitude data at a rate of 20 samples per second.
However, the velocity recorded by the Stratologger was 927 mph (Mach 1.2), a considerable variation from the accelerometer-based altimeter.
So, I was wondering which one was generally accepted as the more accurate device for velocity, and why there might be such a discrepancy.
Additionally, when I simmed the flight, I got a predicted altitude of 5,000 feet, which I exceeded by over 1,300 feet, and a simmed velocity of Mach 1.0, so it does seem possible that I could have made it past Mach 1.
Any thoughts or opinions are greatly appreciated.
I have been studying over my flight data from two different altimeters from a recent flight, and am seeing two very different velocities, and I wasn't sure which one was generally accepted as being more accurate.
My Jolly Logic Altimeter III is an inertial accelerometer, and displayed an altitude of 6,322 feet and a peak velocity of 642 mph (Mach 0.8).
My Stratologger CF-100 is a data-logging barometric altimeter, which controls my ejection charges. It read an altitude of 6,300 feet (A difference of 22 feet, or 0.34% difference between the Altimeter III...close enough for me).
Both altimeters log velocity and altitude data at a rate of 20 samples per second.
However, the velocity recorded by the Stratologger was 927 mph (Mach 1.2), a considerable variation from the accelerometer-based altimeter.
So, I was wondering which one was generally accepted as the more accurate device for velocity, and why there might be such a discrepancy.
Additionally, when I simmed the flight, I got a predicted altitude of 5,000 feet, which I exceeded by over 1,300 feet, and a simmed velocity of Mach 1.0, so it does seem possible that I could have made it past Mach 1.
Any thoughts or opinions are greatly appreciated.