In any question like this it is always advisable to begin with a sketch.
Please respond following the advise given in responses #2, #3 & #4.
Yes, that is (almost) correct.Here is my solution. I think I have it right now. Thanks
To be fair, the poster's work may have omitted material that came before the work shown, which is the last part; the poster's work is fairly well correct.Yes, that is (almost) correct.
I don't understand why you felt the need to rotate the triangle though there is nothing "wrong" in doing so, however, as I have pointed out (repeatedly) to some other member(s) 105 × tan 65° ≠ 225.17!
You should write: 105 × tan 65° ≈ 225.17 or 105 × tan 65° = 225.17 to 2 d.p. (or 5 s.f.)Your work might also be criticized for the fact that (the brevity of) your sketch, although it provides sufficient information to support your final calculation, it does not show where you got the 105 m or the 65° from! (Your "calculations" of those values just appear "out of the blue".) ?
I did point that out in my earlier post but it is, perhaps, a minor criticism (the 'unqualified rounding' of your answer isn't).
To davonovo, your work work is correct. I is good that you worked it out for yourself.Here is my solution. I think I have it right now. Thanks
View attachment 35917