> > A while ago, Alex suggested that we would be better modelling the > > 172M/N/P (I think), since those are more common. In retrospect, I > > agree, for a slightly different reason -- I don't think that we have > > access to the right numbers for a 172R.
Actually, I suggest we fork the C172 into a C172N and a C172R immediately. Then, as people find problems, they get fixed on the appropriate version. That way, for example, the C172N can be 160HP and carburetted while the C172R is 180HP and injected. People _will_ want both versions in future so we may as well keep all the information we collect carefully separate. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
