Alex Perry writes: > > > 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.
That sounds good. I suspect that the lift and drag coefficients are going to differ between the two. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
