On 01/02/2009 02:25 PM, Alex Perry wrote: > Here is a derivative idea. There are several classes of VOR > (irrespective of the other radio services that might be colocated) > which determine what the receivable range is ... and whether they're > usable for jet routes. That change in transmitter power may be a > defining factor for how big the shack is.
That sounds good. That is a huge improvement over my previous suggestion. Continuing that thought, the long-range ones need to be bigger not just because of power, but because of accuracy. A bigger shack has better "leverage" on the radials. For example there is a high-power VORTAC on-field at JFK and it is not small. http://www.google.com/maps?sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=54.884801,75.9375&ie=UTF8&ll=40.632867,-73.771576&spn=0.001624,0.002317&t=h&z=17 The only T-VOR I can think of offhand is FHU http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&sspn=50.402258,75.9375&ie=UTF8&ll=31.589978,-110.345204&spn=0.003646,0.004635&t=h&z=18 which is tiny. So, to be specific, how about this, based on the navaid range in nav.dat: if actual size data, ...... use actual data else if range >= 100 ...... 17 m shack else if range >= 35 ...... 12 m shack else ...... 5 m shack (like the existing model) This won't cover all the bases, but it would be an immediate and significant improvement over the existing setup. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
