Paul Surgeon > On Saturday, 25 June 2005 16:31, Dave Culp wrote: > > > I would also feel better if we could restore its original location, NW > of > > > KHAF. The KSFO location with the carrier driving over land was only > > > temporary for people to test, but that's IMHO too ugly. Sure, many > people > > > won't find it after that, but that's like in real life (assuming radio > > > failure). :-) > > > ... > > > > I agree. And what about having the airplane start on the carrier? I've > > never tried this, and I'm not sure it's possible yet. Don't know if the > > carrier is there early enough, or if the aircraft will need a small > initial > > velocity. Anyone tried this? > > > Does the carrier really need to be sailing around full-steam? > Can't we get the aircraft loaded on a stationary carrier first and then > figure > out how to do it on a moving carrier at a later stage? > > I see little point in having an aircraft carrier cruising around burning > up > heavy fuel oil at the taxpayers expense when it's not on a mission. > Don't aircraft carriers normally just anchor when they are not going some > where? >
It's nuclear ... but Mathias understands the problem. It's to do with putting the aircraft in the right place then keeping it there. V. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
