Arnt > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:35:32 +0100, Vivian wrote in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Josh Babcock > > > > > George Patterson wrote: > > > > > > This was discussed before, it would leave the carrier going downwind > > > about half the time or more. In the real world the lack of headwind > > > would prevent operations. That's why carriers have such big engines, > > > it's not to get places fast. It's to make wind. Even though, a > > > sufficient tailwind can reduce the relative wind to the point where > > > air ops are dangerous. > > > > 25 kts wind over the deck is usual for launch and recovery. Axial for > > launch, down the angle for recovery. Following a 'flight' plan is a > > good option. Carriers often operate in that way in real life. We also > > need to add the capability of making the carrier turn to a launch or > > recovery course relative to the local wind. I did some work on this, > > but it rapidly went too difficult. I must revisit it. > > ..and we can have the carrier(s) orbit thunderstorms to get constant > 25 kts winds with and without gusts etc. ;o)
Of course. Been there, done that. And the opposite - chasing little wind fields in the Mediterranean to get 25 kts over the deck. V. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
