On 01/02/2009 05:33 PM, Bohnert Paul wrote:
> http://scenemodels.flightgear.org/modeledit.php?id=39 vordme_1
> http://scenemodels.flightgear.org/modeledit.php?id=615 vordme_2
1) Thanks for the points.
2) For folks without "edit" passwords, the following is more
useful:
http://scenemodels.fl
--- On Fri, 1/2/09, Erik Hofman wrote:
> From: Erik Hofman
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] VOR shack : scenery model upgrade opportunity
> To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
>
> Date: Friday, January 2, 2009, 2:01 PM
> John Denker wrote:
> > Hi Folks
John Denker wrote:
> Obviously there's considerable variability. I have no idea
> how to determine what style is used in any given location.
Pass by and take pictures of each individual station. The size/type of
the respective housing is usually not recorded anywhere.
> http://www.thtech.net/im
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
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
> definin
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 1:10 PM, John Denker wrote:
>> Here's a proposal:
>> 0) If somebody has actual data, use that; otherwise:
>> 1) Put 17m diameter shacks in "enroute" locations.
>> 2) Put 12m diamater shacks in "on airport" locations.
>>
>>
>> Anybody got a better idea?
Here is a derivat
On 01/02/2009 01:37 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
> I can say from personal experience that Gopher (GEP, 117.30) is really tough
> to spot from the air.
Here's the picture:
http://www.google.com/maps?ll=45.145694,-93.373194&spn=0.012077,0.018539&t=h&z=16
If I'm measuring it properly, it's even big
Putting on my aluminium foil hat, I'll point out that there are five
combinations of VOR/DME/TACAN even before you decide whether it is
going to be monitored locally and whether the earth has repeatable
conductivity to act as a ground plane. These decisions change what
gets physically installed ..
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 2:32 PM, John Denker wrote:
> On 01/02/2009 01:01 PM, Erik Hofman wrote:
>
> > I've modeled them after these images in the past:
> > http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s63/tundratantrum/kotzebuevortac1.jpg
> > http://www.dot.state.mn.us/aero/avoffice/navaids/images/vor3.jpg
On 01/02/2009 01:01 PM, Erik Hofman wrote:
> I've modeled them after these images in the past:
> http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s63/tundratantrum/kotzebuevortac1.jpg
> http://www.dot.state.mn.us/aero/avoffice/navaids/images/vor3.jpg
> http://members.chello.nl/vdleije/pics/ssj_vor.jpg
Wow, tho
John Denker wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> FG puts a model of a VOR shack into the scenery in places where
> there is supposed to be a VOR shack. So far so good.
>
> The problem is, the model seems awfully small. It looks like
> it is about 5 meters in diameter. I've never seen one in RL
> that is th
John Denker wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> FG puts a model of a VOR shack into the scenery in places where
> there is supposed to be a VOR shack. So far so good.
>
> The problem is, the model seems awfully small. It looks like
> it is about 5 meters in diameter. I've never seen one in RL
> that is that
Hi Folks
FG puts a model of a VOR shack into the scenery in places where
there is supposed to be a VOR shack. So far so good.
The problem is, the model seems awfully small. It looks like
it is about 5 meters in diameter. I've never seen one in RL
that is that small. I've seen them sometimes w
13 matches
Mail list logo
