Tony Peden writes: > The 48 in number checks with my copy of the POH (from which many > other numbers have been derived, so we should probably stick with > that)
You've talked before about forking, and that might not be a bad idea. Right now, we're more-or-less targetting a 172R, but the 48 number (and perhaps many others) come from a POH for earlier models. I have the performance tables and W&B both for the 172R and the 172P -- let me know what numbers you'd like. My suggestion is that c172.xml (and --aircraft=c172) would disappear altogether, and we'd have c172p.xml and c172r.xml instead. 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
