George Herbert ([email removed]) writes:
> Rob Dean:
> >Now if only they would get around to
> >acknowledging that I should be credited in A:V, I'd be happy...
>
> Didn't one of the earlier Challenge's have that correction?
> I thought I saw one...
Hmmm...I don't think so. There was a correction around 63 or 63 giving
credit for "Ships of the Black War", but not for the Vigilante designs
as far as I recall.
> I have only one problem with the Vigilante as drawn (the design stats
> are fine 8-) ... the stupid fighter bay doors should have been
> offset so that they were over the port forwards and starboard aft fighter
> positions, which would allow much more flexible flight operations.
> As is, if a fighter stored under a door gets broken, one of the
> others can't be launched until the broke one is fixed or jettisoned...
That's what happens when you do a quick conversion on an existing hull. (-:
Actually, since I'm not responsible for the floor plans, you're probably
right. I'll point out that it happens in the real world, too, though:
The U.S. Navy's aircraft carrying dirigibles Akron and Macon always operated
one plane less than their design capacity in the 1930's, because the additional
plane had to be carried on the recovery trapeze, and would have needed to be
jettisoned if its engine wouldn't start and another plane had to be launched.
Since the Navy didn't have the money to be dropping planes out of zeppelins
just for fun, they made sure that the situation never came up...
Rob Dean