RE: [FT] A thought on that vector movement problem

The Sopwith Camel was the main culprit here, it had (guessing, I don't
have a reference handy) a 2/3 turning radius to starboard because of the
rotary engine.

Back on topic; the only time I could see a ship requiring this sort of
accelleration, is to kill velocity to prevent a collision or for 180
degree turns.  Even so, this also means you are effectively thrusting in
a strait line, which can make you more predictable to hit with missiles.
 Sometimes it does give you enough maneuvering to avoid missiles too.

'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
Cmdr Robertson - GCV Southern Skies
Fleet Admiral Doyle - NKV Vesuvius (La Fayette invasion force)
Admiral Peter Rollins - RNS Waterloo (MKW)
Gunslinger, Emperor & all-around demigod. 

-----Original Message-----
From:	Beth Fulton [SMTP:beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au]
Sent:	Friday, March 12, 1999 1:30 PM

See that's my problem, why is this an abuse? I'm probably missing some
physics based response/reason here, but aren't you simply using
your available resources? The closest analogy I can come up with
(which is probably going to get me shot for only knowing half of what
I'm talking about) is from WWI aviation. There were some planes
(the rotary ones I think) that saw you turn very easily if you turned
"with"
the engine and I've read a number of reports where aces used this very
feature to aid their maneuverability - using the available resources to
the
limit (OK, I'll admit the very same trick could get you killed, but
hopefully
you get what I mean).
Beth