Nice.

I like the higher deck, although it X's out the ability to start your own engine, unless you don't mind running a long way.

It sure makes ramp strikes and dragged takeoffs easier to judge.  Also the landing is closer to eye level with airplane not so depressed compared to the pilot.

The smaller English deck is consistant with the smaller actual English carriers.  They did a good job of eliminating about 80% of the cost & weight of our decks.

The Brits have an interesting take on Carrier. For sure you have to be pretty spot on for the trap.

As for the video, I really like the play between the model action and archival carrier flight operations. That's what it's all about.

Wayne, and all, The English/European type deck I'm building is so light one person move it in a van, can put it together by yourself and the total cost is well under $200.  Last late Summer I built a small version to see if the construction methods I had in mind will work.  Right now I have everything here to start the construction.  I'm just waiting for 60 degree days and light winds.  The only new too lI had to build was a 6'plus "bow" to cut the foam blanks.
Again let me say that in my opinion the English have a better Carrier system.  40's in profile, no hanging or "trick" features like sliders, and a much smaller deck. 5'x28" with only four arresting lines versus our 8'x44' monster.  Scoring is much like ours, but line lengths are unusual in that they list 60' or SHORTER lengths.  They only have two classes of Carrier. What do we have now? 13,14 of ?  Their Nats had 20 or more entries in the two classes. We had, what? 8 or 9.  Makes one think.
Joe