GrapeJam

Nope, the adjustable stabilizer simply lacks the fine tuning of your regular stick, plus irl scenario with only 1 hand on the stick while you're working on the stabilizer , you'll be not pulling enough in the mean time. I tried this thing after the stabilizer got fixed in BoS and believe me it's worthless in dogfight.

Hmn, the F51D in my manual got M3 HMG(which was heavier, and also had a recoil booster on the end of the barrel, giving the barrel a tapered look. It also extended the length of the gun by about an inch, so the barrels stuck out a bit further from the inboard and outboard locations in the wings) instead of the M2, I wonder if this caused the difference in stall speed. The F51D also got strangely reduced fuel capacity but weighted strangely slightly more, it was also used primarily as a fighter bomber in Korea so I wonder if it got extra armor over the standard P51D.

Since when: Is explicitly stated as emergency? Because of the tree? Pls. So roughly the same as the P51D at 10,000lbs, 10,000lbs(and most likely with wings racks). See the problem? Oh and mind you, the D9 has even at take off power has better powerloading than the P51D's at emergency power. And at what speed does the Dora gets airborne? And at what speed does the Dora touch the ground?

Oh really? I've read the whole manual and pretty sure that wasn't emergency take off. Anyway, as I've told you, this is the minimum take off distance for 10000lbs (most likely with wing racks as it's the common configuration), at 61"hg, P51D don't go into combat with fuselage tank full so the usual weight should be 500lbs less. Care to provide source? At what weight?

That's tactical planning for commander, wouldn't it make sense for it to leave room for error in case of emergency? My figurse are straight from pilot's handbook, I've even posted it here.

And by comparison the P51D took 1100ft(335 meters) to get airborne, at 10000lbs (with full fuselage tank), and no and the usual weight the P51D get into combat with is 9500lbs, so what do you think? Also that landing speed figure was in the pilot's handbuch so it'd be strange if it was TAS, it didn't mention anything about where it's IAS or TAS.

I've just got an F51D's pilot manual. The take off speed at 10000lbs is 95-100mph IAS, the touch down speed is 90 mph IAS. Also, the take of distance is 1100ft airborne, and 1850 to get to 50ft altitude. The A8's pilot handbook list a landing speed of of 177km/h, and a take off distance of 650m concrete, at Dora's weight.

He implied that D9's airfoil clmax is higher and thus should have superior instantaneous turn as well.

http://airfoiltools.com/polar/details?polar=xf-naca23015-il-1000000 Edited: oh you meant the AR. But in anycase, nope, not seeing the D9's Clmax got above 1.55, the 23018 clmax's at 1.54 but much smoother. Again, how much do you think the 190's wing lift is better than the F6F5? Give me a percentage. But frankly the F8F's intakes are so small I don't think they factor in much. Also the F8F has wheel covering, the lack of wheel covering doesn't hurt the D9?

I found the margin in CAS to be very similar. And I'd not mind if you link me the TAS stall speed of all those American planes. Ok, let's take the F8F2, the F8F's airfoil(actually the 23018 has slightly and smoother better lift characteristic than the 23015) is almost exactly the same as the 190 and had very similar stall characteristic (as Grumman got "inspired" from a captured 190). The F8F2 at 10200lbs had a clean stall speed of 86 KIAS(99 mph), and a wingloading 204kg/m2. That is 15% lower wingloading than the D9, so I'm using my very simple math logic, that the stall speed at 233kg/m2 would be 15% higher, and thus place the stall speed somewhere around 113mph IAS. Yes I'm fully expecting you to call out at the "IAS" thing.

"My reality" you meant? Because pretty much everybody disagree with you, even in post war test of 190D9(albeit flown at 1750hp, but with much reduced weight of 8500lbs), the D9 was described as having a poor turn radius.

Considering that at 192kg/m2, the F4U4 had a stall speed of 96mph IAS, with a 41kg/m2 higher wingloading what do you think the 190's stall speed in IAS will be? Considering that they both used the same airfoil? Or we can alway use the F6F-5's wingloading of 184kg/m2 and stall speed of 96 MPH CAS, but that'll be 49kg/m2 higher wingloading.

Oh apparently external tanks don't affect clmax as well, ok. And anyway, the FW 190 used the 23015.3 airfoil, and I doubt it's exactly the same as the standard NACA 23xx series airfoil.

Yeah, at 5000 kg., the P51D maximum take off weight with full internal fuel is 4500kg, notice something wrong? 5000kg is 11000lbs, the P51D's take off weight with 2 x 75 US Gals external tanks.

Look at the chart for the Naca 23xxx across the board, 1.60 is seriously is reaching it, more like 1.52-1.55. Coincidentally enough, there's a wing CL "free flow" figure for the D9 on the internet: 1.52.

Oh but you considered it accurate enough to prove the NACA 23015 massive advantage of 0.2, ok. Oh BTW, the P51A in soviet test only reached 480km/h at SL, the real thing reached 508km/h with 75% power, so using the Soviet P51A as baseline for turn time is a bad idea.

Yeah, the problem is he broke it with the K model. And seeing that 7G was the ultimate safety load of the 109, if the pilot was able to use the rudder to get past that 7G to overstress the the wings at high speed, it would have been reported like the earlier F/G models. In DCS you get past 7G you just break the wings instantly instead of overstressing, but you get my point?

Oh really? I'd like to see the sources of that, meanwhile I've found this: https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=fkat9yxMUGYC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=naa/naca+45-100+airfoils&source=bl&ots=DoZR2aA0wr&sig=fGfpZfr6hah0853yANx4JQ-UhOk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vbUkVZXfB8_X8gWykIGoDw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=naa%2Fnaca%2045-100%20airfoils&f=false Apparently the the NACA 45-100 airfoil originated from the NACA 23 series airfoil, and looking at the BL17.5 airfoil(which people have said was apparently NAA's in house designation of the NACA 45-100 airfoil), I think I agree. Alittle food for thought :

How many times do I have to tell you the P51D didn't use NACA 66(1)-212 airfoil? The XP51F/G/J did. The P51D used this airfoil: http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=p51droot-il Which had a 1.3-1.4 clmax. You're the one who's incorrect here.

Yep, and not seeing any significant advantage, most of the time it's 0.1-0.15

Would be interested to see the formula of how you got that interesting figure. Also in that chart of yours the NACA 23015 only got a very short moment where it clmax got slightly above 1.5 And I wonder why you keep using that NACA 66 chart. And again this brings up the question: Did you do it correctly? And the P51D's airframe is extremely clean so I think you're underestimating it's energy retention in maneuver.

But coupled with a much cleaner airframe and a 32kg/m2 lower wing loading ;) Funnily enough, the P51H actually had a very high stall speed of 102mph IAS in landing configuration, power off, at 9544lbs, compared to 101mph IAS at 10000lbs of the P51D.

Again, totally irrelevant because the P51D didn't use NACA 66 airfoil. http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=p51droot-il Much closer, don't you think?

Ain't NACA 66 the airfoil used by the P51H? The P51H used a different airfoil from the P51D BTW. http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=p51droot-il This is the P51D's airfoil.

Seeing as the FW 190 was also designed to operate in Russia's harsh air strip don't you think the landing speed in the manual would be on the low side? And the P63 did achieve laminar flow effect(mostly), does that tell you something? That the Mustang's wings design don't lose as much lift as you think because it's not laminar enough?