Crumpp

Compressibility correction was either non-existent and was not universal.

By all means point them out!!! :thumbup::thumbup::music_whistling: Oh yeah... You cannot.... You want the Focke Wulf investigations and comparative testing results?? Point them out please because your post does not make much sense. It might be more productive for you to name what exactly you think is wrong?

Yeah you missed the fact it is the same airfoil selection and wing design :smilewink: Engineering wise, they will have the same CLmax and lift distribution. An anton does not stall at 87 mph and neither does a Dora. If you know the basic relationship of Reynolds Number to CLmax.... It is a simple fact the higher Reynolds that the FW-190 series stalls at requires a higher CLmax.

Btw... There are so many ways one could go with this. Mercury could so easily be substituted with: Credibility Science Engineering Flight Mechanics Anyway, it probably better if you stuck to an informed discussion using facts and not bait. :thumbup:

Velocity = (4900000*.000156927ft^2/sec )/5.95ft = 129.23 Ft/sec 129.23 Ft/sec = 87 mph... Is the stall speed of an FW-190A only 87 mph? :music_whistling: Could be.....

The FW-190 simply cannot fly at that velocity so how can anyone conclude that is the CLmax?? This is not a retraction of earlier data but a statement that all the data agrees!! 1.3 + .3 or .4 = 1.6 to 1.7 In other words, the 1.58 for the clean configuration FW-190 CLmax is correct. That is why Focke Wulf used it. This is part of the parametric studies the wing design article refers too, btw. :smilewink:

Eric's comments give real world experience and simply confirm our physics model is correct.

I think 2100hp and 4300Kg will have more excess thrust than 1600 hp and 4350 kg. The context is physics. think 2100hp and 4300Kg will have more excess thrust than 1600 hp and 4350 kg? The math is extremely impartial and tells us what is the realm of possibility and what is not. It has been allowing us to produce machines for heavier than air controllable flight for one hundred years now.

11:04 of Eric's video. He is not describing the current version of DCS's Dora.

1. You cannot keep coordination when maneuvering at speed. The rudder will not lift the wing at the stall. Two basic and key design features of a rudder. 2. I am not seeing any restriction on the ground. It is only under an aerodynamic load that range of motion is restrictive. Since it does not represent a viable rudder design once it becomes restrictive and cannot fulfill the job of a rudder.....It looked like the correct effect of increasing hinge moment but with too little input from the pilot. Our pilot appears to weak to move the pedals.

No he did not say it was correct. He said the Dora's propeller does a trick. I think he is right. It makes power disappear.

Exactly, just like you should not fight the dragon without your magic sword!! :smilewink: In DCS that is correct since the Dora is missing over 450 horsepower in the turn. The only way to achieve the results we see in the game is set the P-51's propeller efficiency at 100% against the Dora with 78%. You need at least a 20% efficiency disparity to overcome the math and physics. It is just that simple. A blade element analysis shows no reason for this at all, which I will post when it is complete. In fact, while the P-51's propeller does show on a dimensional analysis to be about 6% more efficient in a narrow speed range, it has more blades, higher rpm, and a smaller diameter. That means the math says for much of the envelope it is less efficient than the Dora's. Once more, all propellers fall within about the same efficiency range and there is not much to choose from at all. That is why it is industry standard to use around 80% efficiency, a little lower for a fixed pitch GA aircraft and slightly higher for a high performance Constant Speed Propeller equipped aircraft. A few percent does not change the picture and the point is physics say the P-51 and the Dora will be very close in their propellers ability to produce thrust from a given amount of power. It is very easy to spot a bad design or engine/propeller combination too. VDM was a top propeller designer and while the company was shut down by the allies after the war, the personnel went to work for and intellectual property rights where given to Mtt Propeller. http://www.mt-propeller.com/

I noticed it too. It completely interferes with being able to pilot the aircraft correctly. It was present in both the DCS modules I own, the P-51 and the Dora. I thought it might be something similar to the stick forces modeled in DCS. It that is the case, the force is set way too low. NACA testing shows 400lbs is attainable by the average pilot with 180lbs becoming the specification. 45lbs was considered the ideal for controllability as below that precision rudder inputs become more difficult.

Compare the Mustang calculated climb performance with flight test at similar weights: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html The flight testing performance is consistently better than the calculated climb performance.

Vw is True Airspeed "W" stands for "wahre".