Originally posted by SgtPappy
So they responded with this:
http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2000409169664360027
I argued that this only works for a constant airfoil, while the F4U's airfoil in combo with its thrust features allow it to turn better.
Merely arguing that since the NACA report shows a higher Clmax with a split flap than a plain flap shows that these guys do not know what they're talking about. There are so many other factors in play--its a prime example of folks knowing just enough to be dangerous.
For example, combining a tapered wing planform with a tapered chord thickness ensures the wing tip stalls before the root, which explains why almost all aircraft in AH will roll over on their back in a flash when stalled. Reynolds number (a fluid dynamics term that describes flow characteristics) has a huge impact on wing section performance. Aspect ratio can have a huge impact on induced drag differences, which become extremely important in high lift conditions as induced drag skyrockets. The airspeeds at which flaps can be used is also important. Gross weight, wing area, wing loading, Clmax at different reynolds numbers, all of these things impact turn performance during different conditions of flight. Even altitude plays a huge part, as lower dynamic pressure (typically at higher altitudes) impacts performance.
The answer to your question is extremely complicated and its difficult sometimes to find out some of the values you need for those equations as some WWII aircraft possess voluminous amounts of recorded and maintained documentation and some do not. Even some flight test data is questionable as alluded to above, and not nearly enough of it from different sources is consistent.
Are there situations where a Corsair can outturn a Spit 14--absolutely, even without flaps. Could we find a flight condition where 190 flaps are more "effective" than a Corsairs flaps--perhaps though I doubt it.
If you really want to get into some research, I can recommend some of the books I've been reading lately. Regardless though, I think you're efforts may be wasted on those that want to cling to anecdotal evidence.
