What would the result be if you calculated with a speed of 416mph at 21k instead of the 407 mph figure you have used.
I've run the calcs. I goofed a little on trying to make the "easy" calcs in the post above. (I used the CD0 values and not CD). I tried to rush the calcs and missed a detail

. At any rate if the max speed at 21K was 416 mph (vs. 407 mph) then we find the following:
(1)@21K drag=thrust approximation:
D=1277 lbs (vs. 1300 lbs)
(2)Form Drag Coefficient:
@ 21k and 416mph topspeed, CD0 = .0263
(3)If SL topspeed = 351mph, @21K = 438 mph (vs. 431 mph)
(4)If SL topspeed = 335mph, @21 = 410 mph (vs. 407 mph)
So if we assumed 416 mph was the top speed at 21k, it really doesn't change the complexion much.
At any rate the 407mph is what RRAM's chart shows vs. 416mph factored in for compressibility as already previously noted by others.
Mr Ripley:
What's striking is that now Dtango's calculations based on guesses outrun the factory speed chart presented..
I can't see the logic there..
How does Dtango's exhaust thrust impact the original chart presented? One player presents a calculation estimate of flight performance that overruns the original chart?
I'm sorry you missed the logic. An aircrafts top-end level speed is mostly determined by form drag of the aircraft which is roughly constant for a given airframe. I'm using this aerodynamic fact to do a check against the factory speed chart. The calculations show that the form drag based on the charts have significant variance. This doesn't equate aerodynamically because form drag should remain roughly constant. If the speed at SL is 351mph like it says on the chart then based on the form drag the speed at 21K should be 431mph not 407mph as it indicates on the chart.
Hortlund:
And he is saying he is using approximations, surely that must have some effect on the calculations? I really know too little about this stuff, but I find it very hard to believe that the factory charts are so wrong.
The "approximations" I'm using are accepted common aerodynamic methods used for performance analysis. I warn that they are approximations in the since that they are not to the 99.99% precision and not what you would use for basing flight models off of. I would be surprised if they aren't in the 90-95% accuracy range though.
Are the factory numbers wrong? I can't say for sure. However I'm trying to point out that if you're going to base flight models on physics then the physics has to equate. In this case we find that the chart has a discrepancy vs. the physics. We've already corrected for alt. variations on engine output as well as exhaust thrust. I'm at a loss to explain the discrepancy. The other possible explanation could be prop. efficiency. If prop eff. ~.66 at 407mph then you could end up with what the charts indicate. This doesn't make sense however since we are talking about a constant speed prop and you would expect a much higher efficiency. I'll see if I can double check this.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs