I'm not going to prove to you that the current model is realistic. Mathematical modeling is part of my job and one thing you learn real quick is that NO mathematical model is EVER complete. There is always something you can't model or choose not to model. ALWAYS.
But I am convinced that the old model had significant room for improvement. I'm not going to present a proof here. The information has been discussed ad naseum on this BBS over the last 6 months.
Use the search feature on the aircraft forum. We went over historical data on sustained turn rates on the old threads. Clearly AH was off the mark there, although I didn't think it was enough to gripe about. Recently Aper posted some Spitfire Mk. IX test data that suggested the old FM was further off than I thought. Then check out Badboy's post on the P-51D EM diagram. In combination these items are quite convincing to me that something was amiss in the old lift and drag calculations. The planes were simply not performing up to snuff in sustained G or turn rate.
Add to this all of the subjective information - pilot anectdotes and head to head historical flight tests showing different relative turning abilities than what were found in the old AH planes. There have been dozens of posts containing such information. I find these comparisons less than convincing some times, because of the human factor, but in this case they generally support the hard data. Ask F4UDOA about this, he has some awesome sources.
Also look at it from an analytical standpoint. Compare the wing loading, power loading, etc. of the P-47D, Fw 190A-8, and Typhoon - all very similar. But the planes had hugely different turn capability in pre-1.04 AH versions, which doesn't make much physics sense. Ask Wells about this. He's forgotten more aerodynamics than I have ever learned, and his calculations show that the old AH planes had unreasonable lift:drag ratios at high angles of attack.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 09-09-2000).]
