Originally posted by loony1
something needs to be done about the spit 16 it is totally over modeled
turns inside a zero
speed of a tempest
Originally posted by loony1
I'm in a seafire and run into a spit 16 we wind up with a few split Ss then into the turn we go....flaps out.....pulling hard back and he turns inside me and kills me....Happens all the time and has happen in a zero to me also.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Merlin Spits had 18lb boost with 100/130 fuel and 25lb boost with 100/150 fuel.
The RR engine that used 21lb boost was the Griffon.
More like 5000f/m Major. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html
Originally posted by Oleg
If you cannt outturn Spit16 in Seafire you have BIG problems :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Widewing
Equal pilots; the Seafire will lose.
Originally posted by Oleg
Hmm... How worse Seafire turns in comparison with Spit5?
Originally posted by Major Biggles
sounds like you were killed by a better opponent loony ;)
as for the spit16 having easy stall behaviour, that's not true, it's very twitchy. it's purely because of the powerful engine and climbrate that it can hang on the prop like it does, which gives the appearance of easy stall handling.
infact, the spit16 is undermodelled, or atleast, it uses a lower power setting than normal. our spit gets 18 pounds of boost at wep, when at the height of it's service it could attain 21 normally, or be pushed to 25 pounds. thank your lucky stars we don't have a 25 lb spit16, the thing climbed at near 6000ft/min and was far faster than our model ;) :lol
Originally posted by Guppy35
Hmmm, just last night I got jumped by a Spit XVI while I was in my G. We went round and round and he was trying to use the vertical as well. He had more E and alt to begin with. Somehow or another, if it's the miracle plane some claim it to be, my uber P38G was able to follow him up when he tried that, and was able to get inside his turn to the point I was able to reverse spots with him and killed him.
He must have had a faulty Spit 16? :)
Was a fun fight though.
Originally posted by Knegel
Try the same without the "magical flaps". ;)
But maybe he was out of wep and had much fuel, while you had wep and smal fuel. Fuel and wep change a lot.
Originally posted by BaldEaglHave you considered that you might just fly that version better ?
If all the other Spits are so good why can I beat them consistantly with a XVI?
Originally posted by BaldEagl
If all the other Spits are so good why can I beat them consistantly with a XVI? I've had VIII's, IX's and Seafires for lunch in many differing scenarios and many hard fought, fun fights. Have I been beaten by them? Yes, of course, but the ratio is by far in the XVI's favor.
Originally posted by BaldEagl
If all the other Spits are so good why can I beat them consistantly with a XVI? I've had VIII's, IX's and Seafires for lunch in many differing scenarios and many hard fought, fun fights. Have I been beaten by them? Yes, of course, but the ratio is by far in the XVI's favor.
The only Mark that will give the XVI a true contest in my opinion is the V because they share so little among the family. The V against the XVI becomes a true test of horsepower vs. turning ability, slash and burn against turn and burn. Against all the others simple throttle control and e management give the XVI an advantage.
And BTW, the stall handling of the XVI, while I agree is somewhat twitchy, is fine once you learn to finess it. It will hang in a slo-mo pursuit stall as well as any other plane and come back to life more quickly than most if needed.
All of tht said, the K/D stats on the XVI overall are abysmal (1.3 one camp that I checked) so they must not be THAT easy to fly or else every noob in the game grabs a XVI and dies and a few pilots that fly "dweeb rides" keep the scores up.
Personally, I prefer the V. I think it's superior to every other Mark and it fits my style like a glove.
Originally posted by Knegel
Try the same without the "magical flaps".
Originally posted by loony1
turns inside a zero
Originally posted by Benny Moore
They're called Fowler flaps, and why would anyone not want to use them? Even the Pilots Manual for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning recommended using the Fowler flaps for turning. A fighter that heavy needs them to be competitive with lighter kites.
Originally posted by Serenity
It hovers. Its a UFO. It needs to be fixed.
Originally posted by Serenity
Oh, and yeah. the Spixteen has issues, again in the vertical. THats where its screwed up.
Originally posted by Knegel
I know fowlerflaps, but i never saw fowler flaps that double the liftfactor of a wing without to increase the drag dramatically, but thats what many flaps in AH do and thats why i call them "magic flaps".
Originally posted by Knegel
Although the fowler flaps was more effective than most other systems, they dont made the P38 to a good sustained turning plane, like it is in AH!!
Originally posted by Knegel
The P38 was know as a very good B&Z plane and the pilots wrote, "with help of the combat flaps, we could turn inside the smaler planes", to turn inside a plane dont mean to turn with it!!
Originally posted by Knegel
Hi Benny,
i dont know where you did read that the P38 pilots got introduced to make a close dogfight over europe, but thats absolut new to me.
What i most times read is that the P38 had bad problems in Europe, until the pilots did use B&Z tactics.
btw, the P38G in AH dont have fowler flaps!! At least the graphic show normal split flaps.
The P38 had a much to bad rollratio at slower speeds to make a effective dogfight. A systained turn dont mean the turnability in general, a sustained turn get much influenced by powerload and here the P38, like all other US planes was rather bad(actually so they are without flaps in AH).
Even the late P38J and L with 2 x 1600HP was rather poor in relation to the 109G10, G14 and K4, former versions was even worse in relation to the german planes.
And again, the statement to be able to turn inside a plane dont mean to turn with it for longer time or to be able to make a good stallfight./quote]
I think a lot confuse the term "turn fighting" and actually think that it's just only a fight based around flat turns. Most turn fighting engagements were angle fights, planes maneuvering for an angle and not necessarily using flat turns to gain the angle. While the P-38 would be fodder against most planes in a flat turn fight, in an angles fight where the P-38 can use its flaps to gain an angle, the P-38 was quite capable in this regard. Dan has posted a story of an engagement between some new pilots flying P-38Gs that got bounced on the deck by Bf109s and beat the German planes in an angles fight using their flaps.QuoteActually the P38G flaps in AH double the turnperformence, they maybe dont double the lift, but they simply dont work like flaps should.[/b]
Since I've never flown a real P-38, I really can't say who the flaps were supposed to perform but from what I've read over the years, AH has it quite close, the only exception being the auto-retracting feature.QuoteWithout flaps it need roundabout 28sec to turn 360° at around 160mph in 4k alt.(thats actually what i would expect by a so underpowered plane)
With FULL flaps(full flaps have no "fowler effect" at all in any P38) it need 26sec for 360° at 105mph.
The P38 maybe was able to fly with 105mph fully banked, but for sure it dont would turn faster than without flaps, simply cause the flaps create a very high drag.
Thats what i call "magical flaps"(F4U flaps work in the same way, maybe even more magical)!!
But the flaps in real life generated a nice amount of lift which in a turn fight can help make the turn a little tighter. Here is an example, the P-38L had dive flaps that generated positive lift when deployed to aid in the recovery after a high speed dive. P-38 pilots soon learned that you can also deploy the dive flaps during a high speed turn fight to help in high speed maneuvering. And when they used the flaps, they only deployed them as needed and raised them afterwards. So again, you're assuming that when a P-38 pilot uses flaps that he keeps them deployed the entire time. I only use my flaps when needed and then raise them when I don't. That's why if you watch any of my films you always hear the flaps moving. I'm guessing the real P-38 pilots used the flaps the same way.
ack-ack
Greetings,
Knegel [/B]
Originally posted by Serenity
Oh, and yeah. the Spixteen has issues, again in the vertical. THats where its screwed up. Its VERY easy to kill. It really is. Any turn fighter, and any P-40E can easily incinerate one. Just never challenge it in the vertical. Thats why the kill stats are down. n00bs TnB, and thats where they get eaten. As soon as they learn to climb they are unstoppable.
lol Guppy. Im not so sure. Im more afraid of mk IXs than spixteens, because the only ones who fly the mk IX, are the ones who know how to fight. The same WOULD go for the V, but I know a lot of n00bs who are knowlageable (Yeah, I spelled that wrong, its been a long day) enough to recognize the V, and have been warned not to fly the Spixteen then go to Vs and are again baby seals. There are many more good pilots in mk Vs than in XVIs, I find. Id like to see the XVIe though. The non-clipped. Im curious as to if it too would be a UFO here.
Originally posted by Guppy35
Here we go with its the plane not the pilot again. Someone knows how to work it so it must be a UFO.
I'm average at best and I'm 13-1 vs the 16 in my 38G and I go vertical with em all the time. I'm 30-2 vs Spits in general.
So does that mean my 38G is more uber or do maybe I just know how to use my 38G fairly well?
You guys want to change a flight model because you've run up against someone who can clean your clock in a Spit 16.
Ya know what? I have run up against those guys too. Stang can, FX1 can to name a couple. I've not reached their level of ability so they eat me up.
They can take the good qualities of the 16 and add their skill and it's just about unbeatable.
But it's not a UFO.
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
But damnit Dan, he saw this on the History Channel and he's got back seat time in a glider! And even though he's never flown the Spitfire XVI in game, he knows all about the flight model and how its was supposed to be because he watched the Battle of Britain on late night TV!
ack-ack
Originally posted by Knegel
Snip
I rarely did use the flaps of the 109s and 190s and Spits for now, cause iam used to lose turnperformence by them, but since one of the lasts patches it seems that all planes got this magical flaps.
You be absolut right that normal flaps shouldnt result in a turnrate gain, at least not at max position!
Oh my god, this turn AH to be a arcade game.
btw, the turn radius of the P38G with full flaps is 194m, without flaps its around 320m. The lift gain by full flaps must be by around 100% to archive this!!
And now most, if not, all planes behave like this.
Also the 109K now turn full banked with full flaps 5mph above stallspeed, big balloons would have such a effect, but not flaps.
If a plane stall out in a strait flight at 100mph, where does the lift comes from to keep a level turn with 45?or more banking angle at 105-110mph??
Afaik while a horizontal turn with a 45?bank angle, the lift force get shared in 50% upward and 50% toward the turn center, to be able to keep a horizontal turn with 45?bank, there is a lift increasement of 100% needed!! And that within 5-10mph??
Thats what i call magic!!
Kweassa, the problem is that using full flaps in Aces High II does result in an improved turn time and not just an improved turn radius. That is if Mosq's test results are correct, which I am unsure. If using full flaps improves turn radius but degrades turn time, then it is as it should be. If, however, conventional flaps are improving both turn radius and turn time, then there is a big problem.
-Results Format-
Type (SL angle used)
- time to complete under normal setting (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete under one notch of flap (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete under full flap (average turn speed), radius
*Individual Notes
Originally posted by Kweassa
(contd.)
Bf109F-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
- 16 seconds (162mph), 184.5m
- 18 seconds (146mph), 187.1m
- 18 seconds (138mph), 175.5m
Out of 53 plane types, 20 planes are recorded as having a better turn rate at full flaps. However the differences in turn times are hardly more than 1~2 seconds apart in each ase. The majority of the planes either have a worse off turn rate, or basically an unchanged turn rate when turning with full flaps. Some of them can't even fly a turn tight/slow enough to use full flaps in a full 360d turn in the first place.
The list of the planes that have a better turn rate at full flaps is as follows;Bf110C-4
Bf110G-2
C.202
F4F-4
F4U-1C
F4U-4
F6F-5
Ki-84-I-Ko
La-5FN
La-7
Mosquito Mk.VI
N1K2-J
P-38G
P-38J
P-38L
P-47D-11
P-47D-40
P-51D
Spitfire Mk.V
Yak-9T
Some of them are strange, but other are as expected.
For instance, the Ki-84 has an even more efficient Fowler flap layout than the P-38s. The N1K2 is a very well handlong plane equipped with an automatically engaged combat flap system. The Soviet Lavochkin fighters are among the best accelerating planes in the game, and all your precious P-38s have also made it in the list.
On the contrary, all the Spitfires have a one-stage flap that deploys fully at a very extreme angle. As you can see only the Spit5 made it into the list, and all the rest of the Spits show a worse off turn rate at full flaps.
The 110s or Macchi fighters are quite a surprise, but what's even more surprising is the number of US fighters on the list. Almost all of them have show a better turn rate with full flaps engaged.
In conclusion, aside from a few unexpected anomalies (and extremely suspicious situation concerning US fighters using highly deflected flap settings), most of the fighters do have a worse turn rate with full flaps. Knegel's comment, at least from my point of view, is either a clear exaggeration of what's really going, or a misinformation from questionable test data, or maybe even both. [/B]
Kweassa, That is old data taken well before the major changes in the drag model.
In many if not all instances, things have changed. I suggest you re-test the aircraft some day and compare the old data to the current flight model.
Originally posted by Krusty
Knegel, you're saying you need 100% more lift to bank 45 degrees. You don't. You can bank 45 degrees without flaps and not fall from the sky.
Originally posted by loony1
something needs to be done about the spit 16 it is totally over modeled
...., so i don't need any flames on my flying skills. ...
Originally posted by Knegel
Benny, the US planes dont had much more power in real life, the US planes in most cases was rather underpowered, but thats not a disadvantage!!
The late P38J(and L) for example had 2 x 1600HP, on WEP but only a initial climb of 3750ft/min with this setting.
Originally posted by Squire
The P-38L did not have a wartime rating of 2000hp for its engines, not a typical example anyways!
No reliable source gives them more than 1725 hp at max WEP (which is pretty damn good), for a typical wartime fighter, which was beyond the 1600 hp rating they were actually "advertised as" by Lockheed and Allison, and were the "official" ratings.
Originally posted by Squire
[...] the 1600 hp rating they were actually "advertised as" by Lockheed and Allison, and were the "official" ratings.
Originally posted by Squire
Thats what I figured, I knew under some circumstances they got close to the 2000hp mark, but that wasnt typical for a wartime example of a P-38L.
Like you say, 8th AF didnt use them. P-51 and P-47 did get the fuel though. Even at that, would you have a "typical" P-51 or P-47 with 150 octane? hardly fair unless you go and boost up all the other fighters too, from all the other countries, which was my point.
Originally posted by Squire
Re: The 109K-4, I have no idea what specs they are using. It seems to match the historic speeds and climb from what I can tell. Post different if you have something.
How about a +25 lb (1850hp) Spit XVI from RAF 2nd TAF, which they did use in the war? I can hear the screams from the MA now...
Like I said, there is no end to it once you demand the "bestest" ratings from all these fighters, its a pandoras box. The best method imho, is using more average wartime ratings and keeping the "X-fighter" factor out of it.
Originally posted by dtango
So why does the K-4 get the benefit of the use of C3 fuel + MW50 but the allied planes don't get to use 150 octane fuel? We have performance stats for aircraft using 150 octane fuel. On top of that C3 fuel was hard to come by compared to B4 fuel.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Originally posted by Neil Stirling
dtango, very interesting chart you have there. Some questions if I may?
Is there a reference that I can quote to get a copy?
Is there a date with the document?
Is it flight tested data? As it looks very much like this:-
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G14_GLCE-may44_trials.html
BTW thank you very much for posting it.
Neil.
Originally posted by Knegel
Hi,
if the 109K4 is a 1.98ata version(C3 + MW50) it should outperform the La7, and Spit16 by easy!! Since is dont do this, i guess its the 1.98ata (no MW50) version, which actually have similar results like the 1.8ata (B4 + MW50) version.
Greetings,
Knegel
Originally posted by Knegel
if the 109K4 is a 1.98ata version(C3 + MW50) it should outperform the La7, and Spit16 by easy!! Since is dont do this, i guess its the 1.98ata (no MW50) version, which actually have similar results like the 1.8ata (B4 + MW50) version
if the 109K4 is a 1.98ata version(C3 + MW50) it should outperform the La7, and Spit16 by easy!! Since is dont do this, i guess its the 1.98ata (no MW50) version, which actually have similar results like the 1.8ata (B4 + MW50) version.
P-38L at 75" = Me-109K at 1.98 ata plus nitrous oxide
What gets to me are the people who think, "The 1.98 ata Me-109 should not be perked, but a 66" P-38L should be." The 66" rating for the P-38L was not only extensively used, but was official. The 1.98 ata rating for the 109, on the other hand, was only used on a handful of ships.
But, meantime get this single fact: Allison Engineering qualified the F-30 engine WER at 1,725 bhp at 3200 rpm. However, the USAAF NEVER authorized that rating, with ATSC preferring to stick with a 3000 rpm limitation. These engines were in Lockheed P-38L, F-5G and P-38M airplanes. Aircraft installation, maintenance, rigging, supercharger performance, propeller performance, etc. all affected individulal engine and airplane performance. And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated.
Originally posted by Knegel
Up to 6000m the K4 simply was one of the best accelerating planes in WWII, it had other disadvantages.
Greetings,
Knegel
Originally posted by TUXC
Wasn't the 109k with 1.98ata capable of 377mph on the deck? (I got that from Kurfurst's 109 webpage). Ours is about 10mph slower that that going by the chart in the hangar in the online game.
I think this is the first time I've seen people complaining about a German fighter performing too well.;) It's a welcome change, but I hope the 109k gets left as is. It's not like everyone is flyng it in the MA anyways....otherwise it'd already be perked!
...however in the MA it is the single greatest criteria to measure an aircraft by.
Originally posted by Krusty
He would interpret it poorly, with a huge bias, but even Kev's quoted as saying his data is relatively sound.
Originally posted by Kweassa
The 66" rating was never "cleared", nor was it in anyway "official".
Benny's argument that the 66"/75" P-38L should be introduced on grounds of 'officiality' is clearly wrong.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
The really funny thing is that the only performance stat in AH that people really get stoked about is top speed at sea level which in actual combat was about the last place anyone cared about performance however in the MA it is the single greatest criteria to measure an aircraft by.
Originally posted by Kweassa
The 66" rating was never "cleared", nor was it in anyway "official".
Benny's argument that the 66"/75" P-38L should be introduced on grounds of 'officiality' is clearly wrong.
Originally posted by Kweassa
There's no such thing as a "Me109K at 1.98ata plus nitrous oxide". Nor is the boost system equipped on the 109s and 190s anything 'special'. The methanol-water injection system is a standard, mandatory piece of equipment that is standardized and equipped on all 109s after the G-14.
Originally posted by Kweassa
There is a very, very excellent discussion concerning the existance of these "late P-38Ls" in the IL2 forums, with the participants of both sides coming up with equally interesting and convincing evidence:
P-38L 'late' - the new fantasy plane? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3351093733/p/1)
Originally posted by Benny Moore
That's not true. I don't have it, but I have seen the document officially approving 66" for the P-38L. I believe Widewing will be along shortly to post it. I've also seen documents approving 72" for the P-51D and 70" for the P-47D. This is for operational service, not a test aircraft or two.
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Don't even get me started on Kurfurst. I have only one word to say about that individual - serial liar. All right, that was two words. Oh, well ...
That discussion is good - and only good - because of the data posted by Big Kahuna and company. Kurfurst is a liar, and he was lying then. I've seen with my own two eyes a document clearing the P-38L for 66" Hg. MAP. He's also wrong about the horsepower; 1725 hp. comes from a 64" rating, not 66 inches.
Kurfurst was also lying when he slandered Big Kahuna, accusing him entirely without evidence (or provocation) of fabricating those figures - figures which Big Kahuna had clearly stated in previous threads where he got them (Warren Bodie).
By the way, I have to retract some of the statements I made in that "fantasy plane" thread; it was several years ago and I hadn't seen some of the documents I have now. I mentioned that the P-38L could run at 1725 hp. when using 150 fuel, but it actually could also run it on standard 100/130 quite handily.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
This is in the sig of a poster over at Ubi
Kurfurst logic: 'cleared' = 'used' for the LW = 'not used' for the Allies; 2 = quite a few ships
He used have, but was removed for some reason,
Kurfurst Motto: The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth >> NEVER
Kev, B2 fuel?? B4 fuel should it not be? Me109Ks also used C3 fuel(1.80ata).
Originally posted by Knegel
The more big La7 with same power is faster in AH and the much more big and heavy P51B and D with particular much less power are same fast. And i wanna see the calculation that determine that a semi-laminar airfoil is able to even out the drag of 5m² wingarea and much more big fuselage and 100-300HP and 1000kg more weight. :rolleyes:
l
Originally posted by dtango
Well, the 109K-4 we have is the 1.98 ata version.
Originally posted by dtango
I don't have any complaints about the K4 being overmodelled in AH at all am certainly not on some crusade to "fix it!!!" :D. I just thought I would point out to folks the AH K4 is pretty darn close to the 1.98ata c3+mw50 version.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Originally posted by Bronk
I'd be more interested with acceleration and climb differences.
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Those are my thoughts exactly. More power means more maneuverability, not just speed. More power means doing literally everything better, including turn and burn flat turns on the deck.
Originally posted by Bronk
I'd be more interested with acceleration and climb differences.
Top speed might be areo limited requiring much more boost to see bigger gains.
Bronk
Originally posted by dtango
1.98ata c3+mw50 best ROC: 4920 ft/min (3400 kg?)
1.8ata b4+mw50 best ROC: 4440 ft/min (3400 kg)
1.98ata c3 best ROC: 4320 ft/min (3400 kg?)
AH K4 best ROC: ~4800 ft/min (3374 kg - assuming AH chart is normally loaded K4).
Assuming the weights are accurate the AH K4 best climb is nearest the 1.98ata c3+mw50 K4.
A correction to the speeds above, I didn't look at the speed diffs for the 1.8ata b4+mw50 version:
SL: ~595kph
alt: ~727kph
Level speeds the AH K4 seems nearest the 1.8ata b4+mw50 in the charts.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Originally posted by Charge
Yes it should. Except for 190A8.
Originally posted by Charge
Do you people know if the intercooler problems which plaqued the P38 were fixed later on? As you know this reduces the power output so that the engine needs to derated to lower boosts to prevent the engine from detonation.
Originally posted by Charge
your history on these boards has been so brief that you hardly can state such things about people you hardly know. Of course you are just using it to get acceptance in certain crowds...
Originally posted by dtango
1.98ata c3+mw50 best ROC: 4920 ft/min (3400 kg?)
1.8ata b4+mw50 best ROC: 4440 ft/min (3400 kg)
1.98ata c3 best ROC: 4320 ft/min (3400 kg?)
Originally posted by Krusty
Edit: I'm not picking a fight. I'm just pointing out the climb isn't part of the equation. Too many variables to simply pin it on boost alone.
Originally posted by Ball
why does every thread about the Spitfire turn into 109 rants? ;) :D
Originally posted by Guppy35
Because the Spitfire apparently always does too much and the 109 always does too little in a flight sim.....regardless as to whether it's true or not :)
Originally posted by Charge
Depends on the relative change between the two factors. Strange enough the pilots alledgedly considered the A8 to be the best fighter of FW190A breed.
Originally posted by Charge
The expression of "short time" is strange. But in all considering the shortened service life before overhaul I find your statement a bit strange. Although it is possible that the engine requires a high pressure run to to keep clean, but 15 minutes? Maybe the restriction was loosened later on?[/B]
Originally posted by Krusty
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109k4&p2=109g14
^-- what we've got in-game right now. Climb alone doesn't dictate or reflect boost levels used. Unless you're saying the G-14 has 1.98ata, too?? :t
Edit: I'm not picking a fight. I'm just pointing out the climb isn't part of the equation. Too many variables to simply pin it on boost alone.
Originally posted by Knegel
Snip
Originally posted by Krusty
Yes... it's only been "recently" that some folks say we have 1.98ata. Up until now nobody has ever argued this, in fact most said the opposite, and begged/pleaded for 1.98ata to be included in the game.
I don't buy that 1.98ata is modeled, currently.
Originally posted by EagleDNY
It ISN'T - we are definitely running the 1.8 model according to the 109K testing I just did. Take one up to 24,600ft, level it out, wep on and see the top speed. 429 Mil / 445 WEP - that is a 1.80 model (even if you don't believe the boost guage which only goes UP to 1.80...).
Originally posted by dtango
The AH K4 has a best ROC more similar to that the 1.98 C3+MW50 version.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Originally posted by dtango
CD for both aircraft is at .026 which tells me that the first graph is an aircraft at 2000hp.
If it was less (say 1800 hp) CD=.023.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs