My calcs aren't wrong Gripen.
The wing area I used for the P51D is: 234.976 sq ft.
That is a misprint. The Cl's are correct, however and feel free to calculate them yourself.
And post them in English units NOT metric, as mine are in, which you think are wrong.
I wrote David Lednicer to see if he has insight into this. We are just flat out missing to many of the details.
For example Gripen:
You list the wingtip E factor as .8 and the mustang as .75. Where did you get this data? You list the Spitfires as .95 while the NASA site clearly says the Spitfire had an E factor of 1.
The information that is out there is conflicting even among "official" sources. Just look at the Mustang. Since David actually build airplanes and analyzes past aircraft as a hobby he is probably in a better position to give us "the best" data available or at least the closest to actual performance.
Yet this Aircraft has E factor of .95. Niether the FW 190's wing tips or the P51's were "square".
http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/index.htmAnd quit carrying your feelings in a glass jar. Last thread as soon as you were questioned you became extremely rude. Your starting it again.
This is what I am trying to do:
1. If you examine the loss records (which the Luftwaffe kept meticulous records of their casualties) you will find this pattern.
The pre-1943 trained pilots took losses on a pretty much steady curve from the beginning to the end of the war. It does go up some in the last years of war when pressure from the Allies in the West was at it's greatest (Big Week and Bodenplatte). Their loss rate stays fairly constant and does not rise dramatically.
The post-1943 trained pilots died like flies with an almost 98 percent loss rate. IF they survived to complete their sixth mission their chances of surviving until the end of war went up astronomically.
After WWII there was a tendency to explain the Luftwaffe high victory levels on Aircraft performance.
Later this was found not be true. Because of the mound of data compiled to disprove the "wonder planes" theories the perception has been created that Luftwaffe planes were poor performers.
This can be seen in Authors such as Alfred Price and Peter Cayhill. Much of the commentary by Price is in direct odds with Eric Browns. Peter Cayhill, a noted spitfire historian, in his book "Combat Legends" takes a tactically sound interception and creates the perception the FW-190 was only good for a high-speed bounce. That is in direct odds with the Luftwaffe pilot anecdotal evidence that says they routinely got into dogfights with the FW-190 AND gave as good as they got.
In fact the Luftwaffe took it's losses for the same reason it achieved it's victories. Luftwaffe pilots had a much greater chance than an allied pilot to encounter the enemy.
Combine that with the tactical realities of the "Defense of the Reich" and it is easy to see why. Men in combat don't say good things about their equipment if it sucks. You won't hear statements like:
" Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun. But Curve in towards 40 Fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes."
Oblt. Hans "Fips" Phillip, Kommandure JG1
FW-190A5 pilot
He was killed by P47's 4 days after that statement, seconds after downing his first B17. The P47's were on his six as he attacked the B17.
One young Luftwaffe pilot who arrived in JG 26 in the summer of 1944 got to fly three combat missions in World War II. Each mission had months in between the sorties because he was shot down each time he took off. He was lucky and survived the war. The day he graduated "flight school" he was the sole survivor, besides his instructor, of his student schwarm. The instructor took them flying down a valley. 3 of the students crashed into the mountain at the end of it following the instructor.
2. In my studies I have never found a situation yet where the science did not line up with history in the Air War.
3. Since I am writing a book I am on an agenda. Not the one you think though to "artificially inflate" my favorite planes performance. There is a wealth of new information out there on these planes performances that has been declassified. With the Internet access to such places as the Luft-archive and the National Archives it is even more widely available.
I believe the actual plane performances will line up with the statistics. This is a great forum to both get a good idea of the science behind the Aircraft and to gauge that performance. In short it is a good tool.
Crumpp
