I am actually kind of begining to suspect that the numbers we have for things t\like the P-51D (437mph), Spitfire Mk XIV (448mph) and Bf109K-4 (452mph) are idealized numbers that were not what the aircraft in service actually did.
It does bring out an interesting question, or rather, opens up a big can of worms
Obviously all mechanic creations always has a certain margin of difference between ideal performance stats and actual performance stats.
It would seem such thorough investigation(?) on how 'crappy' Japanese and Soviet planes actually were, has given us much insight on "reality" of those planes in actual service, whereas one rarely thinks in that sense when mentioning US planes.
No, its not a conspiracy theory, just merely a tendency(and a natural one, too) which has settled upon the situation. (I wouldn't bother searching for the 'truth' if I was the winner)
It'd be interesting to see if there are any such thorough investigations on how big the "margin" would be for typical US planes, if such an investigation ever took place
Again, I do not consider it a conspiracy theory. If I were in HTC's shoes, with this set of data, I'd model planes this way, too. However, come to think of it I've always encountered arguments on 'actual performance' as opposed to 'ideal performance'.
Typically the Soviet planes most frequently meet these arguments, then the German and Japanese, and then the British. And yet, not one single argument have I seen that mentions how P-51 Merlin engines might not have used X amount of boost, or how P-47 speed may not have been Y amount of mph at Z alt... and etc etc. Did the US engines always use same amount of boost, no deration, no limitations, and always spot-on-the-manual-numbers?
Just interesting stuff to think about
(or hold a grudge against
)
