I think you haven't seen enough: I think you failed to perceive in my original post that
any reference to the power of mathematics to solve these WWII performance problems was being made fun of...
When confronted with an actual test made in 1989, by actual experimental test pilots (who were conditionned by jet experience to make dubious conclusions about the low-speed performance end, because they could not risk testing it on such valuable aircrafts), mathematics failed utterly to make an even ballpark prediction... (I mistakenly said the disparity was 64 MPH: It was 56 MPH: 300 MPH IAS was the actual P-51D "Corner Speed" vs the "math" of 2.44 X stall speed, which gives about 244 MPH IAS...)
Maximum level speed of the P-51D at METO, at 10 000 ft.
is about 315 MPH IAS... Thus 300 MPH IAS is "very close" to that...
Math theory completely fails to account for power output from the propeller TRACTION to load up the wing's lift, and thus delay the "Corner Speed" 56 MPH higher at METO...
The wing's lift is not significantly loaded up by PROPULSION thrust: I can link a crude graphic that explains why lifting a nose devoid of traction is obviously less taxing for the winglift than one loaded with traction...
METO is equivalent in WWII to "Normal Power", or the maximum power without time limit.
At WEP which is more often discussed for WWII fighters, It could very well be the "Corner Speed" would then be delayed up to 340-360 MPH IAS, or up to 120 MPH higher than math deductions say...
Tractive power has leverage on the winglift, while winglift has leverage on propulsion... That this is ignored shows just how unstudied basic WWII fighter performance is by post-war math: This explains the importance of downthrottling to which post-war math theory is totally oblivious...
Basically, more prop power means more wingloading in a turn...
Hence a full power Spit is "heavier" on its wings than a downthrottled FW-190A:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/471...sononfw190.jpg
Gaston