Here is what I mean by "leaps of logic". Configuration changes can be very complicated. The best methodology of estimating performance changes is through measured data, without that data, we are really just ballparking it badly. However we are drawing some conclusion off this one report on your webpage that cannot be made.
First of all the report he uses is this one, a wind tunnel test on a scale model. This will result in some very useful data. Unfortunately most of it will not be useful to anyone else but the engineering design team.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930093637_1993093637.pdf
See they have the data to scale the results to the full sized aircraft. That is really is the most common use of Reynolds number. Reynolds number is a representation of the laminar to turbulent flow.
Rg = V
x / v
V = stream velocity of the wind tunnel
x is the distance downstream , in a wing this is the leading edge generally
v = kinematic viscosity
It is easy to prove the data is not scaled by looking at the dynamic pressures. For example, they used a dynamic pressure of 13psf for the climb conditions of the aircraft. Well a Corsair climbs at 125KEAS and the dynamic pressure at that speed is about 52.96psf in an NACA 1922 atmosphere.
Without scaling the data from the model to the actual aircraft, the results are only useful for the engineers for any specific results. For example you cannot say our airplane will achieve a Cl of whatever based on this chart! The values of our ratio of lift or drag pressure's to dynamic pressure will change when they are scaled.
There are some very applicable general conclusions though that we can make off this data.
We can use the L/D ratio of this graph to get some solid conclusions about the general performance of the airplane.
L/D ratio is fixed by design and corresponds to a specific Angle of Attack as long as there is not a configuration change. That is why we can have the Angle of Attack scale at the bottom of the graph. The specific coefficients will change but the ratio will remain the same for given point on the curve that corresponds to a specific angle of attack.
As a rule of thumb, if we divide L/D ratio at a given angle of attack by weight, we get the thrust required to maintain that L/D ratio!
So lets use the same chart on your website:
We have two different Lift to Drag ratio's represented.
The lower coefficient of lift yields an L/D ratio of ~CL1.4 / Cd .165 = 8.48
If our Corsair weighs 12,100 lbs then our thrust required in this condition of flight is:
12,100 / 8.48 = 1427lbs of thrust
In the second condition, we have a much higher coefficient of lift. Someone not formally trained might conclude this were we will get our best performance.
The higher coefficient of lift yields an L/D ratio of ~ CL 2.25 / Cd .385 = 5.84
If our Corsair weighs 12,100lbs then our thrust required in the condition of flight is:
12,100lbs / 5.84 = 2072lbs of thrust required to maintain this condition of flight. A difference of 645lbs which represents a 45% increase in thrust required or drag at just over a 16 degree Angle of Attack.
So go figure how we are going to get a turn improvement in the same condiiton of flight for a 45% increase in drag. The crux is as our aircraft lowers it's velocity, we are even more aerodynamically limited and our angle of bank must get shallower the slower we go.
If we read the conclusions of this Navy report which I posted earlier and is cited on your webpage, you will find them to be true.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092640_1993092640.pdf
How this became "the corsair turns great at full flaps" is an exercise in why formal education is very important. Just because someone works the formulas does not show an understanding of the underlying principles.
Lesson to you, young man..less games and more studying!
I am going to have some turkey! Happy Thanksgiving all!
All the best,
Crumpp