drgondog
Major
Like all general comparisons. it depends.Does a laminar flow profile generate less lift than a conventional profile for the same wing, i.e. would the aircraft have a worse climb rate?
The Fw 190 had a high-lift wing profile, IIRC, which generates much lift so that wing area could be kept small.
First, the ROC is dependent on GW and Avail HP versus Hp Required. CL range is only important near stall and ROCmax for both FW 190 and P-51 were well within the CL vs Alpha envelope and close to each other.
[above edited - I meant to say weight, not wing loading]
That stated, the NACA 23016 (or 015.5) compared to NAA/NACA 45-100 (~16.13% root, 11.46% at tip) was more interesting in discussing Cd vs CL. The NAA wing was far more efficient in low CL range (low AoA in cruise range) and crossed over with NACA 23016 at approximately CL= 0.55 - which is near CL for best climb rate for both FW 190 and P-51. IN CL range> 0.5-0.6 the FW 190 wing had lower CD as f(CL).
The High Speed/Low Drag NAA wing was neither a handicap for climb or high speed. That said, where a higher CLmax IS important is in a high G, low speed turn.
In any case, the FW 190 should not suffer due to swapping out wing sections.
Recall that Bearcat had a NACA 23018, much thicker than the XP-51F &G, but all had near same ROC.
Last edited: