PDA

View Full Version : I ALWAYS land that way!



Bremspropeller
05-29-2010, 05:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...L&playnext=1&index=4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRCneGd3VrQ&feature=PlayList&p=39850F0AB6BB63DD&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=4)

No comment on the video-title http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Metatron_123
05-29-2010, 05:41 PM
Put that suspension to the test!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Choctaw111
05-29-2010, 06:56 PM
Well, at least nothing broke...that I saw anyway.

Waldo.Pepper
05-29-2010, 08:14 PM
"It was definitely a Spitfire that shot me down. No way was it a Hurricane."

Even the pros who were there make a recognition error every now and then.

ImMoreBetter
05-29-2010, 08:43 PM
Hey! Was that me?

Treetop64
05-29-2010, 09:47 PM
Probably one of those who thinks that every German plane was a Messerschmidt.

wayno7777
05-29-2010, 09:48 PM
If that had been a Messerschmitt they would be picking up the pieces....

P.s. No, that was definately one of my landings....lol

RegRag1977
05-30-2010, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...L&playnext=1&index=4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRCneGd3VrQ&feature=PlayList&p=39850F0AB6BB63DD&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=4)

No comment on the video-title http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif


Don't worry, you're not alone: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif it doesn't happen only to Fw190 pilot though

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...cac0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TRV15kcac0&feature=related)

general_kalle
05-30-2010, 03:41 PM
dare he crash that beauty of a rare flying machine

Kettenhunde
05-30-2010, 03:45 PM
it doesn't happen only to Fw190 pilot though


"Like a Bullfrog on ski's" is how one FW190 pilot described it.

BTW, that bounces is just a taildragger being a taildragger. Carry too much speed into a 3 pointer and that is result.

M_Gunz
05-30-2010, 04:19 PM
Hope he knows to only log one landing there.

ROXunreal
05-30-2010, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
dare he crash that beauty of a rare flying machine

that's a flugwerk methinks, even though that was the first thing that was on my mind as well.

ggb123
05-30-2010, 08:49 PM
it requires a much faster speed and much longer runway. it's a fighter, you know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The airfoil it uses, the lift-to-drag ratio is quite low, perhaps even a symmetrical airfoil, it's for speed. anyone know the NACA airfoil for 190?

AndyJWest
05-30-2010, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by ggb123:
it requires a much faster speed and much longer runway. it's a fighter, you know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The airfoil it uses, the lift-to-drag ratio is quite low, perhaps even a symmetrical airfoil, it's for speed. anyone know the NACA airfoil for 190?

Why would anyone use a symmetrical aerofoil on a WW II fighter? Sustained inverted flight is hardly a requirement.

Kettenhunde
05-30-2010, 09:58 PM
The airfoil it uses, the lift-to-drag ratio is quite low

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

If you don't know the airfoil, how can you compare the L/D ratio of the 2D profile??

NACA 23015.3 root with an NACA 23009 tip...

Waldo.Pepper
05-30-2010, 11:55 PM
Carry too much speed into a 3 pointer and that is result.

No disputing that, but to me it looks like he allowed his rate of decent to be to high, hence the bounce. I thought the speed was fine, but the flare inadequate.

NAFP_supah
05-31-2010, 12:09 AM
Looks like the runway has a bit of a upslope in the beginning, he might just have misjudged that. If you are not used to up or downslope runways it can be a bit confusing, I have had some pretty wild experiences on sloping runways too. A lot of people misjudge runway length and their altitude due to sloping runways.

JtD
05-31-2010, 12:23 AM
Can you land much slower than in a 3 point attitude? Looked to me as if maybe even the tailwheel came down first.

I've seen far worse Fw 190 landings, that plane can take it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p-11.cAce
05-31-2010, 05:57 AM
http://edit.1000words.kodak.com/uploads/00890b0c-8dd3-4bd5-8b72-06f7ec99fc81_original.jpg

This is one of the fields I fly out of - for all the armchair pilots out there catching a bounce on a grass field is par for the course. In those last moments of the flare it's easy to catch a rut or even just a firm patch that combined with the loft from ground effect gives you a nice bounce. Only the non-pilots ever gasp.

Kettenhunde
05-31-2010, 06:21 AM
but the flare inadequate.

I agree his flare is definitely inadequate. That is what I think leads too much speed in this case.

We are saying the same thing.

For interested readers:

A three pointer is a stall landing. Most taildraggers are designed to stall in the three point attitude at flare speeds.

There are two primary ways to bounce a taildragger in a 3 pointer:

Too much speed and the airplane does not stall at three point attitude, airplane skips off the runway as the wing is still flying. That is what it looks like to me.

Flaring too high and stalling above the runway. Airplane drops onto the runways and bounces.

edited for clarity

Kettenhunde
05-31-2010, 06:34 AM
a bounce on a grass field


I am based out of Class C but routinely fly into several of the grass strips in the area. I like grass and a taildragger just seems to belong on it.

Grass is maybe a little more forgiving.

A lot of pilots have issues with depth perception and that leads to botched flares. For some reason it is just harder to judge height on grass.

Some good advice in this thread:

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-329476.html

b2spirita
05-31-2010, 07:46 AM
Is it just me, or did it look like the right hand landing gear came close to folding up?

RegRag1977
05-31-2010, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Hope he knows to only log one landing there.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Well i'm sure Marc Mathis (the pilot's name) knows what to do, hopefully he will log only one landing, of course that's only if experience is of any use (one wheel after the other one is the way to go) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibwi1DnH3Dk

Seriously now, it is not kind to mock him, he's a really talented pilot (flies P51, Yak11, FW190, etc...) But at least to me the real show starts when he's flying his beautiful Zlin 526AFS: enjoy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgesAXV6sFg

RegRag1977
05-31-2010, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">it doesn't happen only to Fw190 pilot though


"Like a Bullfrog on ski's" is how one FW190 pilot described it.

BTW, that bounces is just a taildragger being a taildragger. Carry too much speed into a 3 pointer and that is result. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha, Bullfrog on skis, that's a good nickname for the FW190 (as is Würger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif )!

BTW, just a question what are the inconvenients of landing on the main under carriage like in this YT video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...PTik&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVXV0bPTik&feature=related)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif I use this technique in IL2, for i find it safer, at least in game...

mortoma
05-31-2010, 10:21 AM
Most of my landings were on grass because the airport I took flying lessons at was a grass field. I continued to fly only a few years after I got my license but I continued to fly out of that same airport.

It's true that bouncing is more likely landing on grass because there are almost always bumps and uneven patches on the ground. They ain't exactly like a fairway on a golf course, usually!!

I watched the video and felt it was not such a terrible landing under the circumstances. He did not touch down with an unreasonable amount of sink rate after all. Could be that the oleo struts for a FW-190 are simply a bit on the stiff side or when they built the plane they put in stiffer springs and/or heavier oil than the W.W.II originals had. It also looks like he got into a little pilot induced oscillations, which can happen to the best of us.

Bottom line, he got the plane down without hurting himself or anyone else and the plane was perfectly OK too. That makes it a good landing. Most of the people commenting ( including this forum ) on the landing are probably not pilots or former pilots, therefore their opinions are questionable at best.

Kettenhunde
05-31-2010, 10:44 AM
BTW, just a question what are the inconvenients of landing on the main under carriage like in this YT video?

Jouncing....sort of like bouncing only different!

Waldo.Pepper
05-31-2010, 10:50 AM
I agree his flare is definitely inadequate. That is what I think leads too much speed in this case.
We are saying the same thing.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Great minds think alike.

Sillius_Sodus
05-31-2010, 10:59 AM
BTW, just a question what are the inconvenients of landing on the main under carriage like in this YT video?

Some aircraft have low ground clearance for the prop so you want to be careful when doing a two-point landing in a taildragger.

rfxcasey
06-03-2010, 07:43 AM
Doesn't look that horrible to me. I agree the runway has a pit of a hump at the beginning. Not to mention he is trying to land in as short a distance as possible and he has virtually no visibility the last couple of feet while flaring. It depends on the version of the plane too as a field version would possibly have a beefier suspension tweaked for handling things like divots and bumps in an open field. He may just have the plane set up for a hard surface that he usually lands on and didn't think to change the damping for the raw turf. Don't get me wrong he did come in a little hard but the guy is probably 90 years old so give Grandpa a freakin break ok. Most people his age are in a home drooling on themselves while he's out reliving the past.

DrHerb
06-03-2010, 10:51 AM
It was a hard one, but I think the gear was designed to take the rough stuff, seeing that the majority of the Luftwaffe flew out of grass strips anyway.

This is what happens when the gear doesn't lock though. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf9Br4n-hMc&feature=channel)

rfxcasey
06-03-2010, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by DrHerb:
It was a hard one, but I think the gear was designed to take the rough stuff, seeing that the majority of the Luftwaffe flew out of grass strips anyway.

This is what happens when the gear doesn't lock though. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf9Br4n-hMc&feature=channel)

It's a plane, FLY IT. Hey, sometimes things are going to happen but nothing and no one is perfect so big deal. This plane sustained minimal damage anyways and the pilot did a good job considering. Love to see them fly, and think of the good times that will be had fixing it.

Kettenhunde
06-03-2010, 03:05 PM
Great minds think alike.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Friendly_flyer
06-03-2010, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
Bottom line, he got the plane down without hurting himself or anyone else and the plane was perfectly OK too.

My sentiments exactly!

TinyTim
06-03-2010, 03:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpBeYXmxcPI

RAF_OldBuzzard
06-03-2010, 05:04 PM
p-11.cAce

I had a Cessna 140 based at that field http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Red Stewart taught me to fly in the J-3s that they still use. I'm hoping to go up there some time this summer and get an hour in the PT-17.

As for the landing of the 190, it looks like he was sinking a bit faster than he thought, and he jerked a bit too hard to start the flare, and stalled it a couple of feet off the runway.

He wouldn't be the first, nor the last, to do that in a taildragger. Do that in a Cessna 140 with the 'springy gear' and you get a REAL good bounce http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WTE_Galway
06-03-2010, 06:23 PM
Slightly Off topic ... but there is some good inflight and landing/takeoff footage of a jg54 A4 in this wartime Russian test/intelligence footage of a captured fw190.

Extraordinarily detailed walk around of the aircraft on the ground as well. This is well worth a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...e65w&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayREUJe65w&feature=related)

rfxcasey
06-04-2010, 07:05 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...rDyk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcIAgtmrDyk&feature=related)

rfxcasey
06-04-2010, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Slightly Off topic ... but there is some good inflight and landing/takeoff footage of a jg54 A4 in this wartime Russian test/intelligence footage of a captured fw190.

Extraordinarily detailed walk around of the aircraft on the ground as well. This is well worth a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...e65w&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayREUJe65w&feature=related)

Sorry to double post but..... I am not going to watch a 10 minute long video in Russian!!!! You couldn't find something in english?

ggb123
06-06-2010, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ggb123:
it requires a much faster speed and much longer runway. it's a fighter, you know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The airfoil it uses, the lift-to-drag ratio is quite low, perhaps even a symmetrical airfoil, it's for speed. anyone know the NACA airfoil for 190?

Why would anyone use a symmetrical aerofoil on a WW II fighter? Sustained inverted flight is hardly a requirement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


symmetrical aerofoil may have been providing better stability on high speed for german fighters like 109 and 190 in ww2.(purly just based on my guess) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif In lower speed, it seems like it's losing it comparing to more asymmetrical ones. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

AndyJWest
06-06-2010, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by ggb123:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ggb123:
it requires a much faster speed and much longer runway. it's a fighter, you know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The airfoil it uses, the lift-to-drag ratio is quite low, perhaps even a symmetrical airfoil, it's for speed. anyone know the NACA airfoil for 190?
Why would anyone use a symmetrical aerofoil on a WW II fighter? Sustained inverted flight is hardly a requirement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


symmetrical aerofoil may have been providing better stability on high speed for german fighters like 109 and 190 in ww2.(purly just based on my guess) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif In lower speed, it seems like it's losing it comparing to more asymmetrical ones. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kettenhunde has provided the aerofoil numbers: "NACA 23015.3 root with an NACA 23009 tip..." - this agrees with other sources.

Five-digit series

The NACA five-digit series describes more complex airfoil shapes:[6]

1. The first digit, when multiplied by 0.15, gives the designed coefficient of lift (CL).
2. Second and third digits, when divided by 2, give p, the distance of maximum camber from the leading edge (as per cent of chord).
3. Fourth and fifth digits give the maximum thickness of the airfoil (as per cent of the chord).

For example, the NACA 12045 airfoil would give an airfoil with maximum thickness of 45% chord, located at 10% chord, with a lift coefficient of 0.15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_airfoil
Using this: http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/jf_applet.htm, I get this for NACA 23015:
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/23015.jpg
and this for 23009:
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/23009.jpg
I'm not sure exactly what the '.3' in 'NACA 23015.3' signifies - possibly a minor modification. Anyway, definitely not symmetrical. Take a look at photos of Fw 190 wings to confirm this, if you aren't convinced.

TheGrunch
06-06-2010, 09:07 PM
Camber location of 15.3? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AndyJWest
06-06-2010, 09:29 PM
Fourth and fifth digits give the maximum thickness of the airfoil (as per cent of the chord).

A thickness of 15.3% would make more sense. I don't think anyone ever actually uses unmodified NACA aerofoils anyway - the trailing edge is a theoretical point. From looking at the Fw 190 in the Imperial War Museum many years back (when I was doing the kit for Airfix), the T/E was maybe semicircular, and about 3-4 mm thick? I can't remember, but I remember thinking that no 1/72nd scale kit could ever model that - and later got talked into making the T/E even thicker than it needed to be. A shame, as it was very noticeable in the finished product.

Perhaps, if Kettenhunde hasn't decided that I'm a hopeless innumerate, he could take a look at the back end of a Fw-190 wing, and tell us whether it would be suitable for shaving with, or is just a bit of aluminium folded back on itself and beaten into shape with a hammer...

Feathered_IV
06-07-2010, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by wayno7777:
If that had been a Messerschmitt they would be picking up the pieces....

My thoughts exactly. A 109 could kill you for less.

Kettenhunde
06-09-2010, 10:24 AM
is just a bit of aluminium folded back on itself and beaten into shape with a hammer...


It is formed with a brake, formed, and finally bolted to the flap well or aileron cut out.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...ges/8radiusbrake.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/8radiusbrake.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...opages/tennsmith.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/tennsmith.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...ndformingdollies.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/handformingdollies.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...ages/panelbeater.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/panelbeater.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...s/bossingmallets.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/bossingmallets.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...topages/shotbags.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/shotbags.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...nelbeaterhammers.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/panelbeaterhammers.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/.../hardwoodslapper.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/hardwoodslapper.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...s/to/sheet_edge.html (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/to/sheet_edge.html)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...s/to/sheet_hand.html (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/to/sheet_hand.html)

Kettenhunde
06-09-2010, 10:28 AM
If that had been a Messerschmitt they would be picking up the pieces....

Not necessarily.

The Bf-109 had plenty of control so it would be up to the pilot to prevent that from happening.

An inexperienced pilot would likely end up with a wreck but not an experienced one.

rfxcasey
06-09-2010, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">is just a bit of aluminium folded back on itself and beaten into shape with a hammer...


It is formed with a brake, formed, and finally bolted to the flap well or aileron cut out.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...ges/8radiusbrake.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/8radiusbrake.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...opages/tennsmith.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/tennsmith.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...ndformingdollies.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/handformingdollies.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...ages/panelbeater.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/panelbeater.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...s/bossingmallets.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/bossingmallets.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...topages/shotbags.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/shotbags.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...nelbeaterhammers.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/panelbeaterhammers.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/.../hardwoodslapper.php (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/hardwoodslapper.php)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...s/to/sheet_edge.html (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/to/sheet_edge.html)

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/...s/to/sheet_hand.html (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/to/sheet_hand.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't clicked on any of those links, but I like the one that says "hard wood slapper"! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

ggb123
06-12-2010, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ggb123:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ggb123:
it requires a much faster speed and much longer runway. it's a fighter, you know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The airfoil it uses, the lift-to-drag ratio is quite low, perhaps even a symmetrical airfoil, it's for speed. anyone know the NACA airfoil for 190?
Why would anyone use a symmetrical aerofoil on a WW II fighter? Sustained inverted flight is hardly a requirement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


symmetrical aerofoil may have been providing better stability on high speed for german fighters like 109 and 190 in ww2.(purly just based on my guess) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif In lower speed, it seems like it's losing it comparing to more asymmetrical ones. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kettenhunde has provided the aerofoil numbers: "NACA 23015.3 root with an NACA 23009 tip..." - this agrees with other sources.

Five-digit series

The NACA five-digit series describes more complex airfoil shapes:[6]

1. The first digit, when multiplied by 0.15, gives the designed coefficient of lift (CL).
2. Second and third digits, when divided by 2, give p, the distance of maximum camber from the leading edge (as per cent of chord).
3. Fourth and fifth digits give the maximum thickness of the airfoil (as per cent of the chord).

For example, the NACA 12045 airfoil would give an airfoil with maximum thickness of 45% chord, located at 10% chord, with a lift coefficient of 0.15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_airfoil
Using this: http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/jf_applet.htm, I get this for NACA 23015:
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/23015.jpg
and this for 23009:
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/23009.jpg
I'm not sure exactly what the '.3' in 'NACA 23015.3' signifies - possibly a minor modification. Anyway, definitely not symmetrical. Take a look at photos of Fw 190 wings to confirm this, if you aren't convinced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

humm... could the ".3" be the Design Lift Coefficient? the data seems matching there.

ggb123
06-12-2010, 02:39 AM
does the "Design Lift Coefficient" sololy correspond to "the wing's" lift drag coefficient?

ggb123
06-12-2010, 02:43 AM
the NACA 23015 seem like a very low lift design in visual to me. how does it in compare to others fighters, I wonder...

Kettenhunde
06-12-2010, 01:55 PM
does the "Design Lift Coefficient" sololy correspond to "the wing's" lift drag coefficient?


For the section not the wing.