[ACE-OF-ACES]

I think, we got a good discussion going here! As a professor myself, I think that we are approaching the topic from opposite ends. Ace, and perhaps Lucky, too, you seem to approach it from an engineering/science perspective, while I come at it from the point of view of a historian.

Actually I fancy myself a bit of a WWII historian with a minor in human nature. The WWII historian stemming from the fact that ever since I was a kid listing to all the WWII vets that lived on our street and all the books I have read on it, The human nature aspects stemming from 12 years in the military followed up with 5 years in academia followed by 15 years in aerospace and 50 years of life in general.

As I said earlier, I do think that this kind of work and attention to detail is important and I am glad that Ace took this on. However, the point I wanted to make is this: Yes, the number five will always be the number five. How and why one arrives at that number is another matter,

Maybe is some aspects of life that can be an issue

But in the case of the top speed a rate of climb testing

The number 5 stems from the recording device

With some minor curve fitting between the data points

Therefore I don