[Crumpp]

You will only be trading one set of assumptions for another set of inaccuracies.

Compressibility effects are accounted for by a tabular velocity correction in subsonic incompressible flow theory. The formulation for that correction is an approximation that is considered valid one up to ~Mach 2.3.

Who will determine the onset of compressibility and who will determine what theory we use? Each method accounts for the effects in varying amounts because each one gives different levels of agreement within small sections of the flight realm. Think of them like mathmatical microscopes, each is designed to exam with greater agreement a specific area of flight.

Now, that being said, there have been some real advances in this area. Our ability to express compressibility has greatly improved and I believe in our childrens lifetime, it will no longer be an issue.

Which area's are we going to trade one unrealistic set of assumptions for another unrealistic set of assumptions in order to be more realistics in say....

Mach .95 to Mach 2.2?? Nothing in WWII flew in this realm....

Or Mach .7 to Mach .9?? Nothing in WWII spent any significant time in this realm......

Or subsonic incompressible flow....

Zero airspeed to ~Mach .65 to .7, where ever you put the onset of compressibilty??? Hey, this is the realm WWII airplanes spend almost all of their time flying in!!

IMHO, this is an enviromental issue. The subsonic incompressible flow theory used in the game is considered valid and appropriate. The inaccuracies of it's tabular compressibility corrections still return a valid assumption and equally effects all the FM's.

The relative performance is in intact and all aircraft gain equally.

In short, you will not be making anything more accurate. You will only be trading one set of assumptions for another set of inaccuracies wrapped in a much more complicated package.