no ...
in this case i expressed my doubts that weight was inconsequential in and of itself and was presented with the premise that a plane with the same loadings with 2x the size weight and power would maneuver just as well as a plane that shared those loadings with 1/2 the values.
i once again expressed my doubts and the discussion deteriorated because we could not find any real world pertinent examples. you pointed out the b17 i assume jokingly and as i recall BnZ tried to use the f-104 and F-15 as examples neither of which are very pertinent to the discussions for obvious reasons.
essentially my stand is that size and weight are stand alone factors in maneuverability and that even if you could find an exact match on the loadings the maneuver advantage would still go to the smaller lighter aircraft.
as i stated before a good example without extreme advantages in one of the loadings or another was unable to be found.
i remain rather doubtful about the ability for the heavier fighters to have hight rates of success vs. their lighter opponents in maneuver fights as some argue should be the case. the lack of any real world expert opinions supporting the heavy fighters case in those situations reinforces my doubts in this matter.
i hope my answer helped to clarify my points and did not do harm to your intent to discuss things in parts.
I have read this 3 times, no where did you answer my question other than statement, No.
But forget the past I really do not care what happened before , we are talking your statement in this thread.
I Asked one simple question
PLEASE DEFINE ""In and By its self", with out you doing that I can not begin to debate, you now are using the term stand alone. Please do not bring all other bogus stuff like F15's into this example.
Maneuverability as defined by Shaw is the ability to change the direction of your Velocity vector.
The force that changes the direction of your VEL vector is LIFT, yes Slip can do a little for you but we are not talking about minutia here.
So the simple math.
What you are trying to calculate to determine rate of tern is acceleration in the direction of the lift vector, (or perpendicular to the Vel vector);
Given the same an air foil with twice the area Lift will double at a give speed.
To be specific Lift = Ro/2 * V*V * LCO * Area.
LCO = LIft coef.
Ro = Air Density.
V = Speed.
Now simply the air foil shape and Angle of attack determine the LCO. Since we are looking at max here we in all cases we are dealing with MaxLCO which will remain the same with all airfoils.
Per the test V is not changing and we are not changing alt so Ro is not changing.
Hence since we doubled the Area.
Lift = Area in 1 case.
and Lift = Area * 2 in the 2nd case.
Hence with 2 times wing area we have 2 times the Lift.
next Acceration (I.E the turning force) is given by the simple equation.
F = M * A.
F = Force
M = Mass
A = Acceleration.
In this example the Force is our lift. So in this example and yours 1 plane has 2 times the Mass.
So Substituing for the above.
Plane 1 Lift1 = Mass1 * A or A = Lift1 / Mass1
Plane 2 Lift1 * 2 = (Mass1 * 2) * A or A = (Lift1 * 2) / (Mass1 * 2) or Can-cling the 2s A = Lift1 / Mass1.
Plane 1 A = Plane 2 A I.E. The both turn 100% the same rate.
I.E. x = y and y = z hence x = z.
So now which definition do you wish to change to fit your statement? Or do you wish to argue simple physics and math.
HiTech
For the purpose of expediency, I will assume you Mean that "In and By its self" is that adding weight will always make a plane less maneuverable.