Name something that yields more energy than is put into it.
I didn't say more energy, I said more FORCE... What is bending the wings on a constant speed turning aircraft (especially at a constant speed, so at the lower speed end) is purely a FORCE, and that has nothing to do with energy...
That you can get more FORCE out of something than you put in has been established since Archimedes.
All those who claimed that my idea, which was that a light aircraft with bigger wings might possibly bend its wings with more force, at the same G load, than a heavier aircraft with smaller wings at the same G load (not as an established fact, but just as something theoretically possible and allowed by physical laws), and then went on to claim that this violated physical laws, then these people simply showed they did not understand the difference between force and energy...
Although this apparently has never been measured in horizontal turns for low-wing nose-driven aircrafts (horizontal turns which I think are fundamentally different in dynamics than dive pull-outs), my basic idea that a Spitfire may, under horizontal turn circumstances, have a heavier wingloading than a FW-190A,
is allowed by basic physical laws...
As far as I know, all the wing bending that was definitely tested on low-wing nose-driven types is static ground wing bending tests...
To simplify, the nose position of the thrust, and the assymetrical incoming air of a turn, both open the door (in my opinion) to in-flight leverages in a horizontal turns that would not really show up in a dive pull-out (which dive pull-outs I am told are the only way wing-bending measurements in flight are actually taken: Don't ask me why).
It is not clear to me that even dive pull-outs wing-bending measurements
in flight were ever done with nose-pulled low-wing monoplanes, since those tend to be old or low-cost aircrafts.
In-flight wing-bending measurements are a very expensive and very uncommon thing for small or old aircrafts, apparently... Ask any Warbird operator (as I have): It is not even on their radar screen...
Once again, it is part of the most basic laws of physics that you
can get more force out of something than you put in... If the speed in the turn is not decaying, as with sustained speed turns of around 3 Gs, then you are dealing only
with pure force bending the wings.
Zero energy at play, except for what is burning away in the fuel tank...
And with these basic physical facts established, some first hand observations finally start to make sense:
RCAF John Weir: "A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable,
much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't.
A Spit was a higher wing loading..."
"
The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a, on a, on a Messerschmitt,
but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know."
Gaston
