No STAR for you.
Power = D * F / T (like 1 HP = 550 ft lb per second)
And Since D * F = Work
Work per time I.E. Work/time = power.
From above P * T = D * F
Since Energy E = P * T (like WATT HOURS or KWH)
E = D * F
hence Energy = Work
While Gaston is correct in that Force and distance can be converted to and from each other via levers or pulleys while still maintaining the Same Energy
Since W = E and W = F * D take any distance you want and solve for the force.
His conclusion from the above fail to take into account things like the direction of a force. And many people seem to think of G's as a force, it is not, it is a unit of acceleration.
HiTech
Well indeed it looks like power is a more correct term than my use of the term energy: Energy was explained to me by an engineer as force over distance over time, as opposed to force over distance being work, which I misremembered as just "force"... He did not use the term power in the conversation we had, for some reason, but it was twenty years ago... At least now I know the exact terms...
G is a unit of acceleration, but the momentum of the fuselage pressing down on the wings, in a sustained turn, is work: The turn being sustained speed means time disappears from the equation beyond the gas tank: It is just force over distance.
In any case, the accepted wingloading theory, which in my opinion is
unverified for WWII-type low wing monoplane nose-driven fighters (I have yet to find any evidence of wing bending measurement
ever being taken during horizontal turns, as opposed to dive pull-outs, but would love to be shown some...), this currently accepted theory is different from my theory -that the FW-190A exerts less
work on its wings than the Spitfire- because it assumes the distances between the various forces are that same between types.
First of all, I find it suspicious that the assymetrical inflow of air into the prop disc is not taken into account: From what I understand, this is assumed to be negligible... I don't see what is implausible about a hundred pounds of force being required for each degree of angle of attack increase, when forcing a flat disc to follow a curvature... Over the whole thrust of the disc, a hundred pounds per degree is very little...
The only argument against this (made to me by an aeronautic engineer) is the following: At a modest sustained turn 7° AoA, it would imply 700 lbs of force at the nose, which would require a similar force on the elevators to maintain just 7° (maybe just 500 lbs given the tail being longer than the nose, a ratio of about 1.5 to one on a P-51).
Obviously the pilot is not figting such huge forces in his elevators... The error everyone is making is to assume that the movement of the whole aircraft makes, while starting to pivot nose up, is initially just a pivoting action around its CG. I think the pivot point is very briefly closer to the prop, and this means the whole aircraft is, for a micro-second, more sweeping tail-down into the angle rather than pivoting, which action could shift the CL in front of the CG.
The CL shifting in front of the CL means that, as the turn tightens, the further pivoting action is actually
helped by the scissor action of the CL being in front of the CG: That is why the pilot cannot feel the resistance of the prop in his elevator...
You can actually see the effect in the very claims Hitech has made of his own flying experience: He has confirmed 6G dive pull-outs in a P-51D at speeds well below 300 mph.
Yet, when the Society of Experimental Test Pilots tested in 1989 the minimum speed to reach 6 Gs in actual
horizontal turns, the minimum speed the P-51D needed to reach 6 G horizontally without stalling was 320 mph: Why is 6 G so easy to reach below 300 mph in dive pull-outs compared to genuine horizontal turns?
Well at least the question must be
asked before it can even be answered... The answer could be that, while diving, the prop disc is unloaded by air hitting the front of the blade at a greater rate than propulsion: This could tip the balance to nullify the effect of the prop getting assymetrical incoming air...
Suggestions that the SETP were somehow distorting the tests, which they bothered to make at great expense, doesn't seem too convincing to me... Sorry, but I'll take their word over yours...
So if, for the sake of argument, we accept that through incoming air assymetry the prop is putting, through nose length leverage, a greater downward force on the wings, for this to actually work at bending the wings more, then the wings themselves also have to come up with more force coming up, for the whole thing to stay up...
I think there is a way for the wing to generate correspondingly greater lift: If the CL does shift forward, there is something going on with the airflow around the wing... The fact that
no wing bending tests in actual horizontal turns has surfaced is pretty telling: I would have expected those to be easily found...
The point I wanted to make about the Force/Energy issue is that
there is no physical laws against getting more "work" out of something than you put in: A simple lever will do it... The assumption here is that, in the case of these aircrafts, the direction of the "work" creates no leverages that could play around with the outcomes: Until that assumption is backed by actual wing bending measurements in actual flight while actually turning horizontally, this is an assumption with no science behind it...
And the fact that a supposed 50% advantage in wingloading remains completely invisible in actual live combat is particularly ludicrous: I have five separate examples of FW-190As out-turning Spitfires in slow speed sustained turns (right where my theory predicts the greatest advantage), two of them general pilot statements as to an overall FW-190A advantage in that area, and so far I have never found slow-speed sustained turn examples of the contrary in actual combat. That's five to zero. A mighty discrete 50% wingloading advantage...
Yes test and general pilot lore tells the opposite, but somehow when an actual
specific combat happens, it is always the opposite that comes up... But in these things remember this: Any out-turning event for the FW-190A counts, while for the Spitfire it has to be demonstrably low-speed and sustained turns, with no diving or high speed just before: By this accounting it is five to zero for the Fw-190A so far...
Gaston
