The confusing thing is that most forces do cause movement, even if it does not move the object it acts on as a whole, it may just cause internal movement within the object, in the form of strain or deflection and thus energy is almost always involved when forces are applied.
Badboy
Yes but there is something inherently not relevant, it seems to me, to wing bending in sustained turns in what you say above:
While the wing is in the process of bending there is movement until the effort has reached its peak: Let's say 3 G. For that peak-preceding period, there is indeed wing movement, there is in fact a part of energy, as you say, because there is movement from a point A to a point B, most visibly for the wingtips at least...
If the wingtips are raised fast, or slow, this will affect the amount of energy present: This is irrelevant to the discussion of sustained turns...
To
maintain the wing bent at the
same value, there is no longer any wing movement, therefore energy, or "work", is no longer present, except in a "potential" form, stored in the elasticity of the wings.
You are pointing out something that is not relevant throughout the turn, for the sustained part of the turn: Once the peak has been reached there is no longer any wing movement, and therefore no longer any "work".
And, once again, depending on leverages,
you can get more force out than you put in, which is what I have been saying all along... Your insistence there is energy involved in maintaining the wings bent seems to me to muddy the waters: The only reason there is "potential energy" stored here is that the wing are not infinitely rigid... We are discussing physics, not materials...
The biggest problem of my theory, which you consistently fail to point out, is that the described leverages forces are all downward.
The real problem with my theory is that it implies far greater wing lift forces than anything previously assumed to counter-act this, with minimal loss of speed (I think in part because the prop assymetry is actually an increase of thrust on the inside of the turn: Prop blade efficiency becomes greater inside the turn: Again,
not an increase of energy, but a simply a reduction of inefficiency).
Again, the greater than assumed lift forces would be an increase in lift efficiency. No energy or "work" involved here, if the sum of all the added downward forces reduce movement to zero, which of course they do...
That this increase of wing lift efficiency is unknown from wind-tunnel tests is very easy to understand: No powered flight, no control surface-induced change in attitude, and, I'll bet, no real replication of curved flight airflow...
The only way to really know if these extra forces are present is to measure the wing bending in level turns.
Guess what? No such test has surfaced for WWII types, except that the procedure is seen as a modern high-tech luxury, exclusively done by pulling out of dives...
Another problem with the theory is that it implies that the CL moves forward of the CG.
This forward CL movement would, in my opinion, not affect directional stability for an obvious reason: Given what I described by now, you should easily understand why...
Gaston
P.S. Hitech did not address what he meant about me not taking into account the direction of the forces.
