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...
Gaston
P.S. Hitech did not address what he meant about me not taking into account the direction of the forces.
I should have said "Power" instead of "Energy" in the above sentence, since time is involved...
Also in a turn, I suggested all the forces are equal to zero, which is true, but I forgot to add that if there is no Power "into" the turn, then there is no turn... I was wrong to say it this way, and there is of course Energy and Time involved in a sustained turn, not just Force: Force is holding the wings bent, but Power
moves the aircraft up into the turn continuously while turning...
I think I have figured out what Badboy and all the others fail to understand: You guys assume that for a heavy small wing aircraft to have more "Power" available to turn, vs a light big wing aircraft, it requires "added Power"...
There is no "added Power" in my theory: To think that is to show you haven't read much of what I said...
In my theory,
all the nose-driven prop types
lose turning Power compared to what is theoretically available. They are all losers, so there is no excess turning Power...
This is why, despite a lesser climb rate and acceleration, and a minuscule
5% wingloading advantage (at 33.1lbs per sq. ft., compared with the Spitfire XIV's 35.1 lbs per sq. ft), the Vampire Mk I gains
25% in turn time per turn vs the Spitfire Mk XIV... (It reverses a tailing Spitfire XIV in four 360° turns)
Let me re-iterate this: An aircraft with
less Power-to weight (thus with less acceleration and climb rate) and a
5% wingloading advantage, will display a
25% advantage in turn time in low-speed sustained turns over a Spitfire XIV... How does that square with your calculations?
The reason for the above is that all the low-wing nose-driven prop types (of some weight and power at least)
lose turning Power compared to what is available to similar straight-wing jets. My contention is that some of the prop types lose less, some of the prop types lose more. There is
nothing that involves "extra" turning Power here...
The real problem, with my idea, is that there is a requirement for an extra lift Force to compensate for the huge lift Force loss needed to stabilize the nose thrust location higher vs the trajectory. Once the nose is lifted to the new AoA, there is no movement to keep it there: Just Forces.
The problem of this extra lift Force is that it seems to mean there is more lift Force available in turning flight than what is seen in wind tunnels: This extra Force can't come from nowhere: For a wing to maintain easily a powered nose at a more upward angle,
there is apparently extra Force to be found in curved airflow, just like your arm will find extra Force pulling on a pulley... How it does that is the real problem...
If the object is too heavy and the pulley doesn't lift it, your effort remains just Force, but that doesn't mean you don't lose your available physical Power pulling on it... Or that you would not lose
more available "Power" for applying the same Force with a smaller pulley... Well the Spitfire has a smaller pulley, so it loses more lifting Power than the FW-190A, which doesn't mean the FW-190A ever "gained" anything...
The "curved airflow pulley" is here to help hold the nose up into the turn, which contributes
no Power to pulling the aircraft up into the turn: On the contrary it subtracts from it... I don't think there is any physical law that says that a Force cannot reduce the effective motion of a given Power...
The Fw-190A certainly doesn't gain 25% per turn on a Spitfire Mk XIV, so it would still get creamed by the Vampire... Its turn Power potential is way below the Spitfire Mk XIV, but it just doesn't lose turn Power potential, to waste it on Force, as much as the Spitfire does.
Gaston
