LarryinTN said:
Your responses imply that I don't understand what I'm doing and I know that you know better than that.
I know that you are very, very bright, are very experienced, and intimidate some of your captains with your knowledge.
That said, I don't think it reasonable to assume that your knowledge and experience in other areas equips you to be knowledgeable in a subject that you have not studied. Unless you have spent a lot of time actually studying the underlying science of flight mechanics, I don't think it reasonable to assume that you have above average insight into the "why's" of what's occurring when we manipulate the controls in certain ways. Given that I have invested a large amount of time into exploring exactly that, I think it's reasonable that you would accept my interpretations of that reality, particularly when I can back it up with mathematics and diagrams. I don't mind being asked for evidence.
As an example of the above, you launched into this discussion with an egregiously wrong statement to Roger, Roger, contradicting his correct statement that the elevator controlled AoA. Even after I supplied information that should have convinced you that he was correct, you still have not acknowledged your error on this and I fear you are not convinced. With such a fundamental misconception in place, it would be very difficult for much of your other analysis of aircraft flight mechanics to be correct. Yes, I know you know
what happens, but your explanations of
why would be very suspect.
What I assert is that there is only one correct interpretation of the physics involved in what we are talking about and that should always be where the discussion starts. After the physics is settled, there is a case to be made for instilling a model that is different from reality into the heads of pilots. If it truly provides the same results, maybe there's no harm done. I'm skeptical that the pitch for altitude model works in a behind the power curve scenario with marginal power; you say that it does but haven't described how you program pilots to do it.
In response to your other questions, no, I never switch explanations depending on phase of flight. AoA (elevator) always controls airspeed no matter what phase of flight. In steep turns, the only way to maintain altitude using the yoke only is to accept an airspeed reduction, which is contrary to the PTS requirements. To fly a steep turn properly, you need to increase the AoA (elevator) to maintain airspeed (otherwise the aircraft will accelerate as the bank increases) and you need to add power to maintain altitude at the new draggier position.
I can show that this is the case using power curves.
As for maintaining altitude in cruise flight, note that I have never made the case that power controls altitude, only that
excess power does. You can get excess power via the throttle or the yoke by changing your airspeed (elevator->AoA).
I can show via power curves how an airplane climbs and descends by making small airspeed changes.
Lastly, I am puzzled as to why you would say that I'm confusing pitch and AoA (elevator) when I'm the one who made the careful delineation between the two, defined the difference mathematically, and pointed out that pitch attitude is a result, not a cause of anything. It's like telling a math major that he doesn't understand the difference between addition and multiplication. The only thing I can think of is that you read the word "pitch" when I say "elevator". Looking over some of your previous posts hints that this might be the case. The elevator doesn't control pitch, as defined by the angle the longitudinal axis makes with the horizon.
I bet your almost old enough to be my dad. Im gonna tag a wag at it, but I say, uh, mid 50's (ducks behind the couch to avoid flying things).
