I can see where I set myself up nicely for your latest moral
redressing.

Not sure what you mean.

What I mean are your consistent unfriendly didacticisms. The
defensiveness you've displayed in your last posts is unwarranted, as
is your gratuitous stern tone. I am neither attempting to provoke you
nor challenge your knowledge. In fact, I respect it. However, for
reasons unbeknownst to me, you've set upon a course to systematically
dismiss every one of my comments without the least consideration for
merit. The gist of your reply revolves around the irrelevance of my
comments with respect to the deceleration due to drag with a forward
c.g. condition. In contrast, I believe that my subsequent comments
are very much relevant digressions that expound upon your original
thread.


My previous description pertaining to constant airspeed with a sink
rate after the forward c.g. shift was valid only if you didn't touch
any controls.

My previous comments were with respect *only* to the increase in drag, and
resulting increase in deceleration rate. Constant airspeed and sink rate
are irrelevant to those comments.


Constant airspeed and sink rate are in fact relevant to those
comments, as they succeed the latter. With no control inputs after
the forward c.g. shift, you will experience a lower pitch attitude and
a subsequent sink rate at constant airspeed.



If I understand your assertion, you want to maintain altitude without
augmenting power so I concur that you would have to reduce your
airspeed through a control input to meet the higher drag.

Not sure where you got the impression that I "want to maintain altitude".
All I "want" to do is explain why airspeed scrubs off more quickly when the
CG is farther forward.


I was wrong. I assumed that you wanted to maintain altitude, and I am
sure you know what happens when you assume.



I note that the above would be invalid on the backside of the power
curve since the increase in angle of attack further compounds the drag
accumulation. In such case, only a power augmentation could be the
remedy.

No, a decrease in angle of attack in that situation would reduce drag.


A decrease in angle of attack would change your altitude, an excursion
I was trying to prevent.


Can we agree on this?

We can agree on any number of things. But you would need to stay on topic
and not make up purely hypothetical but physically impossible situations for
us to do so, at least in this thread.

Pete