On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin see_REPLY-TO_header wrote:
On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques wrote
in news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
wrote:
[...]

You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with
a linear expanding g profile.
The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
problem.

Fun isn't it?

Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.

Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on the
Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in any
turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn parameters
are in play.

I see that now. Ok. My mistake.

I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
the Turkey was related to EM :-))

You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong but I'd
like another go!

You don't give altitude so I will assume it. You made me re-examine
where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs. Specific excess
power Ps is delta energy with delta time. Accounting for induced drag
which the question focuses on then (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs)
at that state I say you would get acceleration.

Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure) that
greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so airspeed could
fall. Am I getting closer?

If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
Dudley Henriques

That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match his
stunts to highlight E-M.