buttman wrote:

OK, forget the entropy. The point I was making is that energy is lost.
Energy that can't be used.

If you're trying to analyze maneuvers by using energy, you're not going to
get anywhere fast. You are converting chemical energy into heat energy,
kinetic energy, grav. potential energy, etc. The air is sapping a varying
amount of energy from you as you climb, turn, change AOA, etc etc. As the
prop speeds up, or slows down, and/or the AOA of the prop changes,
effeciency ratios change. When you're climbing, the engine is getting
hotter and it can be argued that even that would affect the
efficiency/effectiveness of the engine. Thrust/power curves are constantly
changing. The list going on.


When you're doing a lazy 8 in a fixed pitch prop, when you slow down,
the engine produces less horsepower. Its like pulling the throttle back
in the maneuver. This problem doesn't exist with a constant speed prop
because engine RPM is maintained, therefore horsepower remains the
same.

If the HP remains the same as you slow down, then the thrust must increase
linearly as you slow down. This doesn't happen, nor do we get an infinite
amount of thrust standing still before the takeoff roll.


I think this is why everyone always says how its sooooo much
easier to do commercial maneuvers in the bonanza as opposed to our
skyhawks or cherokees.

It is?


I don't see how this is any more insignifigant than p-factor or any
other phenomenom.

This isn't a "How to get a Pilot Certificate" newsgroup, it's a "piloting"
newsgroup. Anything related to piloting including getting a certificate,
the theory of flight, crash analysis, and what if scenarios are perfectly
valid and I would strongly encourage such debate and discussion. If people
don't care about stuff that doesn't help them pass their checkride, they
don't have to read the theoretical posts.

Keep posting!

Hilton