Quote:
|
No my statement is 100% correct, the graph is turn radius at sea level
|
Your statement the graph is at sea level is correct and not the issue.
The issue is you imply that speed is not part of the equation and therefore it is wrong to say it is Equivilent Airspeed.
You do know we cannot have rotational motion without velocity, right?
An airplane that is not in motion has no turn radius.
It is not the fact the performance is graphed at sea level.
In fact, that is WHY it is Equivilent Airspeed!
Quote:
Bongodriver says:
My interpretation of the graph is that that bot the left and bottom figures are radius (note how the lines intersect exactly the same figures on both) and the note on the left just means 'sea level', no EAS or IAS involved, admittedly it is a very badly designed illustration.......what's the big deal?
|
It is the claim that you knew what EAS is used for and do not recognize that is questionable.
Does that mean EAS is just a term that you heard someplace or do you know its uses? It is ok to admit you don't know everything. I certainly don't, just ask my wife!
I did not call you a liar at all either. I said either you did not know or you are lying.
You claimed to know about Equivilent Airspeed in your second reply but you made the statement EAS or IAS is not a part of the math used to derive the graph published in the book. It is probably NOT done in IAS. While it is valid to do a turn performance analysis in IAS, it is not valid for performance comparision because of the PEC. It is also valid to do it in Calibrated Airspeed but CAS = EAS = TAS at sea level.
The fact is your only point is get the conversation shut down at this point so that we do not get to see any analysis that might not fit a small and very vocal agenda. Don't do that. What will follow is unbiased math that anyone can reproduce given the knowledge of aerodynamics. I will even keep it to the college algebra level so it is easy to see.
I am hoping it will quiet down the critism of developers on their FM's. I think they are close in the big picture and the Spitfire's issue is the heat effects. We can prove that.
Bottom line, I did not call you a liar. I said you made the claim to know something and either you did not fully understand it or not forthcoming about the level of understanding you posses. I have no idea what you do or do not know outside of what you write on these forums. The impetus is on you.