bbrz

If you insist on calculating your turn radius precisely during a dogfight, for whatever reason, knowing the ground speed and the wind direction would be essential as well.

Maybe times have changed over the years. When we did 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2 dogfights IRL we certainly didn't use the above formulae. Without any AoA gauge the only important things were our eyes and IAS. This additional TAS/performance thing doesn't do anything to help clarify things in this thread and for The Falcon in particular.

Because energy has nothing to do with groundspeed! Only IAS/CAS/TAS/EAS. Everyone in this thread is trying since many pages to explain this fact to you. I'm running out of ideas in which other way I could make you understand this very basic fact. Sorry.

And? You are talking the whole time about GS, not TAS!!!! TAS and CAS are basically identical at S.L. and both are not related the groundspeed in any way.

And that's IAS/CAS. From an aerodynamic POV the aircraft doesn't care about TAS at all.

This doesn't make much sense IMO in your mentioned combat scenario. Furthermore if both aircraft are at roughly the same altitude, TAS will be the same for both at the same IAS. So what would be the point to know TAS? Especially when maneuvering close to, or at the edge of the envelope, I'm much more interested in IAS than in TAS.

Yes, finally, he got it!

Corner speed is in TAS?

You are disregarding my example only because it doesn't fit into your wrong picture? Ok, I give up. Luckily it occurs rather seldom that someone is so stubborn. This is costing me way too much time and it's apparent that you are not even willing to consider changing your flawed view of the world/aerodynamics and their relationship. I've promised myself to leave this thread many pages ago....I should have stuck to my decision.

Wrong again. It's exactly the other way round. GS depends on IAS/CAS/TAS but IAS/CAS/TAS does NOT depend on GS. Flying at e.g. 400kts IAS will always result in the same energy, regardless of GS. If you pull up into a 90deg climb at 400kts IAS, the climb rate will be always the same, regardless if the GS is 200, 400 or 600kts.

So all flight manual performance tables like climb & turn performance & stall speed etc. are useless?

NO!!!! The climb angle is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's 9 or 90deg. In both cases you need excess energy to be able to climb.

According to you explanation which always includes ground, aircraft can of course fly backwards! 50kts TAS/IAS (which is the same at low altitude), 100kts headwind = -50kts groundspeed.

If you want an answer, just read my previous post: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4197183&postcount=100

No. Climb rate, turn rate, stall speed etc. is usually measured in CAS/IAS/EAS not TAS.

NO, and NO again. According your flawed theory the energy is zero, hence and aircraft shouldn't be able to climb at 0kts groundspeed, which is obviously wrong. An aircraft flying at 200kts indicated airspeed in a headwind of 200kts does NOT have zero energy despite a ground speed of 0kts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You still haven't understood aerodynamics, the related physics and you are still throwing navigation into the equation which doesn't belong there. IMO you weren't more clear. Rather the opposite. To me it was confusing and wrong as usual. I really don't understand why you keep discussing without knowing the basics about aerodynamics and aviation terminology.

Don't know where you get a variation from during a no flare landing. 3000-3700ft isn't a meaningful value. There's no 'range' in the performance tables. Yes of course. Lots of tests with the F-16 and the F/A-18. It's not exactly difficult to find out during testing that there's a serious brakes performance problem with and without antiskid.

With items like turbulence and thermals you are not making things easier to understand for The Falcon. If you want discuss basic flying techniques with prop driven aircraft and gliders you should open a new thread.

Please don't tell me that you are correcting the heading with the rudder IRL during the approach. Concerning gliders, either you are doing something wrong or the glider you are flying is bent.

What's de-crab? ;)

He doesn't use the rudder during the approach! He simply applies the WCA (wind correction angle) and flies a corrected heading so his track in relationship to the ground leads him to the runway. Again. Once ground (the runway) comes into play, we are talking about navigation and hence ground speed and ground track . None of these items has anything to do with aerodynamics or performance which is related to air speed, not ground speed. E.g. runway heading 090°, wind direction 360° = WCA -10deg. With the WCA applied you need to fly a heading of 080° to maintain a track of 090deg. The aircraft flies a heading of 080° without the need of any rudder application. The same is valid for all other directions. If the pilot wants to navigate at 30000ft towards a fixed point like e.g. a VOR and there's a crosswind component which requires a 10deg WCA, he flies the corrected heading to maintain the desired track to the VOR. Without the fixed point on earth you don't notice any difference if you fly a heading of 080°, 090° or any other heading, regardless of the wind speed and direction.

If this would be the case, every aircraft would weathervane into the wind during flight and you would have to correct with the rudder which clearly isn't the case. That's the proof.

@Deano87 I don't know why you are still arguing with 'the falcon'. If someone like he does posts things like ...if you don't understand the most basic things... ...Just to be clear for those who are slow to understand... ...Imop you all, are misunderstanding things written... any further discussion is obviously completely useless and just a waste of time.

With a heavy duty braking system you get e.g. these data for an A319. 40t, VREF 198km/h, landing distance from 50ft = 670m. Deceleration rate with autobrakes LOW = 0.17G, MED = 0.3G, MAX = 0.6G. The MAX value is just a target value and can't be achieved AFAIR.