Thanks for this link. Yes, descending doesn't make a difference - it's all about acceleration, or a downwards movement of your VSI (i.e. increasing rate of descent, or decreasing rate of climb if you started in a climb).
If we let the nose fall in the base-to-final turn so that the airplane is accelerating downward, we are going to have to stop that at some point, or crash. We need to raise the nose to stop it, and that adds load factor, the very thing we were attempting to avoid when we let the nose fall.
Certainly CFIs are teaching. And the pilot remembers that stuff. For a while.
Yes, but 1) that can be done after removing the bank, or 2) adding a little power to counter the additional descent rate.
I believe discussion this is nothing more than delving into the nuances of aoa more completely than is usually done.
I'm glad you deleted the 'teaching aoa' part you originally posted but 'delving into the nuances of aoa' without introducing aoa into the discussion is the mental masturbation I was referring to. As for the 'usually done' part, you'll need to better define the scope of your 'usual,' as in my experience (scope) the relationship between AOA and stall is fundamental, and usually (again, in my experience) presented as such.
I'm not talking about the video. I'm talking about the thread.
I have yet to go out of control into the ground when banking harder and not pulling back on base to final. Just lucky I guess.
It might be only 1, but at the cost of an accelerating descent rate. The problem with that has to do with the eventual recovery: it takes AoA and therefore considerably more load factor to stop that descent, and close to the ground, at approach speed, that's not desirable. A controlled load factor increase in the turn is much safer.
Not at all. I’m saying I never went out of control and crashed into the ground because of it. You’re making it sound much worse than reality. A bit more power, or start with extra altitude and nothing to worry about.
Well, first off, I don't think I've ever pulled a 45 degree bank on a base to final turn, but....
That 6 second turn is not at 1g though. If you don't increase the total lift, the horizontal component of lift will be less than a normal turn. Since it's a 45 degree bank and the vertical component is 29% less, the horizontal component is also 29% less. Making your 45° 1g turn more like a 35° turn. The turn will take approximately 11 seconds and will lose 570 feet, not to mention you will have a 6,193 fpm descent rate to arrest at the end of the turn, which you are ignoring. You can't arrest such a descent rate without increasing the load factor far above what it would have been if you just performed a normal, stable turn where the weight is balanced by VCL in the first place.
Uh. Ok, so if it doesn't turn, where is the energy going that was lost due to the bank?
I don't do "energy".
ok. where did the lift go, since now we are plummeting to our death and not turning?
Let me say it my way, "In order to turn, i.e., deflect the flight path, you need to use the wing (more surface area than, say, the side of the fuselage) by pulling the stick. That incurs load factor as the result. If you don't have load factor, you aren't deflecting the flight path. Some might say it's centrifugal force, which is fine by me. Don't have much of it? You don't have much of turn either."
I find it amazing how intelligent, experienced pilots can disagree so much on a fundamental. And I'm not including myself in that group.
That's how I teach emergency descents. We peg the VSI in a 45° bank in a few seconds, just like the math shows. Yet people want to argue with both the theory and the empirical data because they "feel" that they know better.
Stalling in the pattern is bad, but so are ballistic descents. You get to pick one or the other.