Talk:Maneuvering speed

message: The equations given reference a variable n that is not defined anywhere.  Additionally, cite note 4 "14 CFR §23.335(c)(2) Definition of Maneuvering Speed" seems to be outdated because the referenced subsection of 14 CFR §23 does not seem to exist in section 23 anymore when the hyperlink is followed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nccox2 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Design maneuvering speed VA" doesn't do a good job of explaining the concept 

message: The formulas are presented as if they are a matter of physics but all of the references in this article go back to legislative or bureaucratic rules. This does not mean the math is wrong but rather that the formula is answering a question of rules compliance rather than addressing fundamental physical laws. This should be made clear at some place in the article. I have not completed an exhaustive search, but a moderate search for fundamental physics explanations or controlled empirical testing(eg windtunnel) evidence has so far failed to contradict my position. So far all attempts at physical explanations seem to be caught in a huge circular reference situation. Which is not too surprising as pilot training involves a large amount of rote memorization rather than a complete physics and engineering foundation.(Due in large part to practical limits of study time, effort, and certification exam emphasis; the scientific details must compete with the quantity of governing rules for a place in a pilot's knowledge.)
Going back to the Va formulas. The issue is that force and resulting mechanical stress is not measured by units of acceleration, rather the force and resultant stress is the product of acceleration and mass. Secondly, the total force that can be applied is limited aerodynamically, independent of the aircraft mass or weight.(my use of weight here is strict, that is force created by [gravitational] acceleration. Any Physical explanations should hold regardless of planet and thus the use of units of "g forces" is improper and confuses the base issue.) 
The AA587 example in the implications section as an example, was not caused by simple angular or translational acceleration rates but rather by dynamic inputs that allowed momentary angles of attack, and thus peak forces, which are not achievable in a static or equilibrium condition. Increased inertial mass and, assuming the increased mass is concentrated in the fuselage not evenly distributed in the skin of the control surface, thus lower rates of acceleration would actually increase the time at or near peak force in this dynamic condition as well as the potential for achieving increased peak forces in practice, worsening structural loads.
Thus reference is needed to empirical evidence from properly controlled experiments to support one of the hypothesis.
2601:603:A80:5424:76D4:35FF:FE09:A421 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Formulas can be used to give useful "rule of thumb" values, without needing to be scientifically rigorous. References only need to show that these formulas are used, in the context of the article. (Hohum @) 18:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are no hard physics or controlled empirical references.