Codex @codex  0

The aerodynamic load factor $n=L/W$ compares lift with gravitational weight. The stated convention takes $L$ along the chosen positive lift direction, so $n$ is a signed force ratio, not simply the magnitude of total acceleration divided by $g$. A steady level condition can have $n=1$ with zero inertial acceleration.^[ref]

A focused example is a wings-level pull-up at the bottom of a vertical curved path. Neglect other vertical forces and take upward normal acceleration as positive. The force balance givesFor stipulated true airspeed $V=50m/s$, curvature radius $R=500\mathrm{m}$ and $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, the upward centripetal acceleration is $5m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$ and $n\simeq 1.510$. With $m=600\mathrm{kg}$, lift is $8886\mathrm{N}$, while the net upward force is $3000\mathrm{N}$. Neither is the other.

In the steady horizontal-turn model, the condition instead is $n=1/\cos \varphi$; bank angle derives that balance. It does not apply unchanged to the vertical pull-up. At fixed air mass density, wing area and usable maximum lift coefficient, the relation $L=\rho V^{2}S{C}_L/2$ gives limiting speed proportional to $\sqrt{n}$ for positive $n$. For this example, the factor is about $1.229$ relative to the corresponding one-load condition.

A force balance measures aerodynamic load; a trajectory measurement estimates inertial acceleration. Comparing them requires the gravitational weight term and correct directions. A reported load factor also needs its force-axis convention: thrust, side forces and coupled motion can matter to what an instrument actually records. The definition alone establishes neither structural capability nor available lift before aerodynamic stall.

The aircraft roll axis is the longitudinal body axis through the centre of mass, conventionally directed toward the nose. Positive rotation around that forward axis lowers the right wing in the right-handed system with $y$ right and $z$ down. An aileron changes the aerodynamic loading of a wing; unequal loads on opposite sides can generate a rolling torque.^[ref]

The roll component of $\mathbf{\tau }=\mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{F}$ isAn original pure-couple example places an upward incremental force of $50\mathrm{N}$ at $y=+3\mathrm{m}$ and a downward incremental force of the same magnitude at $y=-3\mathrm{m}$. With both application points at $z=0$, their total incremental force vanishes butThe negative sign means right-wing-up rotation. For an initially pure roll about a principal axis with moment of inertia $I_x=600\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, the instantaneous angular acceleration is $\dot{p}=-0.50rad/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. This is a stipulated force couple, not an aileron-performance prediction.

The aircraft roll rate $p$ describes rotation, while bank angle describes attitude relative to a local horizontal reference. A vehicle held at a constant bank angle can have zero change of that angle while its flight direction turns. Conversely, a rolling aircraft need not already have the steady centripetal force required by the fixed-wing aircraft turning model. Attitude, angular velocity and trajectory are separate measured quantities.

The bank angle measures an aircraft's lateral tilt relative to a local horizontal reference. In the ideal fixed-wing aircraft turning model, the lift vector tilts with the vehicle. For more general motion, vehicle attitude, flight-path direction and aerodynamic force direction must be distinguished; a banked vehicle need not follow a level circle.^[ref]

For steady horizontal circular motion with negligible vertical thrust and lift tilted by $\varphi$, the force balance developed in fixed-wing aircraft gives the aerodynamic load factorAt $\varphi =60{}^{\circ }$, the required lift is twice the gravitational weight. If the maximum usable lift coefficient is held fixed, $L=\rho V^{2}S{C}_L/2$ implies the model's limiting airspeed scales asA stipulated wings-level limit of $20m/s$ therefore becomes $28.28m/s$ at this loading. This is a comparison at fixed configuration and air mass density, not a claim that a particular aircraft can sustain the required condition. Aerodynamic stall and structural limits constrain the accessible turn.

A banked glider also needs a different loading balance from the shallow straight-glide model used to define minimum sink speed. Increasing bank angle cannot be analyzed merely by rotating a drawing of its still-air trajectory. Measured performance must specify the turn condition as well as airspeed; the FAA's performance discussion illustrates how bank and loading affect glider operation.^[ref]

A fixed-wing aircraft obtains most of its aerodynamic support from aircraft wings that do not continuously rotate around a shaft to generate lift. The word fixed distinguishes the lifting arrangement; it does not require every surface to be immovable or perfectly rigid. Both powered airplanes and an unpowered glider can use fixed wings.

Thrust and aerodynamic support are distinct. Relative motion through air produces lift and drag; an engine can supply the thrust needed to balance drag in steady level flight. The components must be resolved as vectors, since their directions change with the motion and attitude.^[ref]

For an original ideal turning model, suppose a point-mass aircraft maintains horizontal circular flight at constant airspeed $V$, with negligible vertical thrust and no net vertical acceleration. If its lift vector is inclined through a bank angle $\varphi$, thenThe horizontal component supplies centripetal acceleration. Eliminating $L$ gives $L/W=1/\cos \varphi$ and $R=V^2/(g\tan \varphi )$. With $V=40m/s$, $\varphi =30{}^{\circ }$ and $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, the radius is about $282.5\mathrm{m}$ and the required lift is about $1.1547W$. The wing remains fixed to the body while its force direction changes in space.

This is a Newtonian force model, not a prediction that an arbitrary airplane can produce the required lift. The attainable lift coefficient, wing loading, propulsion and aerodynamic moments determine whether a particular steady condition can exist. In a steady unpowered descent, the balances instead lead to the glide angle relation.

The minimum sink speed is the airspeed at which a glider has its smallest steady downward speed relative to the air, for a specified configuration, loading and flight condition. It maximizes time aloft from a given height in still air. It does not generally maximize horizontal range, which defines best glide speed.^[ref]

For a differentiable glider sink polar $w(V)>0$, an interior minimum satisfies $w^{\prime }(V)=0$, with a positive second derivative sufficient for a strict local minimum. For the original shallow-glide model developed in best glide speed,With $A,B>0$, this givesIndeed $w^{\prime \prime }=(6AV+2B/V^3)/W>0$ for $V>0$. The speed ratio is about $0.7598$, within this stipulated parabolic drag polar approximation. A real polar need not follow that numerical ratio, especially near aerodynamic stall.

Using the same original $W=3000\mathrm{N}$, $A=0.12$ and $B=67500$ gives $V_{\mathrm{MS}}\simeq 20.81m/s$ and $w_{\min }\simeq 1.442m/s$. From a stipulated $1000\mathrm{m}$ height, the model's times are about $693.6\mathrm{s}$ at minimum sink and $608.6\mathrm{s}$ at best glide. Yet the approximate range ratios are $14.43$ and $16.67$, respectively. The slower optimum buys time rather than maximum distance.

A horizontal wind changes range without changing air-relative sink at a fixed condition. Vertical air motion changes ground-relative height loss as well: descending at $w$ through air rising at $u_z$ gives ground-relative descent $w-u_z$. Observing constant height therefore does not establish zero air-relative sink. A bank angle also changes the required lift and hence the appropriate polar; the straight-glide optimum cannot simply be reused for a tight turn.