FLCH,
Thanks for your "don't lets get started on the power ...... " comment, so I'll get finished on my comments instead of perpetuating them.
I don't think there's anyone, from a High School physics student through to a NASA aerodynamacist who would argue with the formula -
Power = Force X Velocity, or, in pilot speak -
Power = Thrust X TAS
I've always disliked the "Performance = Attitude + Power" mantra because there's too many flaws in the statement. When I saw the thread, it occurred to me that, at least for a jet aircraft, it was true (at last). Because jet aircraft produce thrust IN ISOLATION to power, Attitude (assuming that Angle of Attack is implied here) + Thrust = Meaningless. If we inject speed into the formula, i.e. AoA + Thrust + Speed = Performance, then, for the jet it DOES make sense, and Thrust and Speed together is power.
I hope, scrubba, that "power" DOESN't really meant thrust anyway, because it's meaningless until we add speed. I'm well aware that many jet pilots continue to use the term "Power" when they really mean "Thrust", so, if they wish to continue to use this mis-noma, OK then, so long as they add the caveat "but make sure that your speed is also appropriate for the performance profile sought" A jet pilot does have power available to his/herself, but must look at 2 sets of instruments to ascertain it, the engine instruments, AND the airspeed.
TyroPicard, props do indeed produce Thrust, as a function of the Engine Power delivered, and an INVERSE function of the forward aircraft speed. The faster that you fly at a constant power setting, the less is the thrust delivered by the propeller. Now we have to consider whether the originator of the Performance = Attitude + Power mantra was referring to engine power, or "Aircraft" power, i.e. Net propeller thrust and forward speed in isolation to the engine power required to produce that thrust. The latter makes sense, the former does not.
Now taking FLCH's advice, I'm outa here.
Regards,
Old Smokey