Islander2 - some really interesting points. The low structural failure speed applies to all C152s as both the aerobat and common-all garden variants have the same limiting load factor flaps down, its only clean where the aerobat can pull more G so the comment applies to all C152s!
"Actually, no, they're not that close at all. In any event, you'd sought a 'theoretical answer to a theoretical question'; it's probably not helpful to then dismiss the theory by arguing that, for practical purposes, the answers are pretty close!"
Not trying to dismiss the theory....just understand why the consensus in the industry seems to be that they are the same thing.
"Basic airmanship, eh? Let's examine that more closely."
Sorry - that comment just applied to not exceeding the limit loads in the flight configuration (flaps up/down etc) which I am sure you agree is basic airmanship.
"Advising that a maximum performance manoeuvre be flown with flaps down for safety reasons is both wrong and highly dangerous. You may not like my use of the word 'appalled', but I'm confident it's appropriate. "
Just to clarify.....I started the thread by asking the question which pretty much means that I know zero about the subject and am not in a position to advise anybody anything. Refering to the referenced article I think the point the guy was making was that the low speed option was supposed to NOT be a maximum performance manoever, and thats where the margin came from. I think his choice of example speeds and bank angles may be inappropriate (especially for our example a/c) as your maths demonstrates but if your going to be appaled by anybody, please be appaled at him as he should in a position to know better!
Islander 2 - Cheers - so its a no, they are different from you.
Brian Abraham - Cheers - so its a yes they are the same from you.
rapiddescent - Cheers - its a definate no from you, but presumably an 'EM' diagram is 'Energy Management' - again, didn't get one of those with the C-152 POH.
BEagle - your explaination agrees with the detail provided by Islander2 against his JP experience
, but in line with BAs point, it's not sustainable in the aircraft I am being quized on (C-152). As discussed earlier in the thread (getting quite a long way back now) I should re-itterate that we were looking at the maximum possible rate turn and not the maximum possible rate LEVEL turn.
For a light aircraft, I think its been accepted (I am sure I will corrected if wrong) that the absolute max rate turn is flown on the buffet at the lowest speed capable of generating the limit load.
BEagle - just noticed your last post appear and noticed that you included the issues with needing to desend. Really interesting about the Gnat and Hunter by the way, especially since the 152 I fly is limited to 6G the same as your aircraft! I won't be trying this out in a hurry - don't worry.
"Speed is immaterial - you fly on the buffet nibble with full power. AoA is indicated by the light buffet."
Is this true? I understand that you let the speed build on the buffet until you reach limiting G, but presumably then you hold that speed. Maintaining (say) +6G in a turn and letting the airspeed increase will reduce the rate of turn won't it?
In summary, I think we all agree on the maximum rate turn more or less (minimum speed to achieve limiting G and pulling to the buffet), but despite all the discussion, there is still a huge division of opinion on how to fly a minimum radius turn (apart from those who have access to advanced performance data - EM and TAS/Radius diagrams) and it seems that these are based on level turns only as well!
I suppose at some point I could do the maths for a min radius turn. It can't be that hard can it?
On a practical note (in a theorectical discussion - sorry), Charlie Foxtrot India has an excellent point that the wind would pretty much dominate any manoever in real life and would probably more than offset any advantage by turning at Vthis or Vthat.
Oh....and how do you get those little blue quote boxes to come up????