Ozexpat,
Well - certainly agree about a diagram - picture versus a thousand words and all that.
We started this idea with the premise, from Kermode, that if the pilot did nothing to the flight controls after increasing power (thrust), the aircraft would enter a climb.
Well, actually, thats an inference about what Kermode says. What he actually says is that unless a lower pitch attitude is selected, the aircraft will climb. That is not the same thing as saying this is a stick free situation.
However, now that you've said that, I think I can see what you are thinking about. Unless I am mistaken, you seem to be saying:
Increasing power makes the aircraft pitch up, and thus causes a climb directly, with there being no need for an increase in lift to deflect the aircraft from its flight path.
My position is this - that for an aircraft to be deflected upwards there must be an unbalanced force, acting upwards. With the exception of high thrust high AOA situations as discussed towards the end of my last post, that force must be lift.
I have shown that if a pilot maintains attitude, a thrust increase will cause a speed increase. More Speed, Same AOA = More lift.
I approached the problem this way because it seemed simpler to choose a circumstance that removed the need to consider pitching moments.
Nevertheless, you want to consider Pitching moments as well. Fair enough - I accept that in many aircraft, particularly primary trainers, application of thrust causes a nose up pitching effect. Surely you can see therefore, that at as the nose pitches up, AOA is increasing. In fact you've said it yourself:-
The additional thrust creates the change in AofA, and the increased angle creates a movement of the CofP and, in our blackboard/whyteboard diagram, we see that the lift vector line is inclined toward the tail of the aircraft, in relation to the horizon. This is because it is still acting at a right angle to the relative airflow.
If AOA has increased, lift has increased since nothing else has changed in the lift formula (speed decay has yet to occur).
So again, whether the aircraft pitches up as a result of pitching moments, or because the pilot intentionally pitches up to enter the climb, (or even holds the same attitude and accelerates), whichever way you cut it the mechanism that deflects the FLIGHT PATH is a lift increase, which was my original contention that you took issue with.
And I think this is the root of what is wrong with your view - you seem to be mixing up rotational effects with translational effects.
I know you feel that you have a good simple model that explains climbing, but I'm afraid that its wrong. I don't mean oversimplied, I mean 1+1=3 sort of wrong, because it misuses laws of mechanics.
Moving on:
"G" is actually acceleration, which can be positive or negative. It can also be zero, of course. To illustrate the point, in S+L flight, the Load Factor is 1 and G is zero.
Well, I'll admit that its been a while since I flew an aircraft with a G meter. But let me ask you a question - in a 60 Degree Banked turn how many G are you pulling? I reckon its 1 more than straight and level, i.e. 2. By your reckoning it would be 1.
But thats by the by.
I was just trying to provide another way for you to see that a lift increase is present.
Let me close by wishing you well on your trip. I'm off down route for a few days too.
CPB