Originally Posted by
bookworm
Oh, I think he does. At the end of the section "the optimum bank angle" he shows that the rate of height loss per unit angle turned (in the steady state case) is proportional to 1/sin(2*bank), which is minimised at 45 degrees. The only reason he shows 35 degrees is because it's Eckalbar's recommendation.
Of course one could argue that the true optimum comes from a non-steady state turn, but I don't think you'd do much better.
I missed that - fair point, although still not validated with any experimental data.
I think that I may feel the need to go and have a play!
G