>>1872362your concept of energy is like at the level of a fifth grader. Boulder on a hill has one type of energy, and the rolling boulder has the other. In the context of what we're trying to discuss it's not sufficient.
At slow flight the wing is operating at a C_L of about ~1.3 - 2 (depending on flaps). I can't remember what it is at cruise but it's way lower, so let's say C_L =~ 0.1. At high C_L the wing generates a wake structure which extends 8-10 plane-lengths behind the airplane with a tremendous amount of vorticity, which you know as tip vortices, a.k.a. wake turbulence. The amount of energy that it takes to spin the air is immense and there is literally no aircraft that can overcome it because we haven't got fuel that's dense enough. The reason that Elon's SpaceDildo belly flops is because it dissipates so much energy that way. Same thing with an Su-27 etc. -- even with a thrust to weight greater than 1, it still slows down during a cobra.
So in a Cessna/Piper/Beluga Whale250 you cannot generally sustain more than 20 degrees AoA, because unlike an Extra there is a lot of positive pitch stability. Even so, it's disingenuous to claim that the throttle has any direct correlation to E_K because that's just fucking stupid.
Also, there are many things wrong with the rest of your post, I just focused on the first six words you wrote because those are the first words you wrote which I took offense to. (1/2)
