lone
FOD - agreed
"the camera moved with the aircraft" no the camera did not move it panned ie just changed angle when it pans the line from the camera to a place in the woods in the background stays the same in space although a different place in the frame so when the tail has the same background that the nose used to occupy it means the aircraft has moved one aircraft length. I really don't think it's that hard to understand that, is it?
Wind yup there is some room for difference there but again it's not a result that's obvious to most pilots (i really dont want to open a new contention, but it is a frequent error, the effect of wind sheer means that pulling out downwind is energy advantagous, that wont be agreed with and is counerintuitive and true, let's do that in another thread if neccessary)
"is the 90 knots estimate more or less "along the path of flight" and thus the hypotenuse of a triangle with X and Y" yes it's along the path of flight so NOT the hypotenuse but the length of the arc
"but he was surely in transition, not steady state," correct so the AVERAGE speed along the arc in the last 2 seconds was 90kts and the AVERAGE pitch change was 21deg/s (which is actually quite fast in practice, try it, i did and it is quite 'meaty' which is one reason why NL's contention that he had no apreciable pitch rate is incorrect (regardless of how much of a super hero we all think he is, he is just WRONG about that)
dcl/da
I am sorry but your analysis of the speed measuring methodology is seriously flawed. calling into question your ability to understand anything. I can try and help but short of drawing diagrams etc the best i can do is to say imagine a stationary helicopter at some distance between the camera and the background and then the camera pans the tail will still have the same background and so will the nose if on the other hand one found that the tail was occupying the backgraounfd that the nose used to occupy one could infer that the helicopter had moved one helicopter length. the rest is obvious if that is difficult to understand then I am not convinced that you have given serious consideration to the point i have been patiently trying to make, it is a serious point and I urge you to reconsider its merits
As for your contention that lift is NOT proportional to Nr squared i have on many occasions now accepted that it is not exactly true (but it is good enough) I have asked you to quantify HOW wrong it is. To what extent is lift NOT proportional to Nr squared you have evaded answering that at least 4 times now. ANSWER IT if you think you have a point IF YOU CAN ( if you can't I could do it for you are you going to MAKE me do that too, or can YOU do it? ooops not just cut and paste eh !?)
Crab it is a pleasure to have you address the points rather than insulting me, thank you
yes you are quite right the speed is not constant but an average so we can say that at some stage it is MORE than that over the period
i am not sure that the speed reduces (although it might) it is hard to say (it could be done with some difficulty) but the speed may be fed with height, (on reflection you are probably right that the speed at the bottom is not a maximum, ie therefore reduced nonetheless too subtle for me and the crude approximations are 'good enough' too much 'fine point' is dc/da's affliction , he doesn't even realise that there is a baby in this bathwater. please try and think about it again freshly (please try), I think you'll see what I am saying
can ANYONE see the video I posted of the last 2 seconds ?????????
and anyway this thread is NOT ABOUT the GREEK Apache !!!
good night
NL time to 'come out' and support me while you can still take the high ground of independance and rational fairness i dont care who you are, just the logic of what you say has to make sense, i am totally irreverant (thats IRREVERANT, (i'll set em up you kick them in)) only your logic counts with me and so far i cant see that you even understand the point that you might be disagreeing with,.