Ooh
so many points to come back on with that tirade of criticism
but I'll try, many of them are repetition
BA you might have missed it but I did list some well know incidents by shorthand "there are accidents where the rotor has hit it's max thrust (regardless of energy). 2Apaches, 1 H269(possible energy issues too), 1 NH90" , re a load of bollox, fair enough, different opinion about that, see Punto below.
Lone
point 1 the Nr would have stayed stable due (as Punto rightly points out) due to governing, until the probable excessive pitch pull at the end, which would not have helped, and through the droop the coning would have stayed at UCA (or slightly below, according to NL)
point 2 already covered, yes the speed I gave was the average speed, indicating that it must have been greater at some stage and less at others, also the pitchup rate is also an average with the same consequence, an average pitchup rate of 21deg/s is quite meaty and produces 3g at 90kts, clearly beyond the capability of the rotor even if energy funded adequately.
(ask yourself why, if the rotor had more capacity to produce thrust, the pilot didn't bother using it? Max Pitch rate? I don't think so)
Ref My experience in these manoeuvers, not going there, as previously flogged to death.
Ref Dynamic manoeuver, odd place to start, well the example that led to this discussion was one, so that's where it started, the averages and the nature of averaging shows that those average vales must have been exceeded or held, so it's not such a detriment.
dc/da
You have not answered any of my questions. Yet keep asking. I take it that by implication you agree with my summary of your method, I think your method is invalid, for the reasons stated. My method does not fall foul of that error because in each instance the actual distance on the background that the helicopter travels is eliminated. You could compare it to the stars, and it wouldn't matter how far away the stars were. An Airliner at an unknow height, covers an arbitrary distance against the stars behind, but if you measure tail to nose how many aircraft lenghts it covers in a time you can derive the speed, the actual distance bewteen stars would be irrelevant and introduce error. There is a 'ruler in the sky' in units of aircraft length, which is conveniently placed at the arbitrary distance of the aircraft. If the aircraft and the ruler are at the same distance you don't have to 'scale' the ruler. It might help if you could answer some of my questions. Do you agree with the 'coning exam' arithmetic? Have you seen the 2sec loop video I posted?
Crab
1 if you think it is bollox then you don't think it is interesting as you have also said. If you think it is bollox the we know where you are with it, opinion noted, no need for you to add more.
2 wrt your opinion that dc/da's method is right I refer you to my answer to him, he is wrong and you agree with him, so you are wrong again too. The thing that is sensitive to being measured 10 times is the timing, since it is such a sensitve number in the denominator. dc/da has not answered THAT either !!!! Have you seen the loop video I posted? Do you agree with the arithmetic of coning, in the coning exam? Yes that coning arithmetic is well covered and well known.
You have not answered any of the questions I have asked you either. "Do you understand what I am trying to say, how would data help? Do you accept that Ca=Lift/Cf ?"
"dismissed this speed assessment as irrelevant to the argument - which it is - but you made such a big deal about how Nick's estimate was so wrong, in an attempt to discredit his criticism of your pet theory," not dissmissed, just said that the Greek helicopter is incidental to the point. No no big deal that NL was wrong at his speed guess (actually quite the opposite, I said it is an easy error to make, understandable, look at an F1 car etc, no interest to discredit him, much of what he said was very good and I said so, but not addressing the point, which he did not address. So I have not disagreed with him. If he was wrong about the speed then it's ok to say so I think. anyone can be wrong. He did say for me to be right the speed would have to be in excess of Vy, now we know that is the case, just) (what is the Vy of an Apache?))
BellR
yes sorry about that. but to address a specific issue here one has to wade through alot of treacle.
Punto
ref Looked back esp BA and Lone. Yes done and addressed above.
Yes everything else you say is as close to correct as it's not worth argueing with (with the possible exception of "Maybe, maybe not, probably not actually, but actually who cares ?"). you seem to be one of the few that understand the point, as to whether it's interesting or not is a matter of personal opinion.
"personal experience which tells us what it feels like when you get close to or maybe even past the linear part of the lift curve." I can tell you that, vibration goes up, TRT is not increased, your path no longer continues to alter at the rate your brain would extrapolate to, pulling the lever up more doesn't help, you are grateful that you had more height margin than you thought was neccessary (credit to Crab for that observation) "(the end of the pull more get more party)"
'Cup of tea' anyone?