Is it just me or the writing style of this article is really weird? It's as if different people have written different sections. Some of it sounds like a pre-flight briefing manual sans the helpful illustrations and other parts sound like a PR fluff piece. For example;
>>>But here's the catch. When a helicopter flies forward, the rotor blades experience a dramatic variation in airspeed. That's easy to see if you imagine a miniature version of yourself perched on the tip of a helicopter rotor blade. If the helicopter were hovering, you'd feel a constant 800-km/h wind in your face as the rotor spun around. If the helicopter were to fly forward, you would note that the wind was stronger on what's called the advancing side, when the rotor was moving in the same direction as the helicopter, but that it would be noticeably weaker when the rotor was on the retreating side. By the time the helicopter reached 150 km/h, you would feel a wind speed of 950 km/h on the advancing side, versus 650 km/h on the retreating side....I had to re-read this paragraph at least 2-3 times to understand what it exactly meant. It was just too vague. What direction should I face? Am I moving clockwise or counterclockwise? What does it mean that the rotor is moving in the same direction as the helicopter?
Then there was this paragraph, which sounds... fake considering the tone of the rest of the article.
>>>With everyone's nerves on edge, the X2 started up its engine at 6:30 a.m., and the helicopter took off. Within a few minutes the X2 had reached a speed of 350 km/h. A dozen people watched from the ground as the airspeed crept up, first to 400, then 410, and finally topping out at 435 km/h—not quite the goal we'd set, but good enough for this round. Cheers and applause broke out on the ground. The pilot slowed the X2, turned it around, and flew back to land on the runway.The same person who had trouble explaining the simple imagery of a rotating blade can't write something as flowery as that. It's just too unlikely.