Fran you have to admit that is one cool looking toy, and you know when the PPG are on[&:]

It is a cool toy. Kinda makes me wanna order one, then stop at the pet store and buy a parakeet or a rabbitand chase it through the house with a blitzkreig of Nerf Arrows.

elitist!

I'll try again. Did the graph take speed degradation into account????

Art: Roskoe and I answered that question before you asked it (pg. 1) - and no, it didn't, so that would yield longer flight times and make the drop numbers a shade higher than what's listed. Debatable, the impact on the results.

Conversely, the numbers do not account for the actual sight line vs. the actual trajectory path. That would distort the actual trajectory somewhat, and probably decrease the drop numbers by a hair.

I see. Sothe chartcan only begood if you were shooting in a vacuum in an environment with 1 g of gravity. Unfortunately, there is usually air where I do my shooting, so I have to deal with drag.

Im sure it is going by ideal conditions, so Id assume no.

Look Artie - If the information provided doesn't satisfy your lofty expectations, you can feel free to make your own ballistics calculator - or file your complaints with their webmaster http://www.lmariana.com/traj.htm

Personally, I think it's a pretty fair indicator, based uponwell-established physical principles- and I've confirmed a lot of those numbers in real-life. Close enough for me.

Just noticed you came to the same conclusion. I assumed as much because materials were not mentioned so no drag coefficients would be considered. Or, unless, they used the same materials for all tests.

Yeah, burnie, it slapped me in the face as soon as I looked at it. If the arrows were all shot from the same bow, that'd mean there was a huge difference in arrow weights. If it was all done assuming the same arrow weight, then there was a huge difference in draw weights and KE. No way it could be valid.