From B - C the mean track is approximately 36° west of north, with the aircraft pointing 70° east of north. Forward elevator is therefore a thrust vector 106° from the track, which is close to orthogonal. It's a larger angle to begin with, hence the initial deceleration from B and smaller near C, hence the acceleration. So yes, expected.
This is not what I meant. To stay with the image of the vector, you won't consider the length of said vector. It's not like I'm just pushing softly, I'm 3s full throttle.
When starting this input (B), the track heading is 287.2°. So it's 143° (70+360-287) angle between trajectory heading and input direction. It looks closer to me of 180° than 90°.
I agree it is orthogonal at the end (340° roughly).
I just seems to me that there is a disproportion between the force of the input and the effect on the track. I just wanted you to take into consideration this force parameter.
If you want to make the case to DJI...
As I said before, I don't and didn't expect much from DJI. I couldn't prove anything anyway. I was disappointed by their answer, but that's all.
But remember that in ATTI there are only two effects that will change the direction and speed of the aircraft: pitch/roll and wind. If you look at the pitch and roll data you will see that it is not causing some of the velocity changes, therefore it must be wind or air currents.
Ok, that's a good point, thanks for pointing that out; that's what I missed, I didn't look closely enough to pitch and roll data. I'll try to figure that out from your graphs, and estimate wind effect on the flight. As you said, it seems consistent with the inputs though...
Anyway, since you now seem to be determined to validate your hypothesis of equipment fault rather than simply to evaluate the data I'm going to leave you to it.
Come on, I never wanted to validate my hypothesis, it has always remained so to me. I just feel very frustrated that no one would accept this hypothesis,... The "drone failure" hypothesis has been discarded by the community from the beginning, leaving just the "pilot fault/wind" one. I said it before, I accept being at fault, I just can't accept an hypothesis would be rejected without a proper explanation as to why it can't hold together - and not only with a hastily prejudgment. You may think that you've already provided this explanation, it may be obvious to you (and fellow forumers) as -maybe- you've got a better overview of the data, and experience to read through these data, but, I'm sorry, it didn't seem that obvious to me.
This is no longer an interesting topic of discussion and I'm not going to waste any more time providing unwelcome analysis.
Your analysis has always been welcomed, I truly appreciated it, and I never questioned it. I asked for explanations about your interpretation, and shared my doubts.