Mr Lappos,
I find it hard to believe that someone with your experience and in your position would make the kind of comments you have made with regard to Lu Zuckerman.
Whether you like the guy or not, and I don't know him either personally or professionally, the arguments he has put forward are well founded and supported with technical facts. Yet most of the criticism has been along the lines of "that cant be right" and "I don't think your right". Almost none of the criticism has contained anything which says "you are wrong because", do you see the difference?
The real bummer about arguing with competent engineers is that they normally have all there ducks in a row and the fact is that the truth is always completely defendable.
With regard to the technical folks at Augusta and Westland, I agree completely that by far the majority of these people have immense technical talent, ability and are of the highest of integrity. The problem is that there is usually some non technical project manager who's only focus in life is budget and schedule, he saw 001 prototype flying for the first time and thinks everything is just fine and the safety guys are just being a pain in the ass.
Your probably thinking I must be on a different planet or something but unfortunately not, been there seen it and it happens. It doesn't just happen in the aviation industry either.
I certainly hope that the less experienced members of this forum do listen to what's being said here and if it only is sufficient to raise enough doubt in someone's mind that it causes them to question the B.S. and look for the facts then that's a good thing.
A few more facts
After reading all of the info about the Osprey on this forum, the press and the internet, I was certainly left with the impression that there were lies being told. Didn't an investigation prove this?
The R22 debate, well Frank Robinson responded in some very broad terms and completely failed to address the specific points which were raised in the argument, why?
Jiff