Originally Posted by
switch_on_lofty
"They [planes] cannot hover above the ground"
Daily Mail right on the money there.
Anyone shed light on the claim that it can't land at most airfields as it needs a long runway, Wikipedia quotes a TODR of 400m LDR of 600m which isn't long (unless compared to a helicopter!).
Not so much a problem with take-off and landing distance - but they stubbornly and stupidly choose an aircraft (initially designed well back into the last century) that uses AVGAS engines, rather than modern turbines. Most smaller, general aviation airfields where that fuel is still available are closed after dark. Larger airfields with longer operating hours often don't have AVGAS available out of daylight hours (because no-one else wants it). Filling the fuel tanks to cater for longer sorties means that only one observer can be carried, because of all up weight restraints. The previous helicopters could carry two. A high winged aircraft with small windows where the "job" is hidden as soon as the aircraft rolls into a turn to orbit was another big error.
As far as "all weather" is concerned, these aircraft had no advantage over the incumbent helicopters. They had no icing clearance so exactly the same weather limitations applied. This had to be obtained later, at the user's further cost. But the NPAS hierarchy knew best, ignoring the advice of those who actually knew what they were talking about and sacked the ones who spoke out.
It's time an inquiry is held into exactly who was pulling the strings with respect to the highly flawed decision to purchase these aircraft and the connections between them and the aircraft manufacturer.