BEagle,
'Its protagonists have completely overlooked the issue of wind. At many times of year, this POS would barely make any headway on many occasions.'
Evidence please.
Where, when and for how long. Then we can have a useful debate. I have seen one met study that suggests these systems would have limited utility in Afg and a number of other places, yet the US Army is in the process of testing one now, in Afg. Either they have taken a massively foolish punt or our operating assumptions are wrong. We will know soon enough. Perhaps only being available for 28 days out of 30, or having to operate for a couple of days at suboptimal altitudes is good enough, or not the problem some think.
'these gas bag things are a total waste of time'
As I have already tried to explain, comparing HAV to a gasbag is simply wrong - and assertions such as this are all the harder to understand when even a simple google search throws up loads of relevant detail.
Finally, it's disappointing to see what could be an interesting argument descend into baseless assertions and poor language. In any serious discussion the use of emotive terms such as 'POS' doesn't add anything and simply indicates an inability or unwillingness to construct a reasoned argument.
Milo
My understanding is that the 40% of lift from the body is in the cruise and gives much greater efficiency. Take off and landing uses vectored thrust and/or helium volume management and isn't dependent on aerodynamic lift. Might still be an issue with heavy loads but I don't have the exact figures. No reason why it can't operate from a carrier or tag along in the overhead
Last edited by fin1012; 15th Feb 2012 at 23:14.
Reason: to answer another point that popped up while I was crafting my masterpiece....