Greetings Prrune
At the risk of sticking my head in the lions den (and after hearing Beetlejuice three times and having my professional reputation disparaged in public) I thought I would say hello.
You are correct L-J in my background. I do not have an aviation career/engineering background to draw on.
However, after 15 years reporting and writing about aviation and aerospace at the RAeS (and soaking up information like a sponge) what I do have is the ability to find, talk to and most importantly LISTEN to a wide range of pilots, engineers, scientists and other experts far, far cleverer and vastly more qualified than myself.
It is humbling to be able to consult and draw on people with real operational experience or technical skills to help me understand a complex topic in more detail. Then of course, it is a matter of forming a conclusion and adding the occasional personal insight.
I would therefore take objection to 'regurgitates facts from the snake oil peddlers'. As my article on Airlander makes clear there still remain big obstacles (weather, ground handling etc) and there is a list of failed airship projects (Cargolifter, Blue Devil etc) as long as your arm.
However:
1) They have a fully assembled air vehicle (not a CGI image) ready for flight (and customer demos) - mostly paid for, ironically by Uncle Sam.
2) L-M are now entering this market too. Are they deluded as well?
3) They only need 4-5 orders to be commercially viable, which seems on balance fairly viable. If they get 6, they have beaten Zeppelin NT in numbers built.
3) HAV seen to be taking an approach of 'walking before they run'. They are going after the established aerial sightseeing market (plus government contracts?) first to prove the concept, rather than the far harder aerial cargo idea - which is much more challenging (ground infrastructure etc) to pull off.
So are airships back? The jury is obviously still out until flight trials and customer demos, but you could argue that HAV have at least a fighting chance. As someone else has noted above in this thread, this is absolute peanuts compared to JLENS, so if it doesn't pan out, at least the UK taxpayer is not going to be on the hook for $2bn+.
Genghis - you are also quite correct that this is my opinion and comment alone, not the RAeS's which have to be formally approved.
I note with interest your comments on the Optica. And I restate that I am not a test pilot, nor would claim to be - that was just my simple observations from a short demo flight. However I would take issue with your comment that no test pilots liked it. In fact, in the April edition of AEROSPACE, we have a letter from a distinguished ex de Havilland test pilot who says of the Optica:
"I was impressed. Safe, superb view, stable and quiet. No faults, though I thought the stick force, in rotation a touch high, probably due to tailplane rotation."
The one dissenter?
Finally - if anyone on Prrune does want to respond to articles, or join the debate with informed critiques (not just "your bloody journalist doesn't know anything!") I always welcome contributions for the letters page in AEROSPACE, that help advance the art, science and engineering of flight and contribute to learned debate and discussion under the natural umbrella of the RAeS.
Got article ideas, feedback, or something about aviation you think we should be covering? Drop me a line, DM me, give me a call and help ME be better informed and serve the RAeS better.