Both Nigel Farrage and Boris Johnson said that we would save paying £350m a week by leaving the EU. Both of them saying the same thing didn't make it any truer.
I'm not accusing anyone of mendacity - I just find it strange that the identified inconsistencies could be easily and simply resolved with almost no effort, but they have chosen not to do so.
Look, I don't know if you've ever tried to integrate "remote piloting systems" into a full-size airframe with a view to legally flying it (even in very restricted tests) European airspace, but I have been involved in it. It's non-trivial. In my view (others may have different views and I may even be wrong) doing the initial tests "unmanned" makes it harder rather than easier, and I simply don't see any of what I would expect to see as the minimum prerequisites in any of the information and claims they've shown to date.
Never mind the picky little detail of how the aerodynamics of that configuration are supposed to work in wing-borne flight.
I'm cutting them some slack - I have assumed that things like the variable nozzle systems needed to allow the same fans to work efficiently for both hover lift and 200mph flight are something they'll add at a later date. But there are just too many details that simply don't add up.
Want one more? Why the deeply-tinted windscreen glass? How's that going to work in marginal viz? Why bother having it on a flight-test specimen...
PDR