Most of US disagree with you and consider your arguments meritless and invalid as they are off point. Witness how many different people object to your assertions and demand you back your errant nonsense up, including me. Explain the 2 axis test failure seen and why you have nothing technbically valid to back up your.assertions.

 

Assertion of no errors on your part are not factual, Captain Perfect. You don't even asee the Dutch Roll defect inherent in the device?.(SARCASM)

 

Herald

 

Why is complex better than simple?  Why is it a good idea to adopt such a complex solution?  Really that seems to be the thrust of the critique of the sytem.

 

Keep

It

Simple

Stupid

-DA 

Don't claim that you do.

 

You don't even understand the fault tree described to you in plain English about this concept.,

Herald

You know.  It's not that it won't WORK it's that it might be made to work easier, and therefore CHEAPER if done differently.......

Potentially but not necessarily. To say that we have to see final HW and the full requirement and if the HW demonstrates usefulness. I'm not questioning that other solutions exist though. There is a difference.

-DA 

Troll you wouldn't know the first thing about a fault tree. Why don't you stop worrying about me and just post what you have to say on the topic. You look like a fool. For all your delusions about how smart you are it's hilarious, and I really losing count, how many times a video or article appears demonstrating you are incompetent AT BEST. Did you not notice the video from Rufus? Did you not read the test plan goal was to demonstrate VTOL flight? Get a grip and stop wasting our time playing pretend and trolling me.

If you have a problem with the design, state why, and move on. Don't worry about what I know or don't know BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW. You can fool the kids and fanboys but not the rest of us who are actually involved in service and or engineering who know you are nothing more than an over qualified fanboy. You would be right at home with the APA/ELP ect. You didn't even know the definitions of UAV/UCAV

until I explained it to you.

h*tp://strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-56315.aspx 

 That should be your first clue to back off and listen a bit before inserting your foot in 

your mouth.

I'm getting a bit tired of everytime I take the time to post and share something I'm interested in with others, you jump in and start insulting and turning the thread into a flame war. Stop doing that. It's childish and immature and people don't log on to read us fight. How freakin hard is that? Notice of all the posters in here who do have issues and disagree for whatever reason you are the only one squealing like a stuck pig and behaving like an immature troll. Now this is my last time explaining to you that you need to get over your personal grievance if you wish to participate in threads I'm involved in. AGAIN GET OVER IT. Stick to the topic and leave DARTHAMERICA out of your mouth. You don't see me posting breathlessly behind you when people like BlueApple correct you on things like MICA or other topics where you have been obviously in error. This is because while I find you to be an utterly arrogant SOB, I actually am not obsessed with you and don't care about you or any other poster personally and I don't find it necessary to inflict myself on the forum with my personal issues except to keep repeating this warning to you to back off. TRY to interpret this like an adult and move on.

-DA 

You would have seen a one axis control problem solved through the parabola trajectory  by a two fan linear lift and trajectory momentum solution. Your ignorance in trying to use that video of a simple one case solution as an example to prove your point about general hover flight control shows how appallingly ignorant about aircraft you actually are. The solutiion was highly specialized to the one specific problem described and cannot be generalized as a control solution from hover to horizontal flught into a bank and turn regime or to claim 2 axis control.

 

Do you realize who the stupid one revealed, here, is?

 

You are NOT qualified.

 

CREF above.

Again, you can't help but behave like an absolute child. What the Rufus video shows Herald, and all it was meant to show IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD, is that the act of flipping the UAS over is not some insurmountable problem and that modern FCS can do it. That's it. Yet here you go again, calling people stupid and trolling on my nuts as usual and trying to obfuscate and move the goal post onto something else. I've stated many times in this thread that this UAS has much ore to demonstrate before an opinion one way or the other can be made. Do you get that? Can you read? Now, stop trolling because as I said. You are only special to fanboys. REAL PROFESSIONALS see you for what you are. I'll hold of on characterizing you because it's obvious. You could have simply said, you don't like it, why and left it at that. All this BS you keep shoveling is trolling. But keep it up. See what happens.

-DA 

For me this is not personal.

 

Something will work or it won't. Ego or being a nice guy will not change that. The laws of physics are indifferent to that kind of stuff. There is also a distict difference between real technical know-how and show bizz.

We have seen a lot of show bizz in this topic. Just for contrast, this is what real technical skills look like, even though it's concerning an old technology:

 

PS

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's spot welder.