Any questions raised by sceptics will not change the reality of the marketplace. If the product is viable, it will sell. Conversely, if the marketplace does not find it suitable, it will fail -- regardless of anyone's hopes, dreams, or opinions.
The previous post #2960 (good DD), comes from a March '98 magazine. That means that the information was of a Jan '98 vintage, 5 months ago. Is it accurate? But,... What does the article tell us?
Now we see that a de-rated engine of 115 HP will be used instead of the 290 HP engine that was called for originally. 115 is 40% of 290, or 115 times 252% gives you 290. Errors or changes of this magnitude, do NOT lead to confidence in the design, or in the competence of the planners of this project. Can't you understand that??
Modest modifications, YES. But, 252% differences, spell NO CONFIDENCE. This is but one of many questions regarding the project.
The 40 hour mission time vs. 48 hour mission time can be explained as a typo error, but mention of the very critical generator system, necessary to power the "airborne relay platform" was forgotten. What ARE the electric power requirements, and how much additional fuel is necessary to supply that electric power?
My questions will not effect the "wise decisions" of potential investors.
Your (or the Company) answers will. |
