On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:42:34 +0100, in rec.aviation.rotorcraft, George Vranek
said:

Because it is able to hower. The ability to hower is the only reason why
people buy helicopters which are more complex, more expesive and slower than
fixed wing aircrafts.

George,

You're right in that if there's a need to hover, for all practical purposes a
helicopter would be the aircraft of choice.

On the other hand, I think you're missing the point about the DARPA project as
described in the press release...

They aren't talking about a helicopter application. The press release said:
"...high speed, long range, vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft..."
which doesn't sound like too many helicopters I've heard of.

But the "gyrodyne"... a hybrid aircraft arguably combining some of the best
aspects of a gyroplane, a helicopter, and possibly even a fixed wing
aircraft... could possibly fit the requirements. A gyrodyne has the ability
to takeoff and land vertically (though not likely hover accurately for
extended periods) and cruise at higher speeds using lower power than a
helicopter can.

If you think about it, maybe there are applications better suited to something
like a gyrodyne verses a helicopter or even a STOL fixed wing... like when
there's a need for both high cruising airspeeds and the ability to takeoff or
land from very small unimproved landing areas (ones with no runway).

I'm sure back when the automobile was first explored, some folks said: "I'll
take a horse any day."

Ya gotta keep an open mind. Just a thought!

Respectfully,

John L.
(Former Army helicopter pilot, and currently a gyroplane pilot.)