Who has been a "nay sayer"? I've seen several requests - and made a couple myself - for some supporting evidence or substantiation of some of the claims made here, but I don't recall a single post in this thread to the effect that low-AR designs are "bad" or "won't work." Asking for substantiation isn't nay-saying. It's nothing more than asking for additional information. That's a good example of what I'm talking about. What exactly is it about the flight envelope of an arbitrary low-AR design that is "not generally available from [unspecified] other types"? Is that an opinion, or is it verifiable by analysis or historical precedent? Can you give us data to support this claim? This is an earnest request for information, not "nay-saying." The issue is that the "video evidence" is not quantitative, and not a reasonable response to questions that are looking for quantitative answers. "Flies good" is not a design criteria. I can't design to "flies good" without turning that pair of words into a set of design requirements a given design has to meet. We can't pull climb rates from the videos, we can't pull airspeeds, local conditions information, or any information about the airplane in terms of weights, weight-and-balance information, etc. I don't think anyone has dismissed the videos you and others have provided - they simply don't provide the information necessary to answer the questions we've posed about claims that have been made. No more, no less. You're quoting me here, so let me reiterate that I was posting a very reasonable concern about operation of low-AR designs that use vortex lift in one particular performance context. Somehow pulling "low-AR designs can't climb" out of what I said above requires some mental gymnastics that I don't support. I didn't say, "low-AR designs can't climb" at any point in this discussion. I did say that low-AR designs may require more installed power to achieve the same climb performance as an otherwise-equal longer-span design, but that's not "can't climb" by any stretch of the imagination. "Trolls"? "... have won"? What do you mean? Nobody's said low-AR designs can't or won't work. Nobody's said there was no design mission specification where a low-AR design might be an, or even the, appropriate design choice. There's a very large and significant difference between "trolling" or "nay-saying" something, and simply asking legitimate questions and voicing concerns about it. I don't appreciate the characterization as "troll" or "nay-sayer", if indeed you're pointing them at me.