They have to deflate in order lower the deck and allow the ramp to touch the ground or sand
So it is in deflated position. Because now the weight acted on lower pressure cushion causing the cushion skirt to droop
It is all logical. Gee if you don't understand I don't what will.You are definitely not technical person. I give up
Hey technical genius, the FRONT skirt is deflated, but the side skirts are definitely not deflated; we are measuring the WIDTH of the 726, not the LENGTH, so the state of the front skirt is completely irrelevant. Are you blind or what? At most you could make a case that the side skirts are partially deflated or on their way to becoming deflated, but clearly they are still infused with air in your photo and not in their fully resting state as depicted in my photo.
You make erroneous calc because you use perspective picture and not elevation view So your beam dimension 530 is incorrect
In my picture you use pixel 580 is incorrect too because you measuring drooping air cushion skirt and take it as normal inflated position
I did explain why I measure the opening because it is not elevation level and measuring chain winches on the well deck of type 71 will give you erroneous calc
I have absolutely no idea why you think this argument is supposed to help your quixotic cause of side-by-side IFV loading. If the side skirts are deflated as you claim, then fully inflated they would be even wider than they are in the photo. Second, your perspective claim is BS unless you can demonstrate EXACTLY how my lines were drawn erroneously. Third, I calculated 571 not 580, unless you somehow forgot how to read. Fourth, you are still trying to weasel your way out of accounting for your 'error' in measuring the width of the 071's well deck, an error SO obvious it strains the imagination to conceive of how you could have honestly missed that error.
I think the main function of type 726 is to carry the main battle tank to shore and nothing else the PLA amphibious APC has water jet propulsion and doesn't need to be carry by LCAC
It is one of the fastest amphibious vehicle in the world
So different philosophy from US They did their job
Oh so even though you claim that the 726 could carry IFVs and APCs side by side, now the tune is that they somehow aren't going to be used this way. LOL ok whatever you say, technical genius.
Oh, I never thought those two things are for opening/closing the ramp. I mistook them as bumpers to keep the vehicle in center when moving in and out. Now I agree this is a really bad design. It is so obvious that I'd assume the engineers had no choice.
You pointed it out yourself, it is not actually a bad design flaw if the 726 was not designed to load vehicles side by side in the first place. It is also clear from the placement of both the gate winches as well as the air vents that side by side loading is not a specific requirement of the 726. Basically, the entire configuration of the vehicle deck, from the placement of the track guides, the placement of the air vents, and the placement of the gate winches, indicates single-file loading. Could the 726 load 2 jeeps side by side? Maybe in a pinch, but I certainly wouldn't say this is something that was designed into the 726 from the beginning.
Putting our expectations and desires into another person's/team's design is not necessarily an indication of bad design on their part. The fact is that the PLAN's first generation ACV is not up to par with the USN's ACV in terms of utilizing the vessel's footprint to maximum efficiency. If this is because the 726's engines are bigger and less efficient than the LCAC, then it will hopefully be addressed by a second generation PLAN ACV and engine design.
