[dougmwne]

Because it’s not a helicopter! It’s a fixed wing aircraft, making it very much not a helicopter.

It would also be reasonable to rename an aircraft class if it was significantly different from other aircraft. For example, an electric, vertical takeoff fixed wing aircraft that doesn’t require a pilot could be reasonably different from airplanes and helicopters to warrant a new name.

[alphabettsy]

It looks like a helicopter.

It appears to generate lift using what they call rotors.

Seems like a multi-rotor helicopter.

[0xfae]

It appears to me that they did something clever and the wings and tail section look like they are shaped to generate lift if the vehicle is moving forward fast enough. There are two rotors at the back that blow backward rather than downward.

So possible a vertical take off multi-rotor that can then transition to more efficient (and quieter) plane like operation once up to speed.

[govg]

Is it clear if it uses the rotors in flight for lift or for forward movement? I think it would be wrong to call it a helicopter if the only time the rotors provided active lift was during take off / landing. There are fighter aircraft which fire thrusters downwards to achieve VTOL, but calling them rockets would be funny.

[card_zero]

Also there's a tag at the top of the page that says "Helicopters".

[dclowd9901]

Apache helicopters have a fixed wing. Granted their primary purpose is arms deployment, but it is shaped like a wing and everything, so it must provide _some_ lift (albeit small).

[nradov]

Aircraft in this class are often labeled as "powered lift" to differentiate them from conventional helicopters or fixed-wing airplanes.